Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1312 (GAU)

Punyo Tangu v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2012-12-06

INDIRA SHAH

body2012
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. D. Lazi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kardak Ete, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, for the State Respondents and Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for private respondents No. 3 and 4. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 28.3.2001 issued by the Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby two Diploma holder JEs were promoted to the post of AE by superseding the instant petitioner. 3. This court, vide its judgment and order dated 23.3.2004, set aside the impugned order and directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. The respondents, thereafter, preferred an appeal against the said order. While disposing the said writ appeal, the Division Bench, vide its order dated 25.4.2011, set aside the order dated 23.3.2004 passed by this court and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 4. The petitioner's case, in brief, is that he is a BE holder whereas private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are Diploma holders. The petitioner was appointed in the month of October 1995, as JE, in the RWD along with others including the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Vide order dated 30.3.2001, thirteen JEs were promoted as AEs in the said Department including the private respondents No. 3 and 4. However, the promotion of the petitioner was not considered. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for promotion to the post of AE, the JEs who are Diploma holders, must possess the regular service length of 8 years while the JEs who are Degree holders, must possess the regular service length of 5 years. Although private respondents No. 3 and 4 had not completed the requisite length of regular service, their names were forwarded to the DPC and the DPC accordingly recommended their names for promotion to the post of AE. 6. While considering the case of private respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the DPC observed that both the Diploma holders have completed 7 years and 11 months, and as such, only one month was required for completion of 8 years continuous service, so their cases have been recommended for one time relaxation with a view for considering their promotion. 7. Learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 3 and 4, the DPC observed that both the Diploma holders have completed 7 years and 11 months, and as such, only one month was required for completion of 8 years continuous service, so their cases have been recommended for one time relaxation with a view for considering their promotion. 7. Learned counsel for private respondent Nos. 3 and 4, has submitted that as per the amended rule, i.e., Assistant Engineer (Civil), Group-B, Recruitment Rules, 1997, for promotion to the post of AE, 3 years qualifying service is prescribed for the persons serving as Technical Assistant (Engineer). Only when promotion cannot be considered from amongst the eligible TAs, JEs with 8 years regular service are to be considered for promotion to the cadre of AE. Here, the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were promoted to the post of TA on 30.4.1997 and, therefore, when the DPC was held, they had secured the requisite qualifying service length of 3 years for being considered for promotion, from the feeder cadre of TA. The length of 8 years of qualifying service prescribed for JEs was not applicable for them. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the post of TA was abolished by the Government vide order dated 24.8.2000. The DPC was held in the year 2001. As soon as the post of TA was abolished, all the persons, working as TA, were treated as JE. Therefore, at the time when the DPC met, the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were JEs and they had not completed the qualifying length of 8 years of service. 9. It appears from the DPC Note that 13 posts of AE were lying vacant since 1997 in RWD. The private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have been promoted to those vacancies which arose since 1997, From Annexure 2 filed along with the counter affidavit by private respondent Nos.3 and 4, it appears that the said private respondents were promoted to the post of TA (Engineer) vide order dated 30.4.1997. 10. As per the amended recruitment Rules for the post of AE (Civil) under RWD, notified vide Amendment dated 24.10.1997, for promotion to the post of AE, 3 years of regular service in the grade with minimum qualification of Diploma in Civil/Agri. Engineering, is required. 11. 10. As per the amended recruitment Rules for the post of AE (Civil) under RWD, notified vide Amendment dated 24.10.1997, for promotion to the post of AE, 3 years of regular service in the grade with minimum qualification of Diploma in Civil/Agri. Engineering, is required. 11. In the cited case of State of Rajasthan v. R. Dayal and Ors., (1997) 10 SCC 419 , it was held that selection was required to be made on the basis of the Rules as existing on the date when the vacancies arose. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amendment of Rules would be governed by the original rules and not by the amended Rules. As a necessary corollary, the vacancies that arose subsequent to the amendment of Rules, are required to be filled in accordance with law existing on the date when the vacancies arose. 12. Here, in this case, the vacancies arose in the year 1997, when the Recruitment Rules for the post of AE (Civil) in RWD on 24.10.1997 was applicable. At the relevant year, the private respondent Nos. 3 and 4 were Technical Assistants. By the time when the DPC met, they had already completed 3 years of qualifying service. Although the post of TA was abolished in the year 2000, since the vacancies arose in the year 1997, the Rule laid down in the year 1997 will be applicable in the case of private respondent Nos. 3 & 4. 13. In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs. 14. Connected records/files, be handed over to the office of Senior Government advocate, Arunachal Pradesh, forthwith.