JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3. Also heard Ms. T. Wangmo, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5 and Mr. N. Ratan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. None appears for the respondent No. 4 on call. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the appointments of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as well as seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to regularize the services of the petitioner in the post of Draughtsman-II from the date of appointment of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 against the advertised sanctioned post dated 04.09.2002 as well as for granting the petitioner service benefits to which he is to be entitled. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the Director of UD and Housing, Government of Arunachal Pradesh had issued an advertisement dated 04.09.2002 for filling up of various posts in the Urban Development Department, Arunachal Pradesh. This advertisement included the posts of Draughtsman Grade-II Group-C to which the instant petition relates to. The petitioner claiming himself to be eligible applied for the post of Draughtsman-II. As no results were forthcoming to the said advertisement and the selection process, the petitioner submitted an application for engagement as Draughtsman Grade-III and at Basar DUDA Office vide a communication dated 21.05.2005. On the basis of the application filed by the petitioner, the petitioner was engaged as a Draughtsman Grade-III at Basar DUDA Office on contingency basis. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner filed the applications to be regularized in the said services vide a representation dated 30.10.2005. The petitioner continued to submit applications after applications for regularization but nothing was done on the part of the respondent authorities. The petitioner was given an impression that the said selection process initiated on the basis of the advertisement dated 04.09.2002 was abandoned. 4. It may be relevant herein to mention that in the meantime, the petitioner could also acquire knowledge that an enquiry was conducted in respect to the selection process initiated on the basis of the advertisement dated 04.09.2002. As such, vide the RTI application, the petitioner sought for the vigilance report. 4. It may be relevant herein to mention that in the meantime, the petitioner could also acquire knowledge that an enquiry was conducted in respect to the selection process initiated on the basis of the advertisement dated 04.09.2002. As such, vide the RTI application, the petitioner sought for the vigilance report. The petitioner was furnished the vigilance report vide a communication dated 29.03.2018. On perusal of the enquiry report, it revealed that there were 4(four) posts of Draughtsman Grade-II. Out of the total sanctioned posts of 177 (one hundred seventy seven) for which the advertisement was issued, there were excess appointment of 30(thirty) more persons beyond the sanctioned strength of the Government. It further revealed that in the merit position in the written and viva voce test to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II, the petitioner secured 318 marks whereas the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 secured 307, 295 and 287 marks respectively. It further revealed that the respondent No. 4, 5 and 6 were found illegally appointed by one Sri A. Morang, the then Director, Urban Development and Housing. Further to that, another 5(five) persons were appointed who secured marks less than the petitioner. 5. The records also revealed that on 31.05.2004, both the respondent Nos. 4 and 6 were appointed. Subsequent to receiving the said information, the petitioner vide a representation dated 04.04.2018 requested the Director, Department of Urban Development and Housing on the basis of the facts which divulged through the RTI that the petitioner be appointed as a Draughtsman Grade-II in the Department from the date when they were appointed in the Department at the earliest convenience. To the said representation, the Joint Director (Urban Development and Housing) gave reply to the effect that the matter regarding recruitment of various posts during the year 2003-04 is sub-judice and the matter is pending in District and Sessions Court, Yupia and the matter regarding appointment to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II depends on the outcome of the judgment and order of the said Court. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. This Court, vide an order dated 28.06.2018, had issued notice making it returnable by 4(four) weeks. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit-in-opposition. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 6. This Court, vide an order dated 28.06.2018, had issued notice making it returnable by 4(four) weeks. Pursuant to the notice, the respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In paragraph No. 9 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that the appointment orders of the private respondents i.e. the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 herein were issued by the then Director, Department of Urban Development and Housing, Mr. A. Morang, flouting all official norms and without following any codal formalities. It was further mentioned that Mr. A. Morang was suspended for misuse of his official power but in view of the pendency of the matter before the Sessions Judge, Yupia, it was not possible on the part of the Department to decide unilaterally. In paragraph 14 it was further mentioned that the apprehension of the verdict either way is still on the Board which may take a turn in any time. It was mentioned that unless the Department received the clear cut instruction from the SIC case from the Court, it is not possible to entertain any appointment related matters of a particular case at present. It was admitted that the private respondents were appointed on 23.02.2004 and 31.05.2004 i.e. prior to the matter had come under the vigilance enquiry. A perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 3 therefore shows that the finalization of the appointments in terms with the advertisement dated 04.09.2002 was kept dependant upon the outcome of the proceedings before the District and Sessions Judge, Yupia. 7. The private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had filed their affidavit-in-opposition. It transpires from the affidavit-in-opposition of the private respondent No. 5 that that she was appointed on 18.08.2004. The basic ground taken in the said affidavit-in-opposition is that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 6, a similar stand as taken by the respondent No. 5 in the affidavit-in-opposition was taken to effect the that the writ petition suffers from delay laches. The record further reveals that on 10.11.2021, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 wherein it was mentioned that the Director, UD and Housing was acquitted from his all charges in P.C. Case No. 11/2010. The record further reveals that on 10.11.2021, an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 wherein it was mentioned that the Director, UD and Housing was acquitted from his all charges in P.C. Case No. 11/2010. It was further mentioned that in pursuance to the direction passed by this Court whereby the Standing counsel sought instructions from the Urban Development Department as to whether the petitioner could be accommodated by appointing the petitioner to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II, it was mentioned in the Additional Affidavit that the Department will not be able to accommodate/appoint the petitioner by removing one of the private respondents. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the matter. 9. Before going into the question of merits, this Court first would like to take the issue of delay and laches. The preliminary objection so taken by the private respondents shows that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches on the ground that the petitioner has approached this Court in the year 2018 which is almost after 14 years from the date on which the private respondents were appointed. At this stage, it may be relevant to take note of the stand taken by the Respondent No. 3 in the affidavit-in-opposition. It appears from the stand taken by the Respondent No. 3 that the appointments pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.09.2002 was not finalized and depended upon the outcome of the proceedings before the District and Sessions Judge, Yupia. In other words, the finalization of the appointment orders were still hanging in balance till the verdict of the case is pending before the Sessions Judge, Yupia. 10. This Court is of the opinion that when the matter as regards the finalization of the appointments were still under consideration i.e. subject to outcome of the proceedings before the District and Sessions Judge, Yupia, the writ petition cannot be said to suffer from delay or laches. This opinion is further based on the reply dated 26.04.2018 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) wherein it was stated that the matter regarding recruitment of various posts during the year 2003-04 was sub-judice and the matter regarding the appointment to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II depended on the outcome of the judgment by the District and Sessions Judge, Yupia. 11. 11. Now coming to the merits of the case, it is apparent from the vigilance report to which the official respondents do not deny that the petitioner herein had secured higher marks in the selection proceedings i.e. in the written test as well as the viva voce than the private respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 as well as the other 5(five) appointees. On the basis of the higher marks obtained, the petitioner was entitled to be appointed to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II. There is no mention in the stand taken by the Respondent Authorities that the Petitioner was not entitled to be appointed for any other reasons. It was on account of the illegalities committed by the then Director, UD and Housing, which resulted in appointment of less meritorious candidates than that of the petitioner and the petitioner was illegally deprived. At this stage, it may also be relevant herein to take note of that outcome of a criminal proceedings wherein the then Director was accused under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is completely different from outcome of a report which evidently shows that the petitioner was illegally deprived of being appointed to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II. 12. Consequently, this Court is, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner has been illegally deprived of being considered for appointment and persons less meritorious than the petitioner have been appointed. It is further apparent that the Respondent Authorities have not taken any action against the illegal appointments but have denied the Petitioner to be appointed in spite of the fact that the Petitioner was entitled to be considered for appointment to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II. Taking into consideration that the writ petition was filed almost after 14 years, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the appointments in favour of Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 which this Court leaves it to the discretion of the Authorities. But taking into consideration the facts of the instant case, this Court directs the Respondent Authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II. It is further directed that if no posts are vacant, the Respondent Authorities are further directed to create a supernumerary post so that the petitioner could be accommodated immediately till a vacancy arises. But taking into consideration the facts of the instant case, this Court directs the Respondent Authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post of Draughtsman Grade-II. It is further directed that if no posts are vacant, the Respondent Authorities are further directed to create a supernumerary post so that the petitioner could be accommodated immediately till a vacancy arises. The respondent authorities shall also take into consideration that the petitioner has been rendering the service in the same Department since 2005 and as such if necessary, to grant age relaxation. The above exercise shall be completed by the concerned Respondent Authorities within a period of 45(forty five) days from the date certified copies of this order are served upon the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 13. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.