Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, ITANAGAR BENCH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE, J.
Shri Kago Doni, S/o. Lt. Kago Tana - Petitioner
Versus
The State of A.P., Represented through Chief Secretary, Govt. of A.P., Civil Secretariat & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 197 of 2018
Decided On : 11-06-2024
DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION - Promotion and Reservation Policy - Land Revenue and Settlement Officer Recruitment Rules, 2006; Post Based Roster; Reservation Policy - The court discussed the Land Revenue and Settlement Officer Recruitment Rules, 2006, and the subsequent Post Based Roster introduced in 2010, which established a framework for promotions and reservations in government posts. The court interpreted the rules to determine the eligibility and reservation status of the posts, concluding that the promotion of the respondent was in accordance with the applicable rules and reservation policies, thereby influencing the court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of District Revenue and Settlement Officer (DLR&SO) and his own reversion to the post of Supervisor Kanungo (SK). The petitioner claimed eligibility for promotion based on seniority and qualifications, arguing that the post was reserved for APST candidates under the 100 point roster system, while the respondent's promotion was based on a subsequent DPC meeting that declared the post un-reserved.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the promotion of the respondent No.4 was in compliance with the Post Based Roster and the reservation policy of the State. It noted that the DPC had recommended the respondent's name based on the un-reserved status of the post, which had been carried forward due to the non-availability of un-reserved candidates in previous promotions.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the post of DLR&SO was reserved for APST candidates or if it was un-reserved, and whether the DPC's recommendation for the respondent's promotion was valid under the applicable rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the DPC's recommendation for the promotion of the respondent was valid as it adhered to the Post Based Roster and the reservation policy, which allowed for the promotion of un-reserved candidates when the reserved posts had been filled. The court emphasized that the promotion process must comply with the established rules and the reservation ratios.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, affirming the promotion of the respondent No.4 to the post of DLR&SO and allowing for the possibility of the petitioner’s future consideration for promotion under the law.
JUDGMENT :
Kardak Ete, J.
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 01.09.201
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 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 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
