Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 291 (GAU)

Minkar Lollen v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2005-04-06

P.G.AGARWAL

body2005
JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State Respondents. 2. The 8 (eight) Petitioners before us were candidates for recruitment to the post of Constables in the 1st and 2nd Indian Reserved Battalion (for short IRBN) of Arunachal Pradesh Police. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.9.2002 (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition), the Petitioners had filed their applications and thereafter they appeared for selection test at Khonsa and Longding in Tirap District of Arunachal Pradesh. However, the Petitioners were not allowed to take further participation on the plea that they do not belong to Tirap District and they are the candidates from other Districts and they are not eligible for selection there in Tirap District. The grievance of the Petitioners is that as per the Government guidelines and the rules for recruitment, the post of Constables are to be filled up as per the reservation policy of the Government which provides for reservation of 80% of posts for APST candidates in Group 'C' and 'D' and 20% post for non-APST candidates. The Petitioners have also relied on the notification dated 27.8.1997 issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, which reads as follows: NOTIFICATION No. OM-38/76 (Volume-II) Dated Itanagar, the 27.8.1997 In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (4) of Article 16 and in terms of Article 335 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh is pleased to order that the 80% (Eighty Percent) of the Group 'C' and 'D' posts reserved for the Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe candidates are to be filled up by direct Recruitment at the District level as per provisions of various Recruitment Rules in force shall be distributed amongst the Districts of Arunachal Pradesh in the following manner: I. 80% post (out of 80% as stated above) shall be reserved for the Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes candidates from interior Districts including candidates from interior places of the district. II. The remaining 20% (out of 80% as stated above) shall be reserved for the Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Candidates belonging to other Districts of the State. III. Appointment to Group 'C' and 'D' posts against the Districts shall be made at the District level as per the ratio as indicated at (I) and (II) above. 3. II. The remaining 20% (out of 80% as stated above) shall be reserved for the Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribes Candidates belonging to other Districts of the State. III. Appointment to Group 'C' and 'D' posts against the Districts shall be made at the District level as per the ratio as indicated at (I) and (II) above. 3. We have perused the advertisement dated 25.9.2002 issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Itanagar whereby 306 post of Constables are to be filled up in respect of 1st and 2nd Battalion of IRBN in Arunachal Pradesh and the district-wise quota also mentioned in the advertisement that out of 306 posts, 99 posts each were earmarked for Tirap and Changlang Districts and 7 posts each were reserved for other Districts of Arunachal Pradesh. So far the non-APST candidates are concerned there were altogether 55 posts/vacancies. The broad facts of the case as stated above are not in dispute. The case of the Respondents is that the notification dated 27.8.1997 as quoted above is not applicable to the present Petitioners as the posts were not district level posts, the vacancies were in respect of the 1st and 2nd IRBN which are to be filled up from all over the State and the candidates were required to participate in the recruitment process from their respective district only. So far the non-APST candidates are concerned, there was a selection at Chimpu at Itanagar. 4. It has been stated in their affidavit-in-opposition that in view of the prevalence of extremist activities in the district of Tirap and Changlang and in order to provide employment to the local candidates of two districts, the Government took a policy decision to allot some higher quota to these districts. The justification has been given as below: It is finally submitted that Tirap and Changlang districts are suffering from the menace of insurgency for many years. These two districts are highly backward and the local youths in these two districts are under tremendous pressure from insurgent groups. Their upliftment is the topmost priority of the State Government and therefore, State Government in its wisdom has decided to provide an opportunity to the local youths hailing from these two districts both APST and non-APST to participate in the recruitment drive strictly following the reservation policy of 80:20. Their upliftment is the topmost priority of the State Government and therefore, State Government in its wisdom has decided to provide an opportunity to the local youths hailing from these two districts both APST and non-APST to participate in the recruitment drive strictly following the reservation policy of 80:20. The writ petition is therefore, devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. It is also stated that the Petitioners did not choose to apply for recruitment in their respective districts in case of APST candidates and at Chimpu for non-APST candidates. That the candidate who were hailing from other districts are not eligible to participate in the selection process at Tirap and Changlang districts, accordingly the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Before proceeding further, let us examine the notification dated 27.8.1997 whether the posts were advertised for central recruitment or limited to the district level recruitment only. The notification as quoted above itself shows that it is in respect of direct recruitment at the district level as per the provision of various recruitment rules. There is no dispute at the Bar that in the present case, the recruitment was made for the 1st and 2nd IRBN which has all over the State of Arunachal Pradesh and the said recruitments are not meant for any particular district. 7. Mr. Tony Pertin, learned Counsel for the Petitioners however, submit that once the posts are earmarked or allotted to a particular district, they become district vacancies and the rules of reservations shall apply. So far the reservation in the matter of appointment to a Group 'C' and 'D' within the APST and for non-APST candidates are concerned, these are provided under the reservation rules of the State and those are not challenged before us. The challenge is in respect of distribution/reservation of the vacancies in respect of 80% of posts meant for APST candidates. The question that has arisen for consideration is what was the necessity for issuing the notification dated 27.8.1997. 8. On reading the said notification, we find that the aforesaid notification was issued in order to protect the interest of the APST candidates of the interior places of the interior districts of Arunachal Pradesh so that they can be beneficiary of the job opportunities offered by the State Government at the district level. 8. On reading the said notification, we find that the aforesaid notification was issued in order to protect the interest of the APST candidates of the interior places of the interior districts of Arunachal Pradesh so that they can be beneficiary of the job opportunities offered by the State Government at the district level. Thus, it provided that out of the 80% vacancies meant for APST candidates arising in a district, 80% of the posts are reserved for the local inhabitant candidates of the said district, where the vacancies has arisen. It also protected the interest of the candidates from other districts by providing that the remaining 20% of such vacancies shall be reserved for the candidates belonging to other districts of the State. No such reservation for candidates of the said district and other districts has been made in respect of the non-APST candidates. Thus, we find that this provision was made in respect of the direct recruitment at the district level providing that the candidates from other districts shall also have a say in the matter and 20% of the vacancies of a particular district was reserved for candidates from other districts. So far the present case is concerned, admittedly the posts were not meant for district level and those were State Government posts for the entire State for which a central recruitment also could have been directed. However, the recruitment was made at the district level and all the districts were allotted certain vacancies to fill up the posts of that district. The question whether the Tirap and Changlang districts could have been given higher posts by the authority shall be considered at a later stage. But from the notification dated 27.8.2002, all the districts of the State of Arunachal Pradesh were allotted certain vacancies. Hence the district to which present Petitioners hail/belong, were also allotted certain quota and they were given the opportunities to participate in the selection process in their own districts. The notification dated 27.8.1997 shows that the candidates from other district shall also be entitled to participate in the selection process or for appointment in other districts. Hence the district to which present Petitioners hail/belong, were also allotted certain quota and they were given the opportunities to participate in the selection process in their own districts. The notification dated 27.8.1997 shows that the candidates from other district shall also be entitled to participate in the selection process or for appointment in other districts. If it is held that the Petitioners were mostly from East Siang and West Siang districts and were eligible for selection from Changlang and Tirap Districts, then reverse, in respect of the vacancies meant for East Siang and West Siang, candidates from Tirap and Changlang and for that matter the other 13 districts of Arunachal Pradesh would have been eligible for appointment to the extent of 20%. Thus, cross-crossing of reservation would not have served any purpose as the total vacancies as available would have remained more or less same. However, this being a State Government Service at the State level, not at the district level, and all the districts were given definite quota of reservation for recruitment, the interest of all concerned were protected. 9. In view of the specific language of the notification dated 27.8.1997, we hold that this notification apply in the matter of direct recruitment at the district level not in the matter of recruitment at the State level. 10. As regard the grievances of the Petitioners for alloting more posts to Tirap and Changlang Districts, the matter was in the realm of policy decision at the State. The Government took a policy decision to allot some more vacancies to the two districts and the justification and reasons for taking such decision has been reflected in their affidavit-in-opposition as has been quoted above. The law is settled that in the matter of policy decision, the judicial interference is not called for. When a policy decision has been taken by the State to meet certain exigencies in a particular district or districts, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. 11. In view of what has been stated above, we find that no merit in this writ petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.