JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. L. Perme, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Ms. K. Wangmo, learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 6. 2. The petitioner has filed an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of like nature. The legality and validity of the order passed by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar vide order No. AGRI/E-61/2018-19 dated 04.10.2018 whereby the authority regularised service of the petitioner as regular Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017 is challenged and impugned, because the authority ought to have regularised the service of the petitioner for the post of Joint Director, Agriculture with retrospective effect from the date of officiating promotion, that is, w.e.f. 25.07.2012. 3. The Minutes of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC for short) held on 1st October, 2018 in the Office Chamber of the Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh regularising the post of Joint Director as regular Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017 is under challenge. 4. The petitioner’s case in brief is that the petitioner has now retired from the post of Joint Director in the Department of Agriculture. He was promoted on officiating basis to the post of Joint Director with retrospective effect from the date of joining duty i.e. w.e.f. 25.07.2012 by the Commissioner, Department of Agriculture. He served the Department in the capacity of Joint Director from 25.07.2012 till his retirement i.e. on 31.12.2017. The department regularised his services as regular Joint Director after his retirement vide order dated 12.12.2017. 5. It is averred that the petitioner’s officiating promotion in the capacity of Joint Director w.e.f 25.07.2012 was not regularised from the retrospective date. A DPC was held in the office chamber of Chief Secretary on 01.10.2018 for consideration of regularising the service of the petitioner in the post of Joint Director, whereby the petitioner’s service was regularised to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017. The DPC should have recommended for regularisation of the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 25.07.2012 instead of 12.12.2017 because the petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Director in officiating capacity with retrospective effect. The DPC should have recommended for regularisation of the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 25.07.2012 instead of 12.12.2017 because the petitioner was promoted to the post of Joint Director in officiating capacity with retrospective effect. The petitioner has retired from service on 13.12.2017 without regularisation of his officiating promotion in the post of Joint Director. The department subsequently issued an order after his retirement vide order No. AGRI/E-61/2018-19 dated 04.10.2018 and the petitioner’s service was regularised in the post of Joint Director as regular Joint Director, Agriculture w.e.f 12.12.2017 on the recommendation of the DPC held on 01.10.2018. It is alleged that the DPC illegally and arbitrarily decided to recommend the petitioner for promotion on regular basis to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017 as per order dated 04.10.2018 without regularising the service of the petitioner rendered on officiating capacity in the post with retrospective date, that is, w.e.f. 20.05.2012. Thus the Minutes of the DPC dated 01.10.2018 is clearly illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside and quashed. The petitioner was given officiating promotion to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 25.07.2012 as per officiating promotion and the order dated 25.06.2016 and the petitioners past services ought to have been regularised to the post of Joint Director, Agriculture w.e.f. 25.07.2012 i.e. from the date of officiating promotion order dated 25.06.2016 by the DPC. 6. It is also averred that the officiating promotion of the petitioner cannot be ignored altogether since the petitioner was eligible under the rule to be considered for promotion at all relevant times and the period of service of the petitioner on officiating basis to the post of Joint Director ought to have been regularised from the date of his officiating promotion i.e from 25.07.2012. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh had issued an Office Memorandum vide Memorandum No. F.NO. AR-54/2016 dated 06.06.2016 directing all the departments to conduct DPC timely and regularly for considering promotion of the employees. Had the respondent conducted the DPC in compliance of the afore-mentioned order within the required period of time, then the petitioner’s case would have been taken into consideration for promotion/regularisation of service as regular Joint Director w.e.f. 25.07.2012. 7. AR-54/2016 dated 06.06.2016 directing all the departments to conduct DPC timely and regularly for considering promotion of the employees. Had the respondent conducted the DPC in compliance of the afore-mentioned order within the required period of time, then the petitioner’s case would have been taken into consideration for promotion/regularisation of service as regular Joint Director w.e.f. 25.07.2012. 7. It is alleged that the department promoted Shri Kesang Tsering (Agronomist) to the post of Joint Director on regular basis w.e.f. the date of actual joining to the post vide order No. ED(ES)-14/2002/671 dated 03.08.2012, whereas the authority promoted the petitioner as Joint Director with prospective date, that is, w.e.f. 12.2.2017. 8. It is averred that the petitioner was eligible under the rule to be considered for promotion and he cannot be denied promotion from 25.07.2012. 9. The affidavit-in-opposition was filed by respondent nos. 2 and 3 contending interalia that the petition has been stretched to the extent of repetition of averments. The petitioner was given regular promotion to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 12.05.2017 as per recommendation of DPC held on 01.10.2018, so the question of arbitrariness and caprice does not arise at all. The respondents are bound by the recommendation of DPC who to their wisdom and after verification of records and materials made such a recommendation. The petitioner himself was a Joint Director and he is solely to be blamed for non-performance of DPC timely and regularly. Another incumbent Shri Kesang Tsering (Agronomist) was recommended for regular promotion by the DPC w.e.f. the date of joining the said post. The impugned order No. AGR1/E-61/2018-19 dated 01.10.2018 is an offshoot of DPC dated 01.10.2018. 10. It is averred that the petitioner never approached the authorities in respect of his grievances and so the question on denial of justice does not arise at all. 11. The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have filed counter-affidavit contending inter alia that no infirmity in the decision of the DPC dated 01.10.2018 could be found. The ACRs/APARs of the petitioner available before the DPC proceeding dated 01.10.2018 were only for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and therefore there is no question that the DPC will recommend the regularisation of the services of the petitioner to the cadre of Joint Director from the date of his officiating promotion, that is, w.e.f. 25.07.2012. The ACRs/APARs of the petitioner available before the DPC proceeding dated 01.10.2018 were only for the years 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and therefore there is no question that the DPC will recommend the regularisation of the services of the petitioner to the cadre of Joint Director from the date of his officiating promotion, that is, w.e.f. 25.07.2012. To recommend the regularisation of the services of the petitioner w.e.f. 25.07.2012, the DPC has to consider ACRs for three preceding years prior to 2012 and these ACRs were not available before the DPC proceeding dated 01.10.2018. This explains why there was no illegality in the Order dated 01.10.2018 as impugned by the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 have also reiterated that after proper verification of the documents and materials placed on record, the DPC recommended the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017. It has also been reiterated that the petitioner himself was a Joint Director w.e.f. 25.07.2012 to 31.12.2017 and had direct control over the Establishment Branch of the Department and he was himself responsible for initiation of necessary action for conduct of DPC. He is to be blamed for non-conduct of DPC timely and regularly. It has also been reiterated that on recommendation of DPC dated 04.07.2012, Shri Kesang Tsering (Agronomist) was given regular promotion to the cadre of Joint Director w.e.f. the date of his actual joining to the post. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh & Others (II) v. State of Punjab, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 209 13. The affidavit-in-reply in the consolidated amendment petition was filed on behalf of the petitioner through which it is submitted that the petitioner was allowed to officiate as Agronomist/Deputy Director in his own grade of pay of DAO/DTO w.e.f taking over charge vide order No. PD(ES)/45/2004/II dated 20.12.2004. Thereafter, the official respondent regularized the officiating promotion of the petitioner vide Order dated PD(ES)-10/2000 dated 25th May, 2009 w.e.f. 10.06.2005. It is submitted that the RR for the cadre of Joint Director should be made for promotion from the select list under Rule 13 from amongst persons who had rendered not less than three (3) years of service in the cadre of Deputy Director/Agronomist vide RR No. AGRI/E-97/98 dated 2nd June, 2005. It is submitted that the RR for the cadre of Joint Director should be made for promotion from the select list under Rule 13 from amongst persons who had rendered not less than three (3) years of service in the cadre of Deputy Director/Agronomist vide RR No. AGRI/E-97/98 dated 2nd June, 2005. The petitioner has prayed to direct the authorities to promote the petitioner in the cadre of Joint Director, Agriculture with retrospective date i.e. 25.07.2012 as regular Joint Director, Agriculture as the petitioner is eligible under the rules for promotion on regular basis. Challenging the validity of the order dated 04.10.2019 vide No. AGRI/E-61/2018-19 and also challenging the legality and validity of the impugned Minutes of DPC held on 01.10.2018, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the authorities to regularize the promotion of the petitioner in the cadre of Joint Director (Agriculture) as a regular Joint Director with retrospective date by regularizing the period of officiating promotion from the date of joining his duties in the officiating capacity to the cadre of Joint Director, Agriculture i.e. w.e.f. 25.07.2012 as per order No. AGRI/E-83/2010-11 dated 26.10.2016 as regular promotion in the cadre of Joint Director. The petitioner has marked the order dated 22.06.2016 as Annexure-A; the order dated 04.10.2018 as Annexure-B; the Minutes of the DPC as Annexure-C; Annexure D is the Office Memorandum vide Memorandum No. F. No. AR-54/2018 dated 16.06.2016 issued by the Department of Administrative Reforms Civil Secretariat, Itanagar through Chief Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh directing to conduct DPC meeting timely and regularly for consideration of the promotion of the employees. Annexure-E is the order of promotion of Sri Kesang Tsering (Agronomist) to the cadre of Joint Director on regular basis w.e.f. 03.08.2012 which is not at par with the order impugned by the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was not treated with equal footing. Annexure-A1 clearly depicts that vide order No. PD(ES)-45/2004/11 dated 17th December 2004, the petitioner at Serial No. 2 and Sri Kesang Tsering at Serial No. 3, were allotted to officiate as Agronomist/Deputy Director in their own Grade of pay of DAO/DTO w.e.f. their taking over charges. Vide order No. PD(ES)-10/2000 dated 25th May, 2009 the DPC recommended to order regularization of officiating promotion of the petitioner in the post of Deputy Director/Agronomist/DAO/PTO/DTO/STO. It is but obvious that the petitioner was senior in rank to Kesang Tsering. 14. Vide order No. PD(ES)-10/2000 dated 25th May, 2009 the DPC recommended to order regularization of officiating promotion of the petitioner in the post of Deputy Director/Agronomist/DAO/PTO/DTO/STO. It is but obvious that the petitioner was senior in rank to Kesang Tsering. 14. As per Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Agricultural Service Rules, 2005, an appointment to the post of Joint Director shall be made by promotion from the select list prepared under Rule 13 from amongst the Deputy Director/Agronomist with not less than 3 years of service as Deputy Director, Agriculture and Agronomist. The Annexure-C clearly reveals that Nini Pertin was the senior most in the feeder cadre of Deputy Directors and was appointed to the post of Joint Director on officiating basis vide Government Order No. AGRI/E-83/2010-11 dated 22.06.2016. He was held to be eligible in terms of the recruitment rules which mandates 3 years experience in the grade. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents are responsible for breach of statutory duties and violation of fundamental rights in the process. 15. It has been contended by the respondents that the petitioner was given regular promotion in the cadre of Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017 as per the recommendation of the DPC held on 01.10.2018. Therefore, there is no question of arbitrariness by the respondent authorities, because the respondent cannot go beyond the recommendation of the DPC. The respondents are bound by the recommendation of the DPC. The respondent authorities placed all relevant documents before the DPC dated 01.10.2018 and the members of the DPC after proper examination of the records and materials have in their wisdom recommended the regular promotion of the petitioner w.e.f. 12.12.2017. The petitioner himself was Joint Director of the Department w.e.f. 25.07.2012 to 31.12.2017 and had direct control over the Establishment and it was because of his tardiness, the DPC was not conducted regularly. It was on the recommendation of the DPC dated 04.07.2012 that Sri Kesang Tsering (Agronomist) was given regular promotion to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. the date of actual joining to the post. 17. It has been contended by the respondent Nos. It was on the recommendation of the DPC dated 04.07.2012 that Sri Kesang Tsering (Agronomist) was given regular promotion to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. the date of actual joining to the post. 17. It has been contended by the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 that the ACRs/APARs of the petitioner was available before the DPC proceeding dated 01.10.2018 for the periods 201213, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 and therefore there was no question that the DPC could recommend the regularisation of the service of the petitioner to the post of Joint Director from the date of his officiating promotion, that is, w.e.f. 25.07.2012. There was indeed no infirmity in the finding and conclusion of the DPC dated 01.10.2018. The petitioner had failed to provide ACRs for 3 years preceding 2012 and as the ACRs/APARs were not available before the DPC proceeding for the years preceding 2012, the petitioner was not recommended for regularisation to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. the date of his promotion to the post of Joint Director in the officiating capacity with retrospective effect from 25.07.2012. 18. It is also contended that Sri Kesang Tsering (Agronomist) was given regular promotion to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. the date of his actual joining to the post, by the recommendation of the DPC dated 04.07.2012, which is not a subject matter of the present petition and so the respondents have refrained from making any comments on the merits of the DPC dated 04.07.2012. 19. It is true that the Minutes of the DPC proceeding dated 01.10.2018 marked as Annexure-C clearly reveals that as per order of this Court, the DPC for consideration of promotion of the petitioner as Joint Director on a regular basis and as Director Agriculture was held on 12th December 2017, but in the said DPC meeting, it was noted that the requisite number of ACRs required for promoting the petitioner as per order of this Court, were not available on record and those which were available had some infirmities, hence it was decided that the meeting ought to be postponed till the requisite ACRs are available on record. The DPC was further informed that the ACRs were received by the under Secretary (P&D) from the Director, Agriculture on 10.01.2018 and the DPC meeting could not be held before the retirement of the petitioner on 31.12 2017. The DPC was further informed that the ACRs were received by the under Secretary (P&D) from the Director, Agriculture on 10.01.2018 and the DPC meeting could not be held before the retirement of the petitioner on 31.12 2017. It has also been observed in the Minutes of the Meeting that the ACRs for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 were submitted after the time limit prescribed by the Government had elapsed. For the year 2012-13, the self-appraisal in the ACR was required to be submitted by the Officer by 15.04.2013, but the same was submitted on 16.06.2015 and accordingly the reporting and the reviewing authorities had also recorded the remarks, after the prescribed time limit had expired by more than 2 years. Similarly for the year 2013-14, the self-appraisal in the ACR was required to be submitted by the Officer by 15.04.2014, but the same was submitted on 16.06.2015 and accordingly the reporting and reviewing authorities also recorded the remarks and grade, much after the prescribed time limit had expired. It was also observed that the annual property returns for the 2015-16 and 2016-17, were filed by the petitioner as recorded in column 4 of the self appraisal by the officer. 20. In view of my foregoing discussions, it is held that, it has not been observed in the Minutes of the DPC proceeding that the ACRs of the incumbent for 3 years preceding 2012 was required for his assessment of promotion. The criteria for consideration of the promotion is clearly mentioned in Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Services Rules. Some infirmities relating to the ACRs of the petitioner’s service were recorded in the Minutes of the DPC, but due to these infirmities also, the DPC was postponed and it was decided that the meeting would be held after the requisite ACRs are available on record. The DPC was held on 1st October, 2018 after the retirement of the petitioner. The Minutes of the DPC reflects that the self-appraisal of the ACRs by the petitioner pertaining to the year 2012-13, 2013-14 were not submitted within the required period. Moreover it was also observed that annual property returns of the period 2015-16 and 2016-17 have not been filed by the petitioner. However this was not considered as one of the grounds to hold the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Joint Director with retrospective effect from 25.07.2012. Moreover it was also observed that annual property returns of the period 2015-16 and 2016-17 have not been filed by the petitioner. However this was not considered as one of the grounds to hold the promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Joint Director with retrospective effect from 25.07.2012. A colleague who was junior in rank to the petitioner, in the in the feeder cadre, namely Sri Kesang Tsering was promoted from the date of actual joining to the post of Joint Director by a DPC dated 04.07.2012. Although the DPC dated 04.07.2012 is not a subject matter of this writ petition, yet it is apparent from the submissions at the Bar that an incumbent can be promoted from the date of actual joining in the post with retrospective effect. No reasons were recorded in the Minutes of the DPC as to why the present petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017 instead of treating him on similar footing with his colleague who also happened to be junior in rank. Promotion was given to Kesang Tsering by giving precedence over the petitioner. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajit Singh & Others(Supra)wherein it has been held that – “23. Where promotional avenues are available, seniority becomes closely interlinked with promotion provided such a promotion is made after complying with the principle of equal opportunity stated in Article 16(1). For example, if the promotion is by rule of “seniority-cum-suitability”, the eligible seniors at the basic level as per seniority fixed at that level and who are within the zone of consideration must be first considered for promotion and be promoted if found suitable. In the promoted category they would have to count their seniority from the date of such promotion because they get promotion through a process of equal opportunity. Similarly, if the promotion from the basic level is by selection or merit or any rule involving consideration of merit, the senior who is eligible at the basic level has to be considered and if found meritorious in comparison with others, he will have to be promoted first. If he is not found so meritorious, the next in order of seniority is to be considered and if found eligible and more meritorious than the first person in the seniority list, he should be promoted. If he is not found so meritorious, the next in order of seniority is to be considered and if found eligible and more meritorious than the first person in the seniority list, he should be promoted. In either case, the person who is first promoted will normally count his seniority form the date of such promotion. (There are minor modifications in various services in the matter of counting of seniority of such promotees but in all cases the senior most person at the basic level is to be considered first and then the others in the line of seniority.) That is how right to be considered for promotion and the “seniority” attached to such promotion become important facets of the fundamental right guaranteed in Article 16(1)”. 22. Reverting back to this case, it is held that the order marked as Annexure-A-1 being No. PD(ES)/45/2004/II reveals that the present petitioner was at serial No. 2 and Shri Kesang Tsering was at Serial No. 3. Vide the order dated 17.12.2004 the present petitioner and Shri Kesang Tsering were appointed to officiate as Agronomist / Deputy Director. It is thus amply clear that the present petitioner was within the zone of consideration for promotion along with Shri Keshang Tsering who was promoted to the cadre of Joint Director with retrospective effect from 04.07.2012 while the present petitioner was promoted to the cadre of Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017. I would like to reiterate that as per the Arunachal Pradesh Agricultural Service Rules, 2005, the petitioner was eligible to be promoted to the cadre of Joint Director and he was well within the zone of promotion. He was also promoted, but without retrospective effect. The reasons accorded for considering his promotion in the minutes of the DPC dated 01.10.2018 has already been mentioned in my foregoing discussions. Some vague grounds were recorded in the minutes of the DPC. It is not recorded with clarity as to why the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the cadre of Joint Director with retrospective effect from 25.07.2012, at par with Shri Kesang Tsering who was promoted to the cadre of Joint Director w.e.f. 04.07.2012. Some vague grounds were recorded in the minutes of the DPC. It is not recorded with clarity as to why the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the cadre of Joint Director with retrospective effect from 25.07.2012, at par with Shri Kesang Tsering who was promoted to the cadre of Joint Director w.e.f. 04.07.2012. I would also like to reiterate that both Shri Nini Pertin and Shri Kesang Tsering were appointed vide order dated 17.12.2004 as officiating Agronomist / Deputy Director and Shri Nini Pertin, petitioner was at Serial No. 2 and Shri Kesang Tsering was at serial No. 3. Thereafter, the officiating promotion to the post of Agronomist / Deputy Director of the petitioner was regularized vide order dated PD(ES)-10/2000 dated 25th of May, 2009 w.e.f. 10.06.2005. It has already been held in my foregoing discussions that the minutes of the DPC dated 01.08.2018 is opaque and lacks clarity. There is not an iota of doubt that seniority has to be considered along with merit and right to be considered for promotion is not a mere statutory right. “Promotion based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1).” 23. Therefore, in view of my foregoing discussions, it is held that it could be deciphered that the promotion of the present petitioner sans retrospective effect from date of his officiating promotion was not based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion. The authority (it appears) has left out relevant factors, and has taken into account irrelevant factors. It can be deciphered from the submissions at the Bar that the petitioner is prejudiced by the minutes of the DPC held on 01.10.2018 and subsequent thereto, the order No. AGRI/E-61/2018-19 dated 04.10.2018, whereby the authority regularized the service of the petitioner as regular Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017. This executive action of the authority can indeed be validly scrutinised on the touch stone of the constitutional mandates. 24. Therefore, upon due consideration, I find merit in the writ petition. 25. This Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:- i. The minutes of the DPC dated 01.10.2018 as well as the consequential order dated 04.10.2018 (order No. AGRI/E-61/2018-19) whereby the petitioner’s services has been regularised to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017 are hereby set aside and quashed. ii. The respondent Nos. 25. This Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:- i. The minutes of the DPC dated 01.10.2018 as well as the consequential order dated 04.10.2018 (order No. AGRI/E-61/2018-19) whereby the petitioner’s services has been regularised to the post of Joint Director w.e.f. 12.12.2017 are hereby set aside and quashed. ii. The respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 are directed to constitute a DPC to review and reconsider if the promotion of the petitioner can be regularised in the cadre of Joint Director (Agriculture) as a regular Joint Director with retrospective date by regularising the period of officiating promotion from the date of joining his duties w.e.f. 25.07.2012 as per order No. AGRI/E-83/2010-11 dated 26.10.2016. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.