Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 264 (GAU)

Tageng Tamuk v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2010-04-20

A.C.UPADHYAY, I.A.ANSARI

body2010
JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2007 notified on 18.12.2007 and the corrigendum thereto dated 1.04.2008, for being ultra vires, and unconstitutional. The Petitioners have further prayed to set aside the advertisement No. PSC-R-01/2008 dated 19th March, 2008 (vide Annexure-12), issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, in terms of the above Rules 2007 2. We have heard Mr. A. Apang, learned Counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) 349 (AP) Mr. T. Taki, learned Counsel for the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 172 (AP) 2009, and Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. We have heard Mr. N. Tagia, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of the APPSC, and Mr. K. Dabi, learned Counsel, representing the private Respondents. 3. Both the writ petitions afore noted having raised a common question of law based on similar factual matrix, we propose to dispose of both the petitions by this common judgment. 4. Facts which are common to both the writ petitions may be narrated in brief as follows: The Petitioner was appointed as a lecturer on ad-hoc basis in the Department of "Education' of J.N. College, Pasighat on 8.02.1990, initially for 3(three) months. Thereafter, on being selected by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, in terms of its merit list dated 2.04.1992, Petitioner was appointed as lecturer on 13.05.1992. 5. Subsequently, in the year 2006, due to increasing complexities in the College administration, more particularly for increase of enrolment of the students in the Colleges, the State Respondents finding it necessary to appoint Vice-Principals in the Colleges, issued guidelines vide Memo No. SEDN-79/93 dated 7.7.2006. The guidelines provided for designation of the suitable lecturers (Selection Grade) of the Colleges as Vice Principals, in some selected Colleges, which among them were (1) J.N. College, Pasighat, (2) Dera Natung Govt. College, Itanagar and (3) Indira Gandhi Govt. College, Tezu. However, it was specifically clarified in the 'guidelines for selection of lecturers for placement as Vice Principals', that the designation of Vice Principal of the Colleges would not be treated as promotion and no benefit as such would be available to such Vice-Principals, in terms of Rule FR 22(1)(a)(1). However, the State Respondents reserved the right to select suitable-candidates for the post of Vice- Principal on merit-cum-seniority basis. However, the State Respondents reserved the right to select suitable-candidates for the post of Vice- Principal on merit-cum-seniority basis. Thus, the State Government could age replace the Vice Principal so designated as a lecturer at any time, without showing any reason. The guidelines also indicated the method of selection of the lecturer for placement as Vice Principal in the Government Colleges and the duties and responsibilities of a Vice Principal. 7. The Petitioner, fulfilling all the criteria, being eligible for the post of Vice Principal, was designated as Vice Principal on 4.12.2006 and was posted in the said capacity in Dera Natung Govt. College, Itanagar. 8. The Rules of Recruitment to the post of Principal of the Government Colleges of Arunachal Pradesh was governed by the Recruitment Rules 2000, (hereinafter Rules 2000), until it's amendments on 18.12.2007. The said Rule was made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In terns of the Rules 2000, the post of Principal was required to be filled up 100% by promotion on merit-cum-seniority basis from amongst the Selection Grade Lecturer, having 10 years of regular services in the grade. 9. In the meanwhile, Mrs. Uma Dutta, the Principal of Dera Natung Govt. College, Itanagar, retired from service on superannuation. Accordingly, the Respondent No. 3 by an Order dated 31.10.2007, directed Mrs. Dutta to handover the charge of the office of the Principal to the Petitioner, upon her release from the service on the eve of retirement. Consequently, the Petitioner was allowed to hold charge and function as Principal of the said College until a regular Principal was posted. In view of the above, the Petitioner continued to hold the charge of the Principal till date. 10. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner having put in 18 years of service in the department also held the post of Vice-Principal of the College since 4.12.2006, on the basis of his merit-cum-seniority position. It has been submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that since there was a vacant post of Principal, which was available prior to the issuance of amendment Rules, 2007, the Respondent authorities ought to have considered his promotion in the same manner as it was done in other similarly situated candidates. 11. On 18.12.2007, the Rule 2000, which governed the service condition for the post of Principal, was amended. 11. On 18.12.2007, the Rule 2000, which governed the service condition for the post of Principal, was amended. The amendment rule known as Recruitment (Amendment) Rule 2007, provided for filling up of 100% vacancies through direct recruitment on the basis of interview to be conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, from amongst the College Lecturers under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh possessing (i) a Master's Degree with at least 55% of the marks (50% for ST candidates) or its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D and F, (ii) Ph. D. or equivalent qualification and (iii) total experience of 10 years of teaching/research in University/Colleges and other institutions of higher education. The amended Recruitment Rules, 2007, read as follows: No. HE/CE-62/99-in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Recruitment Rules, 2000 to the post of Principal in the Department of Higher Education under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh namely: 1. These rules may be called the Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2007 for the post of Principal in the Department of Higher Education. 2. They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette. 3. In the Schedule to the Recruitment Rules, 2000 for the entries in columns 2, 11, 12 and 13, the following shall be substituted, namely: (i) Column 2: "07(seven) 2007' subject to variation dependent on work Load." (ii) Column 12:" 100% by direct recruitment." (iii) Column 12: "By direct recruitment on the basis of interview by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission from Amongst the College Lecturers under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh Possessing: (1) A Master's degree with atleast 55% of the marks (50% for ST candidates) or its equivalent grade of B in the 7 point scale with latter grades O, A, B, C, D, E and F. (2) Ph. D. or equivalent qualification. (3) Total experience of 10 (ten) years of teaching/research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of higher education. Sd/- Chief Secretary Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. No.HE/CE-62/99/7546 Dated Itanagar, the 1.4.08 CORRIGENDUM Sl. No. 3, Column No. (2) of Govt. D. or equivalent qualification. (3) Total experience of 10 (ten) years of teaching/research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of higher education. Sd/- Chief Secretary Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. No.HE/CE-62/99/7546 Dated Itanagar, the 1.4.08 CORRIGENDUM Sl. No. 3, Column No. (2) of Govt. Notification issued vide No. HE/CE-62/99 dated 18/12/ 07 for amendment the Recruitment Rules, 2000 to the post of Principal in the Department of Higher Education under the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh may please be read as 11 instead of 12. Sd/- Chief Secretary Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 12. In terms of aforesaid amendment, the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Itanagar (APPSC), i.e. Respondent No. 4, published an advertisement dated 19th March 2008, inviting applications for filling up the posts of Principal in the Colleges of Arunachal Pradesh through direct recruitment, in conformity with the method of selection, as envisaged in the Recruitment Rules, 2007. 13. It is submitted, on behalf of the Petitioner, that one vacancy, out of 2(two) vacancies, for which the impugned advertisement has been issued, arose in the year 2007 due to retirement of Mrs. Uma Dutta, on 31.10.2007, as Principal of Dera Natung College, Itanagar. 14. In writ petition W.P.(C) 172 AP/09, the same Petitioner assailed the advertisement, dated 19.03.2008, issued by the APPSC to fill up 2(two) posts of Principal of Government Colleges of Arunachal Pradesh, in terms of the amended Rule of 2007, by which different eligibility criteria were introduced. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphasized on the fact that the recruitment to the said post of Principal, which had fallen vacant prior to the introduction of the amendment Rules 2007, would be governed by pre-amended rules of recruitment and the Petitioner, who was eligible for the post of Principal under the pre-amended rules, deserved to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal. 15. The amended Rule of 2007 raised the required qualification for promotion to the post of Principal in which the Petitioner would no longer be eligible, further the amended Rules 2007, proposed recruitment to the post of Principal, not by promotion as it stood prior to the amendment, but only by way of direct recruitment 16. 15. The amended Rule of 2007 raised the required qualification for promotion to the post of Principal in which the Petitioner would no longer be eligible, further the amended Rules 2007, proposed recruitment to the post of Principal, not by promotion as it stood prior to the amendment, but only by way of direct recruitment 16. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner father contended that the Petitioner, who had completed more than 10(ten) years of service in the cadre and was also holding the post of Vice-Principal in substantive capacity, was eligible to be considered for promotion/appointment to the post of Principal, since he had all the requisite qualifications under the said Recruitment Rules 2000, as it stood prior to its amendment in 2007. 17. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the advertisement, issued by the APPSC, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it takes away the fundamental right of the Petitioner to be considered for the post of Principal. 18. The State Respondents submitted affidavit contending herein that the Petitioner was placed in Selection Grade from 3.03.2001 vide order, dated 23.03.2005, and not from 13.05.1992 as claimed by the Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Respondents/State Government submitted that sometime, in the month of February, 2007, a conference, on Higher and Technical Education, was held and it was resolved that since the State Government is following the UGC norms of pay scales, the recruitment rules for Principal should also be suitably amended by incorporating the UGC norms. Accordingly, recruitment Rules of 2000 came to be amended in 2007 vide notification dated 18.12.2007. 20. Learned Counsel for the State Respondents further contended that the last appointment to the post of Principal was made on 27.10.2006 and, thereafter, no appointment has so far been made. The State Respondents, stated in their affidavit, that two persons, namely, Shri Teyek Talom and Shri Motum Nomuk were appointed as the Principal prior to the amendment of the rules and there were about 7 (seven) senior most APST candidates, who were senior to the Petitioner, who had not been promoted to the post of the Principal. 21. It is admitted by State Respondents that the 2(two) posts of Principal of the Colleges fell vacant due to retirement of one Smt. Uma Dutta, on 31.10.2007, as Principal of Dera Natung Govt. 21. It is admitted by State Respondents that the 2(two) posts of Principal of the Colleges fell vacant due to retirement of one Smt. Uma Dutta, on 31.10.2007, as Principal of Dera Natung Govt. College and due to transfer of Shri Tomar Ete, on deputation, from the post of the Principal, Donyi Polo Govt. College, Kamki, to Rajiv Gandhi University on 18.10.2007, as a Controller of Examination. It is further stated, in the affidavit submitted on behalf of the State Respondents, that the Petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to complete the research works of Ph.D. by granting study leave, but failed to complete the same. 22. The guidelines for selection and placement of Vice Principal in the Colleges further clarified that the post of "Vice Principal shall not be a substantive post, but interchangeable post in the same pay scale and not a promotional post. Therefore, the Petitioner was appointed as Vice Principal on the basis of the said guidelines on 4.12.2006 due to increasing complexities in the College administration, but the said posts, being an interchangeable post of the same grade and pay scale, the Petitioner could not have staked a claim that he was holding the substantive post of Vice Principal and was, thus, entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal of the College. 23. Since the post of the Vice Principal was not a feeder post, we are of the considered view that the guidelines did not confer any right on the Petitioner for being considered for the post of Principal. The Petitioner was selected in terms of the guidelines for selection of the Vice Principal by fulfilling all the required qualifications. Out of several candidates in the fray, the Petitioner cannot legitimately expect consideration of his candidature for the next promotion to the post of Principal since the relevant Recruitment Rules, for the post of the Principal, have different criteria for promotion. 24. Learned Counsel for the State Respondents took the stand that since the Government of Arunachal Pradesh is following the UGC norms in the Colleges and Universities, the recruitment rules, for the post of Principal and Lecturer, were accordingly amended from time to time in consonance with UGC norms. 24. Learned Counsel for the State Respondents took the stand that since the Government of Arunachal Pradesh is following the UGC norms in the Colleges and Universities, the recruitment rules, for the post of Principal and Lecturer, were accordingly amended from time to time in consonance with UGC norms. The State Respondents refitted the stand of the Petitioner regarding non-publication of the amendment rules in the Official Gazette by precisely indicating the date of publication of the amendment Rule 2007 in the official Gazette. 25. Learned Counsel for the State Respondents pointed out even if, for an argument's sake, the old Rule of 2000 is applied for promotion against vacant post of Principal, the present Petitioner could not have been considered on the simple ground that he did not come under the zone of consideration as there were about 7 (APST) candidates, who were much senior to the Petitioner. However, the Recruitment Rule of 2000 having been amended in 2007 in consonance with the UGC norms, the relevant rules, now, require Ph.D. Degree for the post of Principal with 10 years of teaching experience, which the Petitioner does not possess. However, the learned counsel for the Respondents/State Government contended that the Petitioner with his existing qualifications without the Ph.D. Degree had ample scope to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Director of Higher Education, which is so a promotional post for all such Lecturers, who did not posses Ph.D. Degree, which may, ultimately, lead the Petitioner to further promotional avenues to the post of Joint Director and Director of Higher Education in the State Government. 26. In W.P.(C) No. 349 (AP) of 2008 Shri Tageng Tamuk v. State of Arunachal Pradesh the Petitioner had challenged the legality and validity of the Recruitment Rules 2007, of Principal of Government Colleges of Arunachal Pradesh, as, unconstitutional and illegal. The Petitioner also claimed for filling up of one of the posts of Principal, which had fallen vacant prior to the amendment of Recruitment Rules, 2007, claiming his illegibility to the post in terms of the pre-amended Recruitment Rules. 27. The Petitioner also claimed for filling up of one of the posts of Principal, which had fallen vacant prior to the amendment of Recruitment Rules, 2007, claiming his illegibility to the post in terms of the pre-amended Recruitment Rules. 27. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the Petitioner advanced the following arguments: The Recruitment Rules of 2000, for selection to the post of Principals, rested on the selection of posts by 100% promotion from among the Lecturers on the basis of merit-cum-seniority of such candidates having 10 years regular service in the grade. However, by introduction of the amendments under the Rules of 2007, the posts of Principal have to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment from amongst the Lecturers of Arunachal Pradesh, having Ph.D. Degree or equivalent qualifications and 10 years experience. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that 100% direct recruitment curtails the promotional avenues of those lecturers, who had been serving for the last so many years and were due to retire from service. However, it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner, that the post of Principal and Deputy Director, being administrative posts, do not require Ph.D. Degree as additional qualification of eligibility. 28. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that although in their affidavit the Respondents authorities concerned talked about UGC norms being made applicable, nowhere UGC norms has been incorporated in the Recruitment Rules, 2007, to give the benefit of 15 years of experience for promotion and retirement age of 65 to the College Lecturers. It is submitted, on behalf of the Petitioner, that the authorities cannot mould the Recruitment Rules so as to suit some selected candidates by forgoing the welfare of all concerned and public interest. 29. Resisting the challenge to the vires of the amended Recruitment Rules, 2007, made by the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the State Respondents relied on the following decisions of the Apex Court on the question of the power and authority of the State Governments in making rules in terms of the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, for the welfare of the Government employees, which are as follows: (i) J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in (1990) 1 SCC 288 ; (ii) V.K. Sood v. Secretary Civil Aviation and Ors. reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 9; (iii) P.U. Joshi and Ors. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in (1990) 1 SCC 288 ; (ii) V.K. Sood v. Secretary Civil Aviation and Ors. reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 9; (iii) P.U. Joshi and Ors. v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors. reported in (2) 2003 ACC 632; (iv) K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. reported in 2009 (5) SCC 515 . (1) In the case of J. Ranga Swamy v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported in (1990) 1 SCC 288 : The Apex Court held that it is not for the Court to consider the relevance of qualifications prescribed for various posts. The post in question is that of a Professor and the prescription of a doctorate as a necessary qualification therefore is nothing unusual. Petitioner also stated before us that, to the best of his knowledge, there is no doctorate course anywhere in India in radiological Physics. That is perhaps why a doctorate in nuclear physics has been prescribed. There is nothing prima facie preposterous about this requirement. It is not for us to assess the comparative merits of such a doctorate and the BARC diploma held by the Petitioner and decide or direct what should be the qualifications to be prescribed for the post in question. (2) In V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation and Ors. reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 9 the Apex Court held that rules framed under Article 309 in the exercise of the rule making power, the President or authorized person is entitled to prescribe method of recruitment, qualifications both educational as well as technical for appointment or conditions of service to an office or a post under the State. The rules thus having been made in exercise of the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, being statutory, cannot be impeached on the ground that the authorities have prescribed tailor made qualifications to suit the stated individuals whose names have been mentioned in the appeal. Suffice to state that it is settled law that no motives can be attributed to the Legislature in making the law. The rules prescribed qualifications for eligibility and the suitability of the Appellant would be tested by the Union Public Service Commission. (3) In P.U. Joshi Ors. v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors. Suffice to state that it is settled law that no motives can be attributed to the Legislature in making the law. The rules prescribed qualifications for eligibility and the suitability of the Appellant would be tested by the Union Public Service Commission. (3) In P.U. Joshi Ors. v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that determination of conditions of service, alteration thereof by amending rules pertain to executive policy and within exclusive policy and within exclusive discretion of the State. Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. (4) In the case of K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. (4) In the case of K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines and Ors. reported in (2009) 5 SCC 515 , the Apex Court referring to the decision of P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General (supra) held that the competent authority has power, subject to constitutional limitations, to lay down conditions of service, amend them and to abolish posts/cadres, amalgamate or bifurcate departments or to do restructuring. These all matters falls within the ambit of policy consideration of the Executive. Relevant extract of the observation made by the Apex Court is reproduced herein below: It needs no restatement that the authorities are entitled to determine all conditions of service, alteration thereof by amending rules, constitution, classification, abolition of posts, cadres or categories of service, amalgamation or bifurcation of departments, reconstitution, restructuring of the pattern, etc. as the same pertain to the field of policy within the exclusive jurisdiction of the employer, subject to limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution. 37. 10...There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safe guarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a Government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. See P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General (supra). 30. On careful consideration of the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is apparent that Article 309 of the Constitution of India empowers the State Government to make rules for promotion of its employees. The State has authority to alter and amend the rules as and when required. Though the Petitioner has laid emphasis on the fact that the Recruitment (Amendment) Rules of 2007 has been tailor-made to favour some individuals in the department however, the law has been settled by the Apex Court in the case of V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation and Ors. (supra), by holding that no motives can be attributed to the Legislature in making the law. It has been contended, on behalf of the Petitioner, that the post of Principal of College is an administrative post and, therefore, degree of Ph.D. is not essential. (supra), by holding that no motives can be attributed to the Legislature in making the law. It has been contended, on behalf of the Petitioner, that the post of Principal of College is an administrative post and, therefore, degree of Ph.D. is not essential. The aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner was discussed in P.U. Joshi and Ors. v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad and Ors. (supra), wherein it held that it is very well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to service and accordingly, alter or amend and vary, by addition/subtraction, the qualifications, eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. 31. Article 309 of the Constitution of India empowers the State Government to make rules for its employees. However, in doing so, the State cannot take away such rights, which the Government servant may have already acquired. The present Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2007, have been made in consonance with the UGC norms in order to select the best candidates for the post of Principal. 32. On careful analysis of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the prayer for declaration of the Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2007, as ultra vires and unconstitutional is not sustainable in terms of the decisions of the Supreme Court, as discussed above, since the Petitioner could not attribute any evil design in the action of the State-Respondents in introducing the Recruitment (Amendment) Act, 2007. All such reasons put forward, on behalf of the Petitioner, for the relief sought have been discussed and disapproved by the Apex Court. 33. In view of the above discussion, the relief prayed for by the Petitioner for setting aside the Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2007, and also for a declaration of the said rules as ultra vires and unconstitutional, in W.P.(C) No. 349 (AP) of 2008, is accordingly rejected. 34. In W.P.(C) No. 172 (AP) of 2009: Shri Tageng Tamuk and Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. 34. In W.P.(C) No. 172 (AP) of 2009: Shri Tageng Tamuk and Anr. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Ors. the Petitioner claimed that the advertisement issued by the APPSC, dated 19.03.2008, for filling up of 2(two) posts of Principal is unconstitutional as the advertised posts fell vacant prior to the amendment of the recruitment rules, and as such, the Petitioner was eligible to be considered for promotion to one of the said 2 (two) posts of Principal. 35. Learned Counsel for the State Respondents raised the plea of res judicata/bar to subsequent writ petition by specifically indicating, in his submission, that the Petitioner, along with one Shri Sanga Khandu (Vice Principal) had filed a writ petition challenging the Recruitment (Amendment) Rules of 2007, which gave rise to W.P.(C) No. 212 (AP) of 2008. However, later on, the Petitioner, by filing a Miscellaneous Application No. 50 (AP) of 2008, withdrew his name from the petition without taking any liberty to file a fresh petition to challenge the amended Recruitment Rules of 2007 and, as such, the learned Counsel submits that the Petitioner is barred from raising the same issue, again, before the Court of law. 36. Learned counsel further pointed out that the grounds of challenge is the same as that had been raised in Writ Petition No. 212 (AP) of2008, which was dismissed, finally, by this Court on 10.02.2009. Even the impugned advertisement issued by APPSC, on 19.03.2008, for selection and appointment to 2(two) vacant posts of Principals, in the Government Colleges, were under challenge in the earlier writ petition. 37. It is contended, on behalf of the State Respondents, that the Petitioner after unsuccessful attempt to obtain interim protection, from the Division Bench in connection with this case, filed yet another writ petition, which came to be registered as W.P. (C) No. 172 (AP) of 2009. In the said writ petition, the Petitioner took the plea that the APPSC is conducting the said interview by depriving eligible candidates and against the UGC norms and a stay order has been passed by a Single Bench. Therefore, W.P.(C) No. 172 (AP) of 2009 has also been taken up by this Bench for disposal together. In the said writ petition, the Petitioner took the plea that the APPSC is conducting the said interview by depriving eligible candidates and against the UGC norms and a stay order has been passed by a Single Bench. Therefore, W.P.(C) No. 172 (AP) of 2009 has also been taken up by this Bench for disposal together. On perusal of the prayer of the writ Petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 212 of 2008, it appears that the Petitioner had challenged the said advertisement, dated 19.03.2008, for selection of 2(two) posts of Principals of Government College issued by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Itanagar. The grounds of challenge were also based on the principle that the posts which had fallen vacant prior to the amendment of the Recruitment Rules, 2007, shall have to be filled up in terms of the pre-amended Rules. 38. In W.P.(C) No. 212 (AP) of 2008, the learned Single Bench of this Court, on careful consideration of the prayer made by the Petitioner in the writ petition and after threadbare discussions held as follows: 11. The law regarding applicability of amended or pre-amended Rules in the matter of promotion is no longer res integra. All the authorities cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the Petitioner are arising out of claim for consideration for promotion on the basis of pre-amended position. However, in the case before me the Petitioner is claiming his right to be considered for direct appointment to be the post of Principal. Hence, the authorities cited on behalf of the writ Petitioner is not applicable. I am also of the considered opinion that since the source of filling up the post of Principals of the Government Colleges have been switched over from promotion to direct recruitment, the writ Petitioner has no locus standi to claim for his consideration for direct appointment on the basis of pre-amended position. Had it been a case of filling up the post of Principals on promotion after certain changes in the criteria, the writ Petitioner could have certainly raised a question that the promotion should have been done on the basis of pre-amended Recruitment Rules. However, the situation is otherwise; 12. In the result, I find no merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the same stands dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court earlier stands vacated. However, the situation is otherwise; 12. In the result, I find no merit in this writ petition. Consequently, the same stands dismissed. Interim order passed by this Court earlier stands vacated. Admittedly, the Petitioner to this writ petition withdrew himself from the earlier writ petition without taking leave to file any petition. 39. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. On a reading of the order, dated 10.02.09, passed in W.P.(C) No. 212 (AP) of 2008, it is crystal clear that the cause of action for these two writ petitions is one and the same. The claim of the Petitioner in both the applications is founded on the same subject matter and the reliefs, sought for both the applications, were in relation to cancellation of the advertisement issued on 19.03.08. However, in writ petition W.P.(C) No. 349 (AP) of 2009, the Petitioner has challenged the vires of the Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 2007, with consequential relief of cancellation of the advertisement issued on 19.03.08. 40. We have already held that there is no merit in the challenge to the vires of the Rules 2007 made by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 349 (AP) of 2008. A close reading of both the writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No. 212 (AP) of 2008 and W.P.(C) No. 172 (AP) of 2009, discloses that the relief sought for by the Petitioner is basically for cancellation of the impugned advertisement issued in respect of recruitment for the post of Principal. The Petitioner apparently abandoned the claim me in W.P.(C) 212 (AP) of 2008, when he chose to withdraw himself from the said writ petition by filing formal application based on the Petitioner's request, the learned Single Bench allowed the Petitioner to withdraw from the writ petition. The writ petition W.P.(C) 212 (AP) of 2008 was finally disposed of on merit rejecting the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner therein. It is thereafter that the present writ petition, W.P.(C) 172 (AP) of2009 has been filed on 14.5.2009, challenging the recruitment process in terms of the advertisement, dated 19.03.08. The learned Single Judge had not, while allowing Misc. App. No. 50 of 2008 to be withdrawn, granted leave to the Petitioner to file a fresh application in respect of the reliefs sought therein. The Apex Court has, in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Ors. The learned Single Judge had not, while allowing Misc. App. No. 50 of 2008 to be withdrawn, granted leave to the Petitioner to file a fresh application in respect of the reliefs sought therein. The Apex Court has, in Sarguja Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Ors. (1987) 1 SCR 200 : AIR 1987 (SC) 88 , held that a Petitioner cannot, after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution without sleeting and being granted leave to institute a writ petition, file a fresh writ petition in respect of the same cause of action in the High Court. The Apex Court held as follows: 9. The point for consideration is whether a Petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that Article. On this point the decision in Daiyao's case (supra) is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a Petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution should be deemed to have been abandoned by the Petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the Petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We, however, leave this question open. (Emphasis supplied) 41. Applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Sarguj a Transport Service v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Ors. (supra) to the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that since the Petitioner withdrew from W.P.(C) 212 (AP) of 2008, without seeking or being granted permission to file a fresh application in respect of the same subject matter, the remedy, available to the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, should be deemed to have been abandoned by him in respect of the cause of action based on which earlier application was filed. More so, when the subject matter in both writ petition is one and the same. The Petitioner did not prefer appeal against the judgment and order passed in W.P.(C) No. 212 (AP) of 2008. The Petitioner cannot, therefore, be permitted to avail relief by instituting W.P.(C) 172 (AP) of 2009 with regard to the very same subject matter. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the relief sought for by the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 172 (AP) of2009 cannot be granted by this Court in the facts and circumstances stated above. 42. With the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, we do not pass any order as to costs. Petition dismissed.