JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for Education Department of the State respondent Nos. 1-3 and 5, and Mr. M. Keto, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Smti. Mumsu Borang prays for set aside and quash the DPC recommendation dated 07.06.2018, by which the private respondent No. 4 was promoted vide order dated 25.02.2019, to the post of Assistant from UDC and also to promote her retrospectively from the same date i.e. 25.02.2019, when the respondent No. 4 was promoted. 3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition briefly stated as under: “The writ petitioner was serving in the post of UDC, which is the feeder post of Assistant, in the Education Department since 17.12.2004. The educational qualification of the petitioner is XII passed and as per the Recruitment Rules, she is eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant. In the year 2018, two posts of Assistant fall vacant and the Department sought for the submission of document from the feeder post, including the present petitioner, whose name was at S. No. 2, in the list of UDC, as per the seniority. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 07.06.2018 and the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion on the ground that she submitted the Class-XII passed certificate only. Accordingly, on the basis of the recommendation made by the DPC, held on 07.06.2003, the private respondent whose name appeared in S. No. 3 of the seniority list was promoted on 01.03.2009, on the ground that she is a graduate.” 4. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that by the Notification, dated 28.01.2014, vide No. AR-74/2013/1258, the minimum qualification for appointment for Group A and Group B service, either by direct recruitment or on promotion, is to be Graduation/Bachelor Degree from any recognized University. However, the above notification, requiring minimum qualification for appointment for Group A and Group B service, either by direct recruitment or on promotion, is to be Graduation/Bachelor Degree from any recognized University, was suspended temporarily for a period of four years by another Office Memorandum, issued by the Commissioner to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh on 27.05.2015, vide Memo No. AR-74/2013/1258. As such, the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant by virtue of the seniority in the Department. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted a representation for review DPC before the Secretary Education on 11.02.2019, praying for a review DPC to consider her promotion to the post of Assistant. However, on 10.06.2019, the Secretary, Government of Arunachal Pradesh passed an order to the effect that as the suspension of requirement of a Graduation/Bachelor Degree from any recognized University, expired w.e.f. 27.05.2019, the earlier Notification dated 28.01.2014, shall come into force and as such there is no scope of relaxation and consideration with regard to the minimum educational qualification. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that at the time of DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, whereby private respondent was promoted to the Post of Assistant, for promotion to the Post of Assistant, the requirement of a Graduation/Bachelor Degree from any recognized University was not essential, but the case of the petitioner was not considered for promotion by the DPC. According to the petitioner, her name was at S. No. 2 in the feeder post of UDC, in terms of seniority and there two vacant posts of Assistant were available. However, the DPC held on 07.06.2018, did not consider the case of the petitioner for promotion, she being not a graduate. 6. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition to redress her grievance by giving her promotion to the post of Assistant with retrospective effect from 25.02.2019, when her junior i.e. respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Assistant and also to quash the promotion of the respondent No. 4. 7. In response to the notice, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 entered appearance and contested the case by filing affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, inter alia, it is stated that the post of Assistant is a Group-B post, which are purely promotional post, which are promoted from amongst the senior most UDCs in the Department. At the time of holding the DPC, there were two posts of Assistant available for promotion along with other sub-ordinate posts. As such vide notice/circular vide No. ED.2/357 /APT/2014-PT, dated 27.03.2018 was issued to all the incumbents to furnish the necessary documents to consider their promotion on or before 05.04.2018. At the time of holding the DPC, there were two posts of Assistant available for promotion along with other sub-ordinate posts. As such vide notice/circular vide No. ED.2/357 /APT/2014-PT, dated 27.03.2018 was issued to all the incumbents to furnish the necessary documents to consider their promotion on or before 05.04.2018. But, some incumbents including the petitioner did not submit their documents till 05.04.2018 and as such the DPC could not held, for lack of essential documents. Again on 21.05.2018, another Circular was issued to furnish the essential documents on or before 30.05.2018. But again the petitioner failed to submit her essential documents within 30.05.2018. Whereas the date fixed for holding the DPC was on 07.06.2018. As the petitioner was within the zone of consideration, her case was considered by the DPC held on 07.06.2018, but, could not recommend her name for promotion for want of Vigilance Clearance, APAR/ACR for last five years along with educational qualification, which were not submitted by her and the same was very much necessary to consider her name for promotion. However, on 25.01.2022, another DPC was held and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant and as per order No. EED-12014(12)/1/2021, dated 04.02.2022, the petitioner has joined in her promoted post on 09.02.2022. As the petitioner has already been promoted and she has also joined in her new post, this petition, according to the respondents becomes infructuous and therefore, contended to dismiss the same. 8. The respondent No. 4 entered her appearance and filed her affidavit-in-opposition, denying the claim of the writ petitioner, where in, inter alia, it is stated that :being an eligible, senior and a candidate within the zone of consideration, she has a good ground to consider her case for promotion to the post of Assistant by the DPC and she was rightly promoted to the said post and therefore, contended to dismiss the petition. 9 Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was serving as UDC in the Education Department and UDC is the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant in the said Department. Thereafter, the Department has initiated the process of filling up two vacant posts of Assistant and issued circular to that effect and the petitioner, being in the zone of consideration, applied for the said post and submitted all the relevant documents. Thereafter, the Department has initiated the process of filling up two vacant posts of Assistant and issued circular to that effect and the petitioner, being in the zone of consideration, applied for the said post and submitted all the relevant documents. But, with a view to deprive her from being promoted to the post of Assistant, the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, did not recommend the petitioner for promotion and instead, one Smti Phool Kumari Tanga was promoted, who was junior to her and as such the right of the petitioner stands violated. Mr. Modi further submits that there is a Circular dated 27.03.2018, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, requiring the candidates to submit their educational qualification i.e. Graduation/Class XII and Class X pass certificate, ACRs for the last five years, Vigilance Clearance Certificate and annual performance report for contingency LDC and despite submission of all such documents, her case was not considered by the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018. 10. Referring to a judgment of this Court i.e. WP (C) No. 369 (AP)/2004 (Ayking Sonowal vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others), Mr. Modi submits that seniority is earned by an employee by his length of service in the cadre and it is a valuable right of an employee and the same cannot be taken away except in accordance with the procedure of law. There cannot be any question of impliedly taking away or forfeiture of such right. Mr. Modi further submits that though the petitioner was not promoted in the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, yet, subsequently she was promoted to the post of Assistant on next DPC meeting held on 25.01.2022 and now she has been working in the aforesaid post. But, since she has been illegally deprived of her promotion in the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, the said minutes of the DPC has to be quashed and set aside, by which the private respondent No. 4 has been promoted, by superseding the petitioner, and to promote her retrospectively from the said date. 11. Per contra, Mr. T. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities, submits that as per the circular of the Department, the petitioner has to submit her: (i) Educational qualification: Graduation/Class XII & Class X pass certificate. (ii) APAR/ACR for the last 5 (five) years. (iii) Vigilance Clearance Certificate. (iv) Performance Report for contingency LDC. 11. Per contra, Mr. T. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities, submits that as per the circular of the Department, the petitioner has to submit her: (i) Educational qualification: Graduation/Class XII & Class X pass certificate. (ii) APAR/ACR for the last 5 (five) years. (iii) Vigilance Clearance Certificate. (iv) Performance Report for contingency LDC. The petitioner was in the zone of consideration and so the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, considered her case, but could not recommend her for promotion for want of Vigilance Clearance Certificate and APAR/ACR for last five years along with educational qualification. Mr. Jamoh further submits that the petitioner, was duly notified and in spite of receipt of notice, she could not produce the Vigilance Clearance Certificate and APAR/ACR for last five years and therefore, the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, could not recommend her, instead, it has recommended the next in seniority in the cadre of UDC i.e. the respondent No. 4, to the post of Assistant. Producing the Receipt Book of receiving the ACR of the candidates, Mr. Jamoh submits that the petitioner has submitted her ACR on 10.06.2019, for the year 2014-18 and 2018-19. Referring to the Peon Book, Mr. Jamoh submits that the petitioner received the first circular requiring the documents on 27.03.2018 and the reminder circular on 21.05.2018 and producing the relevant file of the Department, Mr. Jamoh submits that no illegality or impropriety is committed by the respondent authorities and the petitioner could not be promoted to the post of Assistant, only due to want of relevant documents and in the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, it has clearly been mentioned by the DPC. 12. In view of the pleadings of the parties and also in view of the submission of learned Advocates of both sides and the documents placed on record, the questions that comes for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the petitioner has submitted relevant documents despite of receipt of circular and its reminder to the respondent authorities for consideration of her case? (ii) Whether the minutes of the meeting, by which the respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Assistant, suffers from any illegality or infirmity? 13. (ii) Whether the minutes of the meeting, by which the respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Assistant, suffers from any illegality or infirmity? 13. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also gone through the Peon Book and relevant file of the Department, relating to appointment and promotion to the Group-B staff in the office of Director of Elementary Education, and also, I have carefully gone through the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-1 and also the seniority list of UDC, in the office of Director of Elementary Education of the State, which is annexed with the petition as Annexure-A, at page 14. 14. A cursory perusal of the Annexure-A reveals that the petitioner was at S. No. 2 of the seniority list and the respondent No. 4 was at the S. No. 3. Further, the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, Annexure A-1 reveals that the DPC has promoted Smti. Yepya Gohain, whose name was at S. No. 1 of the seniority list and after her, the DPC considered the case of the petitioner and the respective resolution of the committee is read as under: “Smti Mumsu Borang, Second Senior UDC who has completed 14 years of service in the grade was directed to submit Educational Qualification and NOC/Vigilance Clearance for 2 times in terms office memorandum vide No. AR-74/2013, Dated 28.01.2014 and 27.05.2015, regarding fixation of graduation/Bachelor Degree as basic education qualification for promotion Group ‘B’. Smti Mumsu Borang, UDC submitted a zerox copy of Class-XII pass certificate only but she fails to submit the required educational qualification and others. Therefore, the Board did not recommend her case for promotion.” 15. The minutes of the DPC meeting, dated 07.06.2018, further indicates that thereafter, the committee has considered the case of respondent No. 4 and found that she was having a Graduate Degree and other related documents found to be valid and hence, the Board recommended her case for promotion to the post of Assistant. 16. The minutes of the DPC meeting, dated 07.06.2018, further indicates that thereafter, the committee has considered the case of respondent No. 4 and found that she was having a Graduate Degree and other related documents found to be valid and hence, the Board recommended her case for promotion to the post of Assistant. 16. Though a stand is taken by the petitioner that she has submitted all the relevant documents pursuant to the circular dated 21.05.2018, and also produced one letter, dated 04.06.2018, of submitting such certificate as Annexure-A of her affidavit-in-reply, yet, it appears that there is no proof of receiving the same by the respondent authorities and there is also no seal or any signature, instead the Peon Book of receiving ACR of staff and the relevant file produced before this Court by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, speaks otherwise. 17. Mr. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for the respondents submits that the letter dated 04.06.2018, by which the petitioner allegedly submitted the documents to the respondent authorities, the same bears no seal and signature of receiving the same by any of the staff of the respondent authorities and as such, no reliance can be placed upon the same. There is substance in the aforesaid submission of Mr. Jamoh, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities. While the required documents could not be submitted by the petitioner before the meeting of the DPC held on 07.06.2018, to the considered opinion of the Court, no fault can be found with the minutes of the meeting of the DPC. It appears that her case was considered by the DPC but she could not be recommended for being promoted to the post of Assistant for want of relevant documents. Therefore, the DPC has rightly promoted the next person in the seniority list to the post of Assistant. Further, it appears that subsequently another DPC meeting was held on 25.01.2022, and this time the petitioner has submitted all the relevant documents and thereafter the DPC recommended her promotion to the post of Assistant. 18. Though the petitioner has made a contention that her seniority has been taken away by the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, yet, it appears that because of her own fault she could not be promoted to the post of Assistant. 18. Though the petitioner has made a contention that her seniority has been taken away by the DPC meeting held on 07.06.2018, yet, it appears that because of her own fault she could not be promoted to the post of Assistant. Having been failed to produce the relevant documents, which are required for consideration for being promoted to the post of Assistant, now she cannot be allowed to take such a stand. The ratio laid down in the case law, referred by her, thus, would not advance her case. This Court has no doubt about the proposition of law, so propounded in the aforesaid case. But, the same would not apply to the facts and circumstance of the case in hand. 19. In view of the above discussion and findings, both the questions that come for consideration of this Court are answered in negative. 20. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and the same stands dismissed. 21. The parties to bear their own costs.