Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 612 (GAU)

Jaya Jawal Singh v. State of Arunachal Pradesh

2012-05-23

I.A.ANSARI

body2012
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. I have heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and Ms. G. Deka, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. I have also heard Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, and Mr. N. Tapin, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. This writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is, in a way, third round of litigation involving the question of promotion of the respondent No. 4 vis-a-vis claim for promotion made by the petitioner herein, the promotional post involved, in the present case, being that of Joint Director, Integrated Child Development Scheme (commonly called TCDS'). 2. In order to correctly appreciate the reason, which impelled the present petitioner to make this writ petition, certain material facts may, first, be noted as under : (i) The petitioner, Smti. J.J. Singh, was directly recruited as an Extension Officer, Women and Child Development, under the Rural Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and she joined the post, in the said capacity, on 22.11.1982. On completion of 5 (five) years of regular service in the cadre of Extension Officer, the petitioner was, in terms of the CDPO (Group-B Post) Recruitment Rules, 1988 (in short, 1988 Rules'), regularly promoted to the post of Child Development Project Officer (in short, 'CDPO'). (ii) While the petitioner had been functioning as CDPO, as indicated above, respondent No. 4, namely, Tokmen Pertin, came to be directly recruited to the post of CDPO in terms of the 1988 Rules. (iii) Thereafter, the recruitment rules for the post of Assistant Director, ICDS, in the Directorate of Social Welfare Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, came to be published by Notification, dated 23.11.1992, the rules being titled as 'Recruitment Rules for the Post of Assistant Director, ICDS' (in short, 'Assistant Director Recruitment Rules'). According to the Assistant Director Recruitment Rules, the posts of Assistant Director were to be filled up by promotion of CDPO s having graduate degree with 5(five) years of regular service. Under the Assistant Director Recruitment Rules, therefore, the cadre of CDPO became the feeder cadre for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Director, ICDS. (iv) On fulfillment of the conditions, so mentioned, as indicated by the Assistant Director Recruitment Rules, the petitioner was regularly promoted, on 12.10.1994, to the post of Assistant Director, ICDS, with effect from 08.09.1994. Under the Assistant Director Recruitment Rules, therefore, the cadre of CDPO became the feeder cadre for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Director, ICDS. (iv) On fulfillment of the conditions, so mentioned, as indicated by the Assistant Director Recruitment Rules, the petitioner was regularly promoted, on 12.10.1994, to the post of Assistant Director, ICDS, with effect from 08.09.1994. (v) Aggrieved by the regular promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Director, ICDS, w.e.f. 08.09.1994, respondent No. 4 challenged, with the help of a writ petition, which gave rise to Civil Rule No. 1714/95, the regular promotion of the present petitioner by staking her claim to the said post. By order, dated 14.12.1996, passed in the said writ petition, the Government was directed to consider the case of the respondent No. 4 for promotion to the post of Assistant Director, ICDS, on completion of her qualifying period of service of 5 (five) years. This was followed by granting ad hoc promotion to respondent No. 4 to the post of Assistant Director, ICDS, w.e.f. 19.11.1996. The ad hoc promotion of the respondent No. 4 to the post of Assistant Director, ICDS, thus, came almost two years after the present petitioner had already become Assistant Director, ICDS. In view of this ad hoc promotion given to the respondent No. 4, the writ petition, which the respondent No. 4 had filed, was, finally, disposed of on 16.01.1997. (vi) Thereafter, by a Notification, dated 30.03.1998, issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the post of Assistant Director, ICDS, came to be designated as 'Deputy Director, ICDS'. (vii) Still dissatisfied, respondent No. 4 herein preferred an appeal, which came to be registered as WA No. 77 of 1997. The appeal was disposed of, on 17.02.1997, with the observation that, while fixing seniority of the appellant, the authority concerned would bear in mind the seniority of the appellant (i.e., respondent No. 4 herein) vis-a-vis the date of promotion of the present petitioner, Smti. J.J. Singh. The appeal was disposed of, on 17.02.1997, with the observation that, while fixing seniority of the appellant, the authority concerned would bear in mind the seniority of the appellant (i.e., respondent No. 4 herein) vis-a-vis the date of promotion of the present petitioner, Smti. J.J. Singh. (viii) Because of the observation, so made, as mentioned above, in WA No. 77 of 1997, the ad hoc promotion of respondent No. 4 was regularized, on 02.07.2002, to the post of Assistant Director/Deputy Director, ICDS, but the regularization of the ad hoc promotion of respondent No. 4, to the post of Assistant Director/Deputy Director, ICDS, was done retrospectively, w.e.f. 23.12.1996, and she was also granted notional promotion to the post of Assistant Director/Deputy Director, ICDS, w.e.f. 08.09.1994, though, on 08.09.1994, she had not even completed 5 (five) years of regular service, which was the minimum required qualification for being considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Director/Deputy Director, ICDS, her date of appointment to the post of CDPO being, as mentioned above, 02.05.1990. (ix) However, the Government published a provisional inter se seniority list, on 08.08.2006, wherein the present petitioner was shown junior to the respondent No. 4 herein. Hence, a representation, dated 06.09.2006, was submitted by the petitioner herein claiming seniority over the respondent No. 4. By order, dated 21.03.2007, the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare (Women and Child Development), Government of Arunachal Predesh, rejected the petitioner's representation, dated 06.09.2006, aforementioned. This order, dated 21.03.2007, was succeeded by publication of an inter se seniority list of Assistant Directors/Deputy Directors, ICDS, on 26.03.2007, wherein also, respondent No. 4 herein was shown as senior to the petitioner, her name being placed at Serial No. 1; whereas, the petitioner's name was shown at Serial No. 2. This order, dated 21.03.2007, was succeeded by publication of an inter se seniority list of Assistant Directors/Deputy Directors, ICDS, on 26.03.2007, wherein also, respondent No. 4 herein was shown as senior to the petitioner, her name being placed at Serial No. 1; whereas, the petitioner's name was shown at Serial No. 2. (x) Two days, thereafter, i.e., on 28.03.2007, respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Joint Director, ICDS, in officiating capacity, though the relevant recruitment rules, namely, the Joint Director (ICDS) Recruitment Rules, 1992 (in short, 1992 Rules'), required five years of regular service in the cadre of Deputy Director, ICDS, and it was a post meant for filling up by way of selection/direct recruitment, meaning thereby that all those, who had completed the qualified period of service of five years, in the post of Assistant Director/ Deputy Director, ICDS, and, who had fallen, thus, within the zone of consideration, ought to have been considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director, ICDS. (xi) The petitioner, then, filed a writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) 139 (AP)/2007, challenging the order, dated 02.07.2002, whereby the ad hoc appointment of respondent No. 4, to the post of Assistant Director/Deputy Director, ICDS, was regularized retrospectively, w.e.f. 23.12.1996, and she was also given notional promotion to the said post w.e.f. 08.09.1994, making her effectively Assistant Director/Deputy Director, ICDS, w.e.f. 08.09.1994, though she was not eligible for promotion on 08.09.1994 inasmuch as she was appointed to the post of CDPO, on 02.05.1990, and promotion to the post of Assistant Director, ICDS, required five years of regular service, in the cadre of CDPO, which respondent No. 4 could complete only on 11.05.1995. (xii) By her said writ petition, namely, WP(C) 139(AP)/2007, the petitioner also challenged the order, dated 21.03.2007, whereby the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare (Women and Child Development), Government of Arunachal Predesh, had rejected the petitioner's representation, dated 06.09.2006, which the petitioner had filed claiming to be senior to the respondent No. 4 and demanding that she be reflected, in the seniority list of Deputy Director, ICDS, as senior to the respondent No. 4. By her said writ petition, the petitioner further sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to recast final seniority list of Deputy Director, ICDS, dated 26.03.07, showing the petitioner as senior to respondent No. 4. By her said writ petition, the petitioner further sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the official respondents to recast final seniority list of Deputy Director, ICDS, dated 26.03.07, showing the petitioner as senior to respondent No. 4. (xiii) Because of the fact that a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition, on 11.06.2008, by observing that the petitioner's claim for seniority over respondent No. 4 having been rejected by the Secretary, Department of Social Welfare (Women and Child Development), Government of Arunachal Predesh, by order, dated 21.03.2007, there was no merit in the writ petition, the petitioner, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal, which gave rise to WA No. 10(AP)/2008. This appeal was allowed, on 16.07.2009, by holding that the order, dated 02.07.2002, whereby the ad hoc appointment of respondent No. 4, to the post of Deputy Director, ICDS, had been regularized w.e.f. 08.09.1994, was illegal, the same being de hors the relevant recruitment rules. By its judgment and order, dated 16.07.2009, in the said writ appeal, a Division Bench of this Court quashed the order, dated 02.07.2002, to the extent that that the said order granted notional promotion to the respondent No. 4 w.e.f. 08.09.1994. (xiv) Before the writ appeal was filed, a Departmental Promotion Committee (in short, 'DPC') was, however, held on 15.09.2008, which recommended respondent No. 4, for regular promotion to the post of Joint Director, ICDS, without considering the case of the present petitioner, though, under the relevant recruitment rules, the post of Joint Director, ICDS, which is a single post, is to be filled up by promotion, the basis for promotion being selection. As the post of Joint Director, ICDS, is a post meant for filling up by way of selection/direct recruitment, every Deputy Director, ICDS, who had fallen within the zone of consideration by completing the requisite period of regular service of a period of five years in the cadre of Deputy Director, ICDS, including the petitioner, ought to have been considered. (xv) Be that as it may, before the writ appeal, namely, WA 10(AP)/2008, could be listed, the Commissioner, Social Welfare (Women and Child Development) Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued a Memorandum, dated 01.10.2008, regularizing the officiating promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Joint Director, ICDS, retrospectively, w.e.f. 29.03.2007, following the recommendations made by the DPC. (xv) Be that as it may, before the writ appeal, namely, WA 10(AP)/2008, could be listed, the Commissioner, Social Welfare (Women and Child Development) Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued a Memorandum, dated 01.10.2008, regularizing the officiating promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Joint Director, ICDS, retrospectively, w.e.f. 29.03.2007, following the recommendations made by the DPC. (xvi) Being unaware of the order, dated 15.09.08, the High Court, on 10.11.08, while admitting the appeal, namely, WA 10(AP)/2008, suspended the impugned judgment and orders, dated 11.06.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) 139(AP)/2007, with the observation that, pending disposal of the writ appeal, the officiating promotion of the 4th respondent shall not be regularized. (xvii) Neither the 4th respondent nor the State Government ever brought it to the notice of the Court, in the said writ appeal, that the officiating promotion of respondent No. 4 had already been regularized by order, dated 15.09.2008, aforementioned. Thus, while the ad hoc promotion of respondent No. 4, to the post of Deputy Director, ICDS, w.e.f. 08.09.1994, was interfered with by the High Court holding the said ad hoc promotion to be de hors the relevant recruitment rules and, her notional promotion, given w.e.f. 8.9.1994, was set aside, her promotion to the post of Joint Director, on regular basis, w.e.f. 15.09.2008, paradoxically continued; and it is this promotion of respondent No. 4, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. (xviii) In the meanwhile, however, the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has issued an order, on 04.02.2010, setting aside the notional promotion of the respondent No. 4 to the post of Deputy Director, ICDS, w.e.f. 08.09.1994 to 22.12.1996, in terms of the directions, which had been issued in the said writ appeal. (xix) Thus, the respondent No. 4, in the light of what have been indicated above, becomes junior to the present petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Director, ICDS, inasmuch as her promotion to the post of Assistant Director/Deputy Director, ICDS, takes effect from 22.12.1996; whereas, the petitioner's regular promotion to the post of Assistant Director, ICDS, later on, designated as Deputy Director, ICDS, took effect from 08.09.1994. Notwithstanding the fact that the present petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 4 herein, in the post of CDPO as well as in the post of Assistant Director, respondent No. 4 has been functioning as Joint Director, ICDS, by virtue of the Memorandum of regularization, dated 01.10.2008. (xx) It is in the backdrop of the facts, as narrated above, that the writ petitioner has, with the help of the present writ petition, sought for (a) issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to recast the final seniority list of Deputy Director, ICDS, circulated under Memorandum, dated 7th/26th March, 2007, showing the petitioner senior to the 4th respondent and treating the promotion of 4th respondent to the post of Deputy Director, ICDS, effective only from 02.07.2002. (b) Issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the order, dated 15.09.2008, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, under Memorandum, dated 01.10.2008, by which the officiating promotion of the 4th respondent to the post of Joint Director, ICDS, was retrospectively regularized, (c) Issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to constitute a review DPC in terms of the Joint Director (ICDS) Recruitment Rules, 1992, for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Director, ICDS, alongwith the cases of the respondent 4 and others. 3. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be carefully noted that the DPC, on 15.09.2008, considered the case of only respondent No. 4, who had been officiating, at that point of time, when this Court had not interfered with the notional promotion given, w.e.f. 08.09.1994, to respondent No. 4 in the post of Deputy Director, ICDS. No wonder, therefore, that in order to consider regular promotion to the post of Joint Director, ICDS, the case of the respondent No. 4 only was considered ignoring the fact that since the post of Joint Director, ICDS, was a post, meant for filling up by way of selection/direct recruitment, all persons, who were eligible and had fallen within the zone of consideration, including the present petitioner, ought to be considered. The relevant portion of the minutes of the DPC, held on 15.09.2008, in question, read as under: Accordingly, the DPC examined carefully the service records of Smt. T.P. Loyi, officiating Joint Director (ICDS), i.e., ACRs for last five years, educational qualification as per RR, service experience, vigilance clearance, etc.Smt. Loyi has completed 14 years as Deputy Director (ICDS) and 1 year 5 months as officiating Joint Director (ICDS) as per records. There is nothing averse and no vigilance case pending against the officer. The DPC observes that the reservation roster is not applicable in this case as it is single post and selection post and she is the senior-most Deputy Director among the candidates in the seniority list of Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department, now officiating Joint Director (ICDS). Therefore, the DPC recommends the promotion and regularization of Smt. T.P. Loyi, officiating Joint Director (ICDS) for regular appointment as Joint Director (ICDS) under Social Welfare, Women and Child Development Department. 4. In view of the fact that this Court has already interfered with the notional promotion of respondent No. 4, given w.e.f. 08.09.1994, and the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has already issued an order, dated 04.02.2010, setting aside the notional promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Deputy Director, ICDS, w.e.f. 08.09.1994 to 22.12.1996, it logically follows that respondent No. 4 was to be treated to have been promoted to the post of Deputy Director, ICDS, w.e.f. 23.12.1996. If, therefore, the regular promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Deputy Director, ICDS, is considered, as one must consider, w.e.f. 23.12.1996, it becomes too obvious that respondent No. 4 is junior to the present petitioner in the cadre of Deputy Director, ICDS, and, hence, ignoring her case, the case of the respondent No. 4 could not have been, and ought not to have been, considered by the DPC for promotion to the sole post of Joint Director, ICDS, which is, as indicated above, a post meant for filling up by way of selection/direct recruitment. 5. 5. There can, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that the regular promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Joint Director, ICDS, needs to be set aside and a review DPC, as has been sought for by the petitioner, needs to be ordered so that the DPC can consider afresh the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 alongwith all those, who might have fallen within the zone of consideration for being considered for promotion to the post of Joint Director, ICDS, on having completed 5 (five) years of regular service in the cadre of Deputy Director, ICDS. 6. Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, has, however, contended that the post of Joint Director, ICDS, is a post meant for filling up by a direct recruit. There is, however, nothing on record to show, nor do the relevant recruitment rules so reflect, that the post of Joint Director, ICDS is a post meant for direct recruit. It is also submitted by Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel, that under the quota rota system, it is a direct recruit, who has to be promoted to the post of Joint Director, ICDS. Suffice it to point out, in this regard, that as the post of Joint Director, ICDS, is a single post and promotion is based on selection, the question of application of quota rota system does not arise. Necessarily, therefore, the reference made by Mr. Pertin, learned counsel, to the cases of Maharashtra Vikrikar Karmachari Sangathan Vs. State of Maharashtra: AIR 2000 SC 622 , Abraham Jacob Vs. Union of India : AIR 1998 SC 1011 , Mervyn Continho & Ors. Vs. Collector of Customs, Bombay & Ors. :AIR 1969 SC 52, V.B. Badami & Ors. Vs. State of Mysore & Ors., reported in (1976) 2 SCC 901 , G.S. Lamba & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1985 SC 1019 , is wholly misplaced. Joint Director (ICDS) Recruitment Rules, 1992, made, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, are silent about application of any reservation in the post of Joint Director (ICDS). Vs. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1985 SC 1019 , is wholly misplaced. Joint Director (ICDS) Recruitment Rules, 1992, made, under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, are silent about application of any reservation in the post of Joint Director (ICDS). The schedule to the said Rules make it evident that the post of Joint Director (ICDS) is a single promotional post, which is to be filied up, by selection, from the feeder cadre of Deputy Director (ICDS), who have five years of regular service in the grade. The question as to whether there can be reservation in a single promotional post, the Constitution Bench, in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research Vs. Faculty Association & Ors., reported in (1998) 4 SCC 1 , clearly answered in the negative. The reason assigned for the conclusion, so reached being that reservation, in a single post cadre, is bound to bring about a situation, where a single post, in the cadre, will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the reserved cadre thereby totally excluding from consideration the others, who may be in the feeder cadre. This is the theme and principle, which can be clearly discerned from the decision, in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (supra), though the decision, in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (supra), has been rendered not on the question of a single promotional post being filled up by direct recruit or promotee, but on the question of reservation based on backward class. The relevant observations, made in this regard, in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (supra), read as under : 34. In a single post cadre, reservation, at any point of time, on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such a single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the public. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent per cent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the constitutional framework. The decisions of this Court to this effect over the decades have been consistent. 35. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent per cent reservation for the backward classes is not permissible within the constitutional framework. The decisions of this Court to this effect over the decades have been consistent. 35. Hence, until there is plurality of posts in a cadre, the question of reservation will not arise, because any attempt of reservation by whatever means and even with the device of rotation of roster, in a single post cadre, is bound to create 100% reservation of such post, whenever such reservation is to be implemented. The device of rotation of roster in respect of single post cadre will only mean that on some occasions there will be complete reservation and the appointment to such post is kept out of bounds to the members of a large segment of the community who do not belong to any reserved class, but on some other occasions the post will be available for open competition when in fact on all such occasions, a single post cadre should have been filled only by open competition amongst all segments of the society. 37. We, therefore, approve the view taken in Chakradhar case that there cannot be any reservation in a single post cadre and we do not approve the reasonings in Madhav case, Brij Lal Thakur case and Bageshwari Prasad case upholding reservation in a single post cadre either directly or by device of rotation of roster point. Accordingly, the impugned decision in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research cannot also be sustained. The review petition made in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh, is therefore allowed and the judgment dated 2-5-1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3175 of 1997 is set aside. (Emphasis added) 7. The pronounced position of law, in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (supra), was followed and reiterated by a three Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court, in S.R. Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 176 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed and held as under : 3. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Assn. has held, after discussing all decisions on this question, that : 34. State of Karnataka & Ors., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 176 , wherein the Supreme Court has observed and held as under : 3. The Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Faculty Assn. has held, after discussing all decisions on this question, that : 34. In a single post cadre, reservation at any point of time on account of rotation of roster is bound to bring about a situation where such a single post in the cadre will be kept reserved exclusively for the members of the backward classes and in total exclusion of the general members of the public. Such total exclusion of general members of the public and cent per cent reservation for the backward classes is not permitted within the constitutional framework. 8. The principle of law, which emerges from the decisions in Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (supra) and S.R. Murthy (supra), clearly rule out the application of any kind of reservation to a single promotional post, particularly, when such a post is to be filled up by 'selection' and not otherwise. 9. The argument, raised by Mr. M. Pertin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, on the application of quota-rota rule to be applied, in the present case, is wholly devoid of substance inasmuch as the Joint Director (ICDS) Recruitment Rules, 1992, do not prescribe application of quota-rota rule. This apart, it cannot be disputed that once direct recruits and promotees are absorbed into one cadre, they form one class and cannot be discriminated for the purpose of further promotion. In this regard, reference can be made to the decision of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. R.N. Bhatnagar & Ors., reported in (1999) 2 SCC 330 , wherein he Supreme Court has held that once recruitment is made from two sources, i.e., departmental promotees and direct recruitment from the open market, and the candidates concerned enter into any cadre through entry point reserved for them, they get fused and blended into one single cadre and their birth marks get obliterated. 10. In the present case, the writ petitioner was a departmental promotee in the cadre of Child Development Project Officer (CDPO); whereas private respondent No. 4 was a direct recruit to the said cadre, namely, CDPO. 10. In the present case, the writ petitioner was a departmental promotee in the cadre of Child Development Project Officer (CDPO); whereas private respondent No. 4 was a direct recruit to the said cadre, namely, CDPO. From the cadre of CDPO, both were promoted to the cadre of Deputy Director (ICDS). Having entered the cadre of CDPO through the respective entry point reserved for them, the petitioner and respondent No. 4 herein came to be fused and blended into one single cadre of CDPO and, thereafter, formed one class resulting into obliteration of their birthmarks as direct recruit or promotee and cannot, therefore, be discriminated, for the purpose of further promotion unless the recruitment rules provide to the contrary. In the case at hand, the Joint Director (ICDS) Recruitment Rules, 1992, do not have any such prescription. It was precisely because of this reason that the petitioner was promoted, ahead of respondent No. 4, in the cadre of Assistant/Deputy Director. The State respondents acted legally by not applying quota-rota in the cadre of Assistant/Deputy Director (ICDS). Hence, the question of applying quota-rota rule, as contended by Mr. M. Pertin, on behalf of the respondent No. 4, to the next promotional post of Joint Director (ICDS), does not arise, particularly, when the post of Joint Director (ICDS) is a single post to be filled up by selection as mentioned above. 11. In the result and for the forgoing reasons, this writ petition succeeds. The minutes of the proceedings of the DPC, held on 15.09.2008, are hereby set aside and, in consequence thereof, the impugned order, dated 01.10.2008, issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, by which the officiating promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Joint Director, ICDS, was retrospectively regularized, is hereby set aside. The State respondents are hereby directed to hold review DPC for filling up the post of Joint Director, ICDS, taking into account not only the case of the present petitioner and respondent No. 4, but also the cases of all those, who may fall within the zone of consideration, bearing, however, in mind that the present petitioner shall be treated to be senior to the respondent No. 4 for the purpose of considering the promotion, in question. Moreover, the State respondents shall publish the final seniority list of Deputy Director, ICDS, in the light of the observations made and the directions given hereinabove. 12. Moreover, the State respondents shall publish the final seniority list of Deputy Director, ICDS, in the light of the observations made and the directions given hereinabove. 12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.