IMPORTANT POINT
The DPC's adoption of the office memorandum, dated 29.08.2019, without formal adoption by APEDA, and the recommendation of the respondent No. 4, who had not completed the requisite qualifying years, were not sustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. T. Tayeng, learned counsel for respondent No. 4.

2. By instituting this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the DPC proceedings and its recommendation dated 25.02.2020 and the consequential impugned promotion order dated 26.08.2021 issued by the Director, APEDA, whereby, the respondent No. 4 has been recommended and promoted to the post of Assistant, on the ground of violation of Recruitment Rule, 2013 for Assistant of the Arunachal Pradesh Energy Development Agency (for short, ‘APEDA’). Petitioner has also assailed the office memo, dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Director, APEDA, by which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she was appointed as Junior Work Assistant (LDC) in APEDA on 08.06.2001 on ad-hoc basis and on the recommendation of the DPC, vide order dated 23.04.2005, the services of the petitioner as Junior Work Assistant (LDC) along with 4 (four) other persons were regularized w.e.f. the date of ad-hoc service i.e. 08.06.2001.

4. The petitioner was promoted to the next higher post of Upper Division Clerk (for short, ‘UDC’) vide order, dated 29.02.2008 w.e.f. 01.03.2008. The respondent No. 4 was also initially appointed as LDC in the APEDA vide order, dated 06.08.2009 and thereafter, promoted to the post of UDC vide order, dated 19.01.2016.

5. It is contended by the petitioner that the respondent No. 4, admittedly, is junior to the petitioner in both the entry into the service as LDC and in the promotional post of UDC. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner has been serving in the post of UDC for 12 years and the respondent No. 4 has been serving as UDC for 4 (four) years only on which year, the DPC was conducted for promotion to the post of Assistant from the post of UDC.

6. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the Recruitment Rule, 2013 for Assistant, the method of recruitment is 100% by promotion from serving UDC having 5 (five) years continuous service in the grade for degree holders and in case of non-degree holders 8 (eight) years continuous service in the grade. The petitioner having been completed more than 8 years and she being the non-degree holder is eligible to the considered for promotion to the post of Assistant. The respondent No. 4, though a degree holder, had completed just 4 years, having short of 1 (one) year for consideration for promotion to the post of Assistant as the qualifying years of service for degree holder is 5 years.

7. A Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC in short) was constituted for consideration for promotion to different post(s) in the APEDA including the post of Assistant. The DPC has recommended the name of respondent No. 4 who has just completed 4 years in the post of UDC for promotion to the post of Assistant on officiating basis in her own pay scale of UDC till she complete 5 (five) years as she is degree holder and rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground that though the petitioner has completed 8 years in the post of UDC, her qualification being Class-XII pass, which is not in conformity with the government norms of Group-B post issued vide Office Memorandum, dated 29.08.2019, wherein, it is provided minimum educational qualification as graduate/bachelor degree for Group-B post in the State Government.

8. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a representation against the DPC recommendation as well as the impugned order, dated 26.08.2021, whereby, the respondent No. 4 has been promoted to the post of Assistant by ignoring the case of the petitioner who is entitled to be promoted in accordance with the Recruitment Rule of 2013. The respondent authority has disposed of the representation of the petitioner vide office memorandum, dated 11.10.2021 rejecting the claim of the petitioner and