Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)
KARDAK ETE, J.
Shri Kago Doni S/o Lt. Kago Tana – Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. – Respondents
WP(C) 197 of 2018
Decided on : 11-06-2024
DPC - Departmental Promotion Committee - Rules 2006, Amendment Rules 2015 - The court discussed the application of the Rules 2006 and Amendment Rules 2015 in the promotion process, the implementation of the Post Based Roster, and the reservation policy of the State. The court found that the recommendation and promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of DLR&SO were in accordance with the Post Based Roster and the reservation policy.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 13.11.2017 and the consequent impugned order No.LM-65/2006/91 dated 09.03.2018, which promoted the respondent No.4 to the post of District Revenue and Settlement Officer and reverted the petitioner back to his original post of Supervisor Kanungo. The petitioner sought a review DPC for promotion to the post of DLR&SO in terms of 100 point roster and the reservation policy of the State.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recommendation and promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of DLR&SO were in accordance with the Post Based Roster and the reservation policy. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no illegality in the recommendation and promotion of the respondent No.4.
Issues: The issues involved the challenge to the promotion process, the application of the Rules 2006 and Amendment Rules 2015, the implementation of the Post Based Roster, and the reservation policy of the State.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the recommendation and promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of DLR&SO were in accordance with the Post Based Roster and the reservation policy, and therefore, no illegality had been committed by the respondent authorities.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court provided that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of DLR&SO, in accordance with the law. The respondent No.4 was to be treated as promoted to the post of DLR&SO from the date of his promotion on the recommendation of the DPC, if not allowed to retire as DLR&SO, for the purpose of pensionary and other benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms N. Danggen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned Standing Counsel, Land Management Department for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Departmental Promotion Committee (herein after referred to as DPC) dated 13.11.2017 and the consequent impugned order No.LM-65/2006/91 dated 09.03.2018 (issued on 26.04.2018) issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, the respondent No.4, namely, Shri James N.T. has been promoted to the post of District Revenue and Settlement Officer, DLR&SO (herein after referred to as DLR&SO) and the petitioner has been reverted back to his original post of Supervisor Kanungo (herein after referred to as SK), and also for a direction to consider the grievance of the petitioner by way of review DPC for promotion to the post of DLR&SO in terms of 100 point roster and the reservation policy of the State.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as SK in the department of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 16.03.2001. In the seniority list of SK in the department, the name of the petitioner is placed at serial No.6.
4. The next promotional post of the SK is DLR&SO. The Government of the Arunachal Pradesh has framed the recruitment rules, namely, the Land Revenue and Settlement Officer, Group-B (Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2006 (herein after referred to as Rules 2006) which regulates the appointment/promotion of the post of DLR&SO. According to the petitioner, for promotion to the post of DLR&SO, the petitioner is the most eligible and qualified person to be promoted to the post of DLR&SO as all the other persons holding the feeder post are either been promoted or not eligible as per the Rules.
5. One Shri Rana Ngadong, whose name is at serial No.7 of the seniority list of SK, filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 162(AP)/2015, claiming for promotion to the post of DLR&SO in the year 2013. The said writ petition was disposed of on 11.06.2015 with a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of his representation with a reason and Speaking Order. The respondent authorities disposed of the representation of Shri Rana Ngadong and rejected his claim while admitting the existence of vacancy of the post of DLR&SO. Shri Rana Ngadong again filed the WP(C) No. 405(AP)/2015 and the said writ petition was disposed of by setting aside the said impugned order, and directed the respondent to consider the entire matter afresh.
6. In the meantime, Rules 2006 was amended in the year 2015 and re-designated as the District Revenue and Settlement Officer Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2015. By the said amendment, in column 12 of the Rules 2006, the qualifying years of service for promotion to the post of DLR&SO from SK was increased to 15 years and also the minimum qualification was increased to Bachelor Degree.
7. The respondent authority, in compliance of the order dated 17.09.2015, passed in WP(C) No. 405 (AP)/2015, conducted a DPC meeting on 23.10.2015 for filling up of one post of DLR&SO from amongst the eligible candidates which includes one Shri Rana Ngadong and James N.T, herein respondent No.4, and others. In the minutes of the meeting of the said DPC, it clearly indicates that the post of DLR&SO is reserved for APST candidate and accordingly, the name of the petitioner was recommended for the promotion to the post of DRL&SO. On the recommendation of the said DPC, the petitioner was promoted to the post of DLR&SO on an officiating basis vide order dated 03.11.2015.
8. Shri Rana Ngadong being not recommended by the DPC, again filed WP(C) No. 175(AP)/2016, challenging the promotion order of petitioner. The challenge was mainly on the ground that the post of the DLR&SO has been filled up by following the amended Rules 2015 despite the post being vacant prior to 01.09.2015, when the Rul
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recommendation and promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of DLR&SO were in accordance with the Post Based Roster and the reservatio....
The court established that the promotion process must strictly adhere to the applicable recruitment rules and reservation policies, and that the status of posts as reserved or un-reserved can be dete....
The court established that promotions must respect the reservation policy while ensuring that prior valid appointments are not disturbed.
An illegitimate promotion violating recruitment rules and seniority is void ab initio and curable via review. Challenges to long-settled appointments are unsustainable under the principles of delay a....
The promotion process in a single post cadre must adhere to merit, and reservation under roster systems is only applicable once the cadre is pluralized, not retroactively from inception.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
