Vacancies should be filled based on the existing Recruitment Rules and not the old rules at the time the vacancies arose, as established by the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Gogoi, for the appellant. Also heard Mr. G. Kato, learned State counsel, Government of Nagaland, appearing for respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4.

2. In this appeal, the order dt. 31/10/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 30(AP)/2018 has been put to challenge. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the writ petition may be stated as follows:

3. In the Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly, there is a post of Reporter, which is governed by the Reporters (Group A) Post Recruitment Rules, 1991, under which there is a common cadre of Reporters, who are classified as Hindi Reporters and English Reporters. Irrespective of the category of the Reporters, there is a common seniority list, which is prepared for further promotion to higher post. The next higher posts to which the Reports, both Hindi and English, are eligible for promotion are the posts of Chief Reporter and Chief Editor of Debates, which are single post cadres. In other words, these two higher posts of Chief Report and Chief Editor of Debates could be filled up from amongst the Reporters (Hindi) and Reporters (English) based on the seniority list and of course on merit, on the recommendation made by the competent selection committee. The promotion to the aforesaid posts are governed by two different Rules i.e. Chief Reporter (Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Group 'A' Post) Recruitment Rules, 1991 and Chief Editor of Debates, Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Group 'A' Post) Recruitment Rules, 1995, framed under Article 187(3) of the Constitution.

4. As per the Recruitment Rules for the post of Chief Reporter, all those Reporters, both English and Hindi, having 3 years of regular service in the grade would be eligible for promotion on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority.

As regards the post of Chief Editor of Debates, the said post is to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the Reporters, both English and Hindi, having 3 years of regular service in the grade on the basis of seniority.

In spite of the aforesaid slight difference in the criteria for promotion, the fact remains that Reporters belonging to both English and Hindi category were eligible for consideration and the seniority was one of the prime considerations.

5. Subsequently, certain amendments were made in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Chief Editor of Debates in 1995 whereunder it was provided that the post of Chief Editor of Debates was to filled up only from amongst the Reporters (Hindi) having 3 years of regular service in the grade on the basis of seniority, thus, thereby denying any promotional avenue to the Reporters (English). Similarly, amendments were brought in 2015 to the higher post of Chief Reporter, whereby only the Reporter (English) having 3 years of regular service in the grade on the basis of seniority would be eligible, thereby debarring the Reporters (Hindi) to be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Reporter. Though the present appellant is eligible for promotion to the post of Chief Editor of Debates in spite of the amendments made in 2015, he, however, could not be considered for promotion to the post of Chief Reporter by virtue of the amendment made in 2015. Thus, being aggrieved by the aforesaid amendment made to the post of Chief Reporter in 2015, the appellant submitted a representation seeking recall of the 2015 amendments more particularly in respect of Chief Reporter as it prevented consideration of any Reporter in Hindi. The appellant did not have any grievance as regards Chief Editor of Debates for which he was eligible though it prevented consideration of Reporter (English) for promotion to the post of Chief Editor of Debates.

6. According to the appellant, a vacancy arose to the post of Chief Reporter on 31/12/2015. However, by virtue of the amen-dment made in 2015, the writ appellant could not have been considered for promotio