JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. L. Kurdu, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Ete, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel, Power Department representing respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. A. Apang, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. N. Anju, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner by way of the present writ petition, assails the order, dated 10.02.2017, whereby the respondent No. 5 was promoted against the post of Work Charged (Group-C category) as W/C Khalasi (Computer Operator). 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, can be summarized as follows:- (I) The petitioner was appointed as Skilled Computer Operator on 10.02.2001 in the Department of power and was posted at the office of the Executive Engineer (E), State Load Despatch Centre (for short, ‘SLDC’); (II) The petitioner claims that in terms of seniority list of skilled and unskilled casual staffs published on 21.11.2016, petitioner and the respondent No.5 were placed at Serial No.21 and Serial No.26 respectively; (III) The Executive Engineer (E) (SLDC & TD-II), Itanagar by a circular/Advertisement, dated 12.12.2016 intimated that a Trade-Test for filling up of one vacancy of W/C Khalasi shall be conducted in accordance with the Regulatory Scheme notified by No.CE (T&D)/EWC/V/21/7973-91, dated 9th December, 2004 and such test was decided to be held on 11 & 12th of January, 2017. The said circular/Advertisement further discloses that as per Trade wise preference and as per Trade wise seniority, the W/C Khalasi (Computer Operator) was given the highest preference. Though, subsequently, the exam was postponed on 2 occasions, the same was held on 12th & 13th January, 2017; (IV) Thereafter, the result was declared on the basis of such Trade-Test and a merit list was published on 13.01.2017, wherein, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 and the respondent No. 5 was placed at Serial No.2 in terms of their merit. Thereafter, by the order, dated 10.02.2017, the respondent No. 5 was appointed to the said post being aggrieved the present petition. 4. Thereafter, by the order, dated 10.02.2017, the respondent No. 5 was appointed to the said post being aggrieved the present petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner assails the impugned appointment order, dated 10.02.2017, on the following counts:- (I) There was no declaration in the circular dated 10.02.2017 that the policy of reservation applicable in the State of Arunachal Pradesh shall be applied in the present case and therefore, appointing an inferior candidate on the basis of reservation and on the basis of undisclosed criteria is an illegality and same violates petitioners right under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; (II) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the circular/advertisement will clearly show that there was no disclosure that policy of reservation shall be applied in the present case. It is submitted by the learned counsel that such action on the part of the respondents-state is contrary to the mandate of equality contained in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. In support of such submission, learned counsel relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bedanga Talukdar-vs-Saifudaullah Khan & Ors., reported in (2011) 12 SCC 85 ; (III) If, at all, it is admitted that policy of reservation can be applied, such policy cannot be applied in a single promotional post in the case in hand, asserts the learned counsel for the petitioner. In support of such contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh-vs-Faculty Association & Others; reported in AIR 1998 SC 1767 . (IV) The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 5 was dismissed from service way back in the year, 2013 and therefore, her name ought not to have been considered by the respondents-state. 5. Per contra, the learned Advocate General submits (I) The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived inasmuch as, in the circular, dated 12.12.2016 it was clearly disclosed that while filling up the post, the Regulatory Scheme, dated 09.12.2004 shall be applicable. (II) Taking to the Regulatory Scheme, the learned Advocate General submits that the petitioner’s right for consideration is born out of such Regulatory Scheme of 2004. (II) Taking to the Regulatory Scheme, the learned Advocate General submits that the petitioner’s right for consideration is born out of such Regulatory Scheme of 2004. The said Regulatory Scheme of 2004 further clarified that, the same is in continuation and in modification of earlier Memorandum, dated 01.11.1996. The Regulatory Scheme, 2004 further stipulates that the selection process should be followed in compliance of Clauses 4 to 14 of the Memorandum, dated 01.11.1996. (III) Taking to Clause 6 of the Memorandum of 1996, the learned Advocate General submits that the said Clause clearly stipulates that reservation for all categories of post(s) for Arunachal Pradesh Schedule Tribe should be adopted strictly as per provision of various rules of Government and notifications in this regard from time to time. Therefore, the learned Advocate General submits that the contention of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. (IV) Countering the 2nd limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Advocate General submits that there is no quarrel about the proposition of law that reservation cannot be applied in a single cadre post and in the case in hand, it is not a single cadre post rather roaster points are being maintained while promoting W/C Khalasi. Taking to the stand taken by the State respondent in their affidavit-in-opposition, the learned Advocate General submits that as per reservation Policy, 80% posts are reserved for Arunachal Pradesh Schedule Tribe (APST) candidates both for direct recruit and promotion cases. However, during that recruitment year, due to retirement of one Punyo Chatung, the 16th post had fallen leaving the strength of WC employees to 15 in numbers. As is evident from the Seniority list of all WC grades, out of 15 posts in occupation, only 8 (eight) posts are from amongst the APST candidates much below (=80% of 15) posts. Even if the posts of WC grade C are only to be considered, out of 9 posts only 5 posts are being occupied by APST Employees against 7 posts required as per 80% reservation policy.” (V) Regarding the claim of the petitioner that the service of respondent No.5 was dismissed long back, the learned Advocate General submits that such position is not correct inasmuch as, the petitioner has never raised such issue at any point of time. He further contends that the seniority list of 2016, which the petitioner relies upon also reflects the name of the respondent No. 5 inasmuch as the petitioner had never pleaded in his writ petition nor any additional affidavit has been filed to raise such dispute except filing a reply affidavit to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 5. Therefore, such contention cannot be accepted, at this stage, submits learned Advocate General. 6. Mr. Apang, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 5 while adopting the argument of the learned Advocate General submits that the state has completely adhered to the reservation policy and no fault can be found with them though the respondent No. 5 was placed at serial No. 2 in the merit list. 7. I have given anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The Circular dated 12.12.2016, on the basis of which the filling up one vacancy of work charge khalasi was initiated reflects the following:- I. A trade test for filling up of the vacancy shall be conducted as per Regulatory Scheme bearing No. CE(Tnd)/EWC/V/21/7939-91 Dated 09.12.2004 (in short Regulatory Scheme, 2004). II. All casual employees who are within zone of consideration on the basis of seniority list and trade wise senior list shall be eligible for the test. III. List of eligible candidate for trade test shall be issued separately. IV. Preference shall be given as per trade wise seniority. V. First preference is to be given to work charge khalasi (Computer Operator). VI. Adoption of preference is based on job requirement and number of work charge employee available in the division. 9. The Regulatory Scheme, 2004 on the basis of which the vacancy was to fill up reflects the following:- I. A Regulatory Scheme by way of a Memorandum was formulated on 1st of November, 1996 (in short Memorandum 1996) to have a control mechanism to regulate the work charge establishment and to balance over staffing and financial hardship. The said notification is treated as a guiding notification. II. A modified memorandum was issued on 25.06.2004 but could not be implemented owing to government ban on all appointment as a matter of policy. III. Accordingly, the Regulatory Scheme 2004, was notified to deal with the matters of work charge establishment in the department of Power etc. IV. The said notification is treated as a guiding notification. II. A modified memorandum was issued on 25.06.2004 but could not be implemented owing to government ban on all appointment as a matter of policy. III. Accordingly, the Regulatory Scheme 2004, was notified to deal with the matters of work charge establishment in the department of Power etc. IV. Such notification declared that number of post held as on 31.03.2003 has been treated as sanctioned strength and vacancies to be counted with effect from 01.04.2003. V. There shall be four levels of post in work charge establishment i.e. (a) Casual worker (b) Group-D post etc. (Group D now to be read as Group C, in view of recommendation of seven pay commission as Group D posts are abolished and all Group D posts are brought under Group C). VI. 30% of Group C post of a Division is to be selected by a trade test Board on merit cum seniority basis from the casual worker as per Memorandum 1996. 10. The Memorandum 1996, amongst other provides that while making such selection the reservation policy of the State of Arunachal Pradesh shall be applicable. 11. Thus from the aforesaid, it is clear that the Regulatory Schemes/ Memorandum were issued with a purpose to bring a scheme to regularize the services of the casual/work charge employees against regular vacancies on the basis of merit cum seniority, though same is stated to be promotion. The merit was to be determined on the basis of a trade test. The policy of reservation in services and promotion was made applicable while making such promotion. Such promotion was to be made against 30% of regular vacancies. Perhaps for this reason, the word ‘promotion’ has been used though the feeder cadre is not substantive rather casual/work charge. 12. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is clear that policy of reservation was mandated to be applicable in the selection process as Circular dated 12.12.2016, itself mandates that selection shall be as per Regulatory Scheme, 2004 and Regulatory Scheme, 2004 in turn mandates that the said Scheme is in continuation of Memorandum, 1996 and Memorandum 1996 mandates for reservation. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the policy of reservation is not reflected in Circular dated 12.12.2016 and therefore, application of reservation is not permissible, do not find favour from this Court and accordingly rejected. 13. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the policy of reservation is not reflected in Circular dated 12.12.2016 and therefore, application of reservation is not permissible, do not find favour from this Court and accordingly rejected. 13. Now let this court consider the second limb of argument of Mr. L. Kurdu, the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if reservation is permissible when it is a single post as the case in hand, the policy of reservation cannot be made applicable and therefore, as the petitioner was placed at SL No. 1, on the basis of merit against a single post, his candidature cannot be ignored, by appointing a less meritorious persons, in the following manner. I. As discussed hereinabove, the Scheme, 2004 and Memorandum 1996 reflects that by way of the same, the State of Arunachal Pradesh in Power Department decided to accommodate the work charge/ casual employees against regular vacancies of Group C and to bring them to the Government fold. II. The number of posts held as on 31.03.2003 has been treated as sanctioned strength in the Department. The vacancies fell vacant including that of casual staff born under W/C establishment shall be counted from 01.04.2003. III. The affidavit of the State respondent reflects that as per reservation policy 80% posts were reserved for Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe (in short APST) in promotion and direct recruitment. IV. According to the State, the 16 posts had fallen vacant. Out of this, 15 posts is occupied by 8 incumbents belonging to APST and rest are by un-reserved category. Thus to achieve the 80% of the sanction strength meant for APST candidates, another 7 posts are required to be filled up by APST candidates. V. The 100 point roster shows that when there are 16 posts, the 5th, 10th and 15th vacancies are to be filled up by unreserved category candidates and accordingly the Selection Committee, taking consideration of the aforesaid factual position issued the promotion order in favour of the private respondent who was placed at SL No. 2 on the basis of merit. VI. Law is well settled that against a single cadre post policy of reservation cannot be made applicable. But in the case in hand, it is not a single cadre post but promotion as discussed hereinabove to be made as per scheme formulated on a continuous basis. VI. Law is well settled that against a single cadre post policy of reservation cannot be made applicable. But in the case in hand, it is not a single cadre post but promotion as discussed hereinabove to be made as per scheme formulated on a continuous basis. Therefore, this is not a case of promotion to a single cadre post and therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is rejected and the case laws relied upon by him, in the considered opinion of this Court, are not applicable in the given facts and circumstances of the present case. 14. The last limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the private respondent was terminated from service long back and therefore, her name could not have been considered by the Selection Committee. Such contention has been raised for the first time in the reply-affidavit filed by the petitioner to the affidavit-in-opposition. Neither the same was pleaded in the writ petition nor raised, when a representation was filed on 28.02.2018 raising grievances against the selection of the private respondent or any additional affidavit was filed bringing such allegation. The fact also remains that the petitioner had never objected to the Seniority list of Casual staff dated 31.03.2016, wherein the petitioner was placed at SL No. 21 and the private respondent was placed at SL No. 26. The contention of the petitioner that the private respondent was dismissed from service has also been denied by the respondents. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court in not inclined to adjudicate the said disputed issue in exercise of the power of judicial review. And the same is answered accordingly. 15. For the aforesaid discussion, and reasons, this Court do not find any merit in this writ petition and accordingly same is dismissed. 16. However, dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the writ petitioner to claim for his promotion against subsequent vacancies as per provision of the Scheme 2004 and Memorandum, 1996 and/or any other policy of the Government that may be formulated for such promotion, if the petitioner is legally entitled under the same.