IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that promotions must respect the reservation policy while ensuring that prior valid appointments are not disturbed.

JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. M. Yubbey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 to 4; and Mr. J. Jini, learned counsel appearing for private respondent nos. 5, 7 and 8. None appears on call for the respondent no.6, on whom notice was served in a substituted manner by publication of notice in the Arunachal Times edition dated 03.05.2023.

2. The petitioners are serving as Sub-Inspectors in the Arunachal Armed Police Battalion (“AAPBn” For short). Based on the final seniority list of Sub-Inspectors in AAPBn, it is projected that the names of the petitioners appear at Sl. No. 9 and 12 respectively. It is projected that as per the provision of Subedar (Inspector) (Arunachal Armed Police Battalion) Group-B (Gazetted) (Non Ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2008, a Sub-Inspector of AAPBn, having 3 (three) years of continuous service in the grade of Platoon Commander (Sub-Inspector) is eligible for promotion to the next higher post of Inspector.

3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as per OM dated 15.10.2010, the post of Inspector in AAPBn is required to be filled up from reserved or unreserved category in the ratio of 80:20. Accordingly, it is submitted that the said ratio in respect of the cadre of Inspector has to be maintained at all times. It is also submitted that previously 100 point roster was maintained for the said cadre, but consequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 745, the State Govt. had notified an OM dated 15.10.2010 and the 100 point roster was replaced by a post based roster. Accordingly, it is submitted that for maintaining the ratio of 80:20 amongst unreserved and reserved category candidates, if there is an excess representation of any category, it is required to be adjusted in the future recruitment.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioners has referred to the Departmental Promotion Committee (“DPC” for short) Minutes held on 13.08.2012, wherein it is mentioned that the posts of Inspector at roster point nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9 were reserved for Arunachal Pradesh Schedule Tribes (“APST” for short) candidates, and the posts at roster point nos.5 and 10 were for unreserved category. Accordingly, as no suitable candidates from unreserved category were found available, it was recommended that the posts at roster point nos.5 and 10 (General) would be considered in the next DPC. The subsequent DPC was held on 09.01.2013 and in the said exercise, the posts at roster point nos.5 and 10 remained unfilled and it was recommended that the unreserved posts would be filled up on availability of candidates from general category in their term.

5. Thereafter, another DPC was held on 11.07.2013 to consider promotion of Sub-Inspector to the rank of Inspector in AAPBn and as no general category candidate was found available in the zone of consideration as per seniority list in respect of roster point nos.5 and 10, the DPC had recommended the said two posts to be filled-up from the seniormost APST Sub-Inspectors for promotion to the rank of Inspector in AAPBn. Moreover, one vacancy arose in the post of Inspector in AAPBn due to retirement of one Inspector on superannuation on 31.05.2013. Accordingly, in respect of 3 (three) clear vacancies, the names of 3 (three) persons in the rank of Sub-Inspector were recommended for promotion to the rank of Inspector in AAPBn w.e.f. 11.07.2013.

6. On a query of the Court, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has submitted that on 11.07.2013, when the DPC held, the petitioners did not have 3 (three) years of continuous service in the cadre of Sub-Inspector. In this regard, we may refer to the statements made in paragraph-10 of the writ petition, wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioners we