1. Heard Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of State respondent Nos. 1 to 3. None has appeared on behalf of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 12; in WP(C) No.61(AP)/2014, as well as on behalf of private respondent Nos. 4 to 11; in WP(C) No.329(AP)/2014. The name of private respondent No. 10 of WP(C) No.61(AP)/2014, has been deleted from the Cause-Title in pursuance to order passed by this court on 20.10.2014 in the said writ proceeding. 2. The petitioners have been serving as Constables (Civil Police) in the Department of Arunachal Pradesh Police, and they have completed more than 10 years of services as Constables. As per the Recruitment Rules, namely, Head Constables of Police (Group-C) Recruitment Rules, 1987, the post of Head Constables is to be filled up at the ratio of 50% from amongst the constables having minimum 3 years of satisfactory service in the grade on the basis of a merit examination and the remaining 50% by promotion from amongst the constables having minimum 5 years of satisfactory service in the grade on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. The said Rules, however> does not provide for any reservation or quota for the lady constables. Vide communication dated 6.12.2007, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (E), PHQ, Itanagar, proposed to conduct merit examinations for preparation of penal list for further promotion of constables to Head Constables and from Head Constables to Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI, in short) in Civil Police against the existing and anticipated vacancies. Accordingly, as many as 481 constables including the petitioners appeared in the said merit examination on 2.4.20008 out of which 271 constables were found qualified for promotion to the rank of Head Constables including the present writ petitioners. After pronouncement of the result of the said merit examination, 30 numbers of eligible constables were called for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET, in short). However, the said PET was postponed, for unknown reasons, when the eligible short listed candidates were actually waiting for the said test. It is alleged that without conducting the PET, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (E), PHQ, Itanagar, vide order dated 13.1.2009 appointed 54 numbers of constables of Civil Police to the rank of Head Constables w.e.f. 26.12.2008. However, the said PET was postponed, for unknown reasons, when the eligible short listed candidates were actually waiting for the said test. It is alleged that without conducting the PET, the Assistant Inspector General of Police (E), PHQ, Itanagar, vide order dated 13.1.2009 appointed 54 numbers of constables of Civil Police to the rank of Head Constables w.e.f. 26.12.2008. Thereafter, one of the petitioners through RTI obtained information that the respondent authorities instead of calling for the re-physical test, prepared the list of candidates for promotion without conducting the re-physical test. The petitioners also learnt that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, in short) was constituted for considering the promotion of constables to Head Constables, on merit basis. The said DPC was conducted on 26.12.2008 and as per the said DPC, there were 122 posts of Head Constables lying vacant, of which 61 posts were kept for merit quota and rest 61 posts were kept for seniority quota. The DPC recommended altogether 64 candidates for promotion to the rank of Head Constables and further recommended the cases of 13 constables to be kept in the waiting list as per the merit. The DPC also recommended 6(Six) names of lady constables to be promoted to the posts of Head Constables and placed them in roster point from 56 to 61. It is also alleged that the Recruitment Rules does not provide for any reservation or quota for lady constables. Moreover, the lady constables whose names have been recommended for promotion were placed much below to the petitioners in the merit list. The respondent authorities vide subsequent orders have promoted as many as 19 Nos. of constables including 3 lady constables giving them promotion to the rank of Head Constables vide orders dated 13.1.2009, 20.7.2009 and 27.8.2009. Again vide order dated 24.4.2010, 2 constables have been promoted to the rank of Head Constables one of which was a lady constable. The petitioners' cases for such promotion were never considered, although 9 lady constables who were placed below the petitioners in the merit position, have been promoted to the posts of Head Constables. 3. It is further averred by the petitioners that the lady constables [private respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in WP(C) No.61(AP)/2014 and the same private respondents who were arrayed as respondent Nos. 3. It is further averred by the petitioners that the lady constables [private respondent Nos. 4 to 12 in WP(C) No.61(AP)/2014 and the same private respondents who were arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 to 11 in WP(C) No.329(AP)/2014); who have been promoted to the rank of Head Constables are junior to the petitioners both in respect of length of service and as per merit list. By this time, all the private respondents who are serving as Head Constables, have been promoted to the rank of ASIs. 4. The State respondents, in their counter affidavit, have averred that in order to achieve desired representation of the women police force in the Police Department, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, accorded approval for ear-marking 10% of the sanctioned strength for women in the rank of Sub-Inspector (SI), ASI, Head Constables, and Constables(Civil Police), vide order dated 1.2.2007. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the private respondent Nos. 4 to 12 were promoted to the post of Head Constables vide order dated 13.1.2009. They admitted that PET of 30 constables was to be conducted on 21.4.2009 but it was cancelled as per the order of Minister, In-charge of Home Department. This issue was raised in another writ petition by some of the aggrieved candidates, however, this court declined to interfere with the matter, the same being the policy decision of the State Government. It is also admitted that the result sheet of merit examination and final select list were not notified and published as the practice for not notifying the result and publishing the select list of departmental examination is prevailing in the Department concerned since long time. Moreover, the result sheet and the select list are not questioned or challenged by the writ petitioners. The private respondents/lady Head Constables were promoted as per the Government approval order dated 1.2.2007 in pursuance to proposal for amendment of Recruitment Rules and such proposal which is under process since 2012 is yet to be finalized. The validity of the select list prepared in the year 2008 has already expired and hence, the writ petitioners' cases for promoting them on the basis of the select list so prepared in the year 2008, cannot be considered at this stage. 5. Admittedly, the Recruitment Rules, namely, the Head Constables of Police (Group-C) Recruitment Rules, 1987, does not provide for any sort of reservation to the women constables. 5. Admittedly, the Recruitment Rules, namely, the Head Constables of Police (Group-C) Recruitment Rules, 1987, does not provide for any sort of reservation to the women constables. According to the said Rules, which is yet to be amended, the post of Head Constables is to be filled up at the ratio of 50% from amongst the constables having minimum 3 years of satisfactory service in the grade on the basis of a merit examination and the remaining 50% by promotion from amongst the constables having minimum 5 years of satisfactory service in the grade on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It is not the case of the respondents that the private respondents were selected for promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit position. The respondents have admitted that in pursuance of government approval order ear-marking 10% of the sanctioned strength for women for the posts of Sub-Inspector (SI), ASI, Head Constables, and Constables (Civil Police), the private respondents were appointed as Head Constables. As per Annexure P/2 dated 6.12.2007, it was proposed to conduct the merit examinations for preparation of the penal list for further promotion of constable to Head Constables and from Head Constables to ASIs in Civil Police against the existing and anticipated vacancies that were likely to arose due to retirement and/or to be created by fresh sanction by the State Government. The said Notification also speaks that constables and Head Constables having minimum 3 years of satisfactory service as on 1.1.2008 were eligible for appearing in the said merit test for the post of Head Constables and ASIs, respectively. The said Notification, however, does not speak of any reservation for women or for any other category. 6. This court in Narayan Singh Rana v. State of Arunachal Pradesh [WP(C) No. 436(AP)2001], has observed in paragraph No. 9, as under : "9. According to the Respondents, the petitioner was not promoted as before the promotion order could be issued the Cabinet decision dated 24.12.1997 was made. According to the Rules, there is no provision for reservation of post for APST and non-APST in the matter of promotion. The Rules as amended in 1994 are still operative till date and no further amendment of the Rules was also made by the Government. The cabinet decision was made purportedly in exercise of power under article 162 of the Constitution of India. The Rules as amended in 1994 are still operative till date and no further amendment of the Rules was also made by the Government. The cabinet decision was made purportedly in exercise of power under article 162 of the Constitution of India. The exercise of this power by the cabinet cannot override the Rules framed under article 309 of the Constitution. If the reservation is to make as per cabinet decision, the only scope open to the government is to amend the Rule by making provision for incorporating such reservation under Rules but the same has not been done in the instant case. Therefore, the cabinet decision has no effect in the case." 7. The Under Secretary (Home), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in his communication dated 1.2.2007 addressed to the Director General of Police, Arunachal Pradesh, conveyed the Government approval for ear¬marking 10% of the sanctioned strength for the posts of Sub-Inspector (SI), ASI, Head Constables, and Constables in the Civil Police, for women. In the said communication, he requested the DGP to initiate a proposal for amendment to the existing Recruitment Rules accordingly. Admittedly, the Recruitment Rules has not been amended till date. 8. it is not disputed that the petitioners were ahead of the said private respondents in the merit list, in question, and the petitioners who got higher marking and ranking in the said list to that of the private respondents arid who (petitioners) were very much senior to them (private respondents), and when there was no amendment in the Recruitment Rules creating reservation for women, the petitioners were entitled to get promotion as per the select/merit list prepared by the State respondents on 26.12.2008. However, they did not challenge the promotion of the private respondents immediately, they filed the instant writ petition, viz., WP(C) No.61(AP)/2014, on 12.2.2014, i.e., after a lapse of more than 5 years. 9. In the case of A.G. Fernandis v. Divisional Manager, South Central Railway and Ors., (2001) 1 SCC 240 , there was delay of 4 long years in challenging the promotion of another and it was held by the Apex Court, in paragraph No. 14, as under : "14. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that appellant got promoted to the post of Ticket Collector on 28.5.1983. He was thereafter promoted as a Senior Ticket Collector on 25.9.1986. The appellant was then promoted as Train Ticket Examiner on 255.1987. Even otherwise, it is to be noted that appellant got promoted to the post of Ticket Collector on 28.5.1983. He was thereafter promoted as a Senior Ticket Collector on 25.9.1986. The appellant was then promoted as Train Ticket Examiner on 255.1987. The 3rd respondent chose to challenge the promotion of the appellant as a Ticket Collector only on 11.12.1987, i.e., after a period of 4 years. On the ground of delay and laches also, the application of the 3rd respondent should have been dismissed." 10. In the case of State ofOrissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray and Ors., (1977) 3 SCC 396 , the petition filed by the government employee challenging the seniority list after 11 years, was rejected and it was observed that those who continued to serve could justifiably think that as there was no challenge to their appointments within the period prescribed for a Suit, they could look forward to further promotion and higher terminal benefits on retirement. The High Court, therefore, erred in rejecting the argument that the writ petition should be dismissed because of the inordinate delay and unexplained delay. This court in the case of P.K. Handique v. State ofMeghglaya, 2009 (3) GLT 236 also reiterated the same ratio and refused to grant any relief to the petitioner. 11. In view of the above circumstances and in order to give complete justice to the petitioners as well as to the private respondents, abovementioned, it is hereby directed that the respondent authorities shall promote the petitioners, altogether 9 in Nos., to the post of Head Constables against the available vacancies which arose during 2008 to 2010, immediately, with retrospective effect. 12. Since the said private respondents' promotion or selection were not challenged during the last 5 years and the petitioners are, thus, guilty of delay and latches in filing the instant writ petition, therefore, no direction is hereby given to the said respondent authorities to provide service seniority to the petitioners against the lady constables/private respondents. However, since the petitioners are eligible for promotion and shall be promoted by the respondent authorities to the post of Head Constables, as directed above, hence, they are also eligible to appear in the next promotional examination of ASIs. However, since the petitioners are eligible for promotion and shall be promoted by the respondent authorities to the post of Head Constables, as directed above, hence, they are also eligible to appear in the next promotional examination of ASIs. The DPC, in view of the circumstances stated above, shall provide the petitioners, all kinds of relaxation particularly, the period of length of service for coming into the zone of consideration for promotion to the next promotional post of ASIs, in case, they are short of necessary service length. 13. It is hereby made clear that since the petitioners' promotion to the posts of Head Constables will be made effective from 2008 to 2010, whichever is feasible, they will be, thus, eligible to sit/appear in any test or examination to be held by the Department concerned for promotion to the post of ASIs and it is further hereby directed that the DPC shall take into consideration this fact while considering the candidature of the petitioners for promotion to the post of ASIs, without fail. 14. In view of the above; the writ petition, viz., WP(C) No. 61(AP)/2014, is hereby allowed, to the extent indicated above. 15. Accordingly, in view of the above, the latter writ petition, viz., WP(C) No. 329(AP)/2014 wherein the promotion of the instant private respondents impleaded in both the petitions, to the post of ASIs, has been challenged after a lapse of 5 years, is hereby dismissed, on the ground that the petitioners, who are 3 in Nos. and serving as Constables, ought to have been promoted, first, to the post of Head Constables to be in the same cadre, to challenge the promotion of the private respondents, as ASIs. It is to be pointed out that the petitioners of the said writ petition, were not promoted to the posts of Head Constables till filing of the petition on 17.9.2014. 16. No cost.