Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040000502024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WA/2/2024 Manoj Kumar Rai and 16 Ors. S/o Late Bashishta Rai, R/o Down Police Colony, Naharlagun, PO Naharlagun, Papumpare District, AP 2: Tator Bui Age: Occupation : S/o Taa Bui posted at Daporijo PO Daporijo Upper Subansiri District AP 3: Tagio Leriak Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Take Leriak posted at Palin PO PS and District Kra Daadi AP 4: Gemo Jini Age: Occupation : S/o Late Rege Jini posted at Roing Police Station Lower Dibang Valley District AP 5: Pema Wangchu Age: Page No.# 2/6 Occupation : S/o Zongdhar Norbu posted at Tawang District Tawang AP 6: Niri Rama Age: Occupation : S/o Late Niri Talo presently posted at Doimukh Police Station PO Doimukh Papumpare District AP 7: Techi Tado Age: Occupation : S/o Late T Solo posted at Itanagar Police Station AP 8: Vijay Kumar Age: Occupation : S/o Late R J Singh posted at Tezu Lohit District AP 9: Koncho Tsering Age: Occupation : S/o Late Tsering Mindup posted at Tawang PO PS and District Tawang AP 10: Pema Jamsten Age: Occupation : S/o S Choida posted at Yingkiong Upper Siang District AP 11: Licha Taj Page No.# 3/6 Age: Occupation : S/o Late Licha Kan posted at Ziro PO Ziro Lower Subansiri District AP 12: M Bharali Age: Occupation : S/o Late Tara Prasad Bharali posted at Daporijo Upper Subansiri District AP 13: Joram Takap Age: Occupation : S/o Late Joram Son posted at Yupia Police Station Papumpare (Rural) District AP 14: T Namsa Age: Occupation : S/o Sang Ngoiru Namsa posted at Tawang PO PS and District Tawang AP 15: Lobsang Gendhen Age: Occupation : S/o Kelsang Lhundup posted at Changlang Police Station Changlang District AP 16: Danny Sarke Age: Occupation : S/o Tading Sarke posted at Daporijo Police Station Upper Subansiri District AP Page No.# 4/6 17: Tate Nabam Age: Occupation : S/o H Nabam presently posted at Doimukh Papumpare District A VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Secretary (Home) Govt of AP, Itanagar 2:The Commissioner of Home Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of AP Itanagar 3:The Director General of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of AP Itanagar 4:The Inspector General of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of AP Itanaga Advocate for the Petitioner : Uttam Deka, T Char,Dusu Rillung,Michi Tara,Chorpok Modi Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), -BEFORE- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG -O R D E R- 19.02.2025 (A.D. Choudhury, J) Page No.# 5/6 1. Heard Mr. U Deka, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by a judgment dated 18.05.2023. The petitioners, seventeen in numbers, approached this court by filing WP(C) 235/2023. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 18.05.2023 dismissed their petition on the ground that the employees do not have the fundamental right much less legal right to be promoted to a higher post. Accordingly, it was opined that though the petitioners may have completed 6 years of service as required to be promoted way back in the year 2020, they do not have any vested right to be promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police(Civil) as soon as they complete six years of service. 3. An affidavit has been filed by the appellants bringing on record that all the appellants, seventeen in numbers, have in the meantime been promoted by order dated 30.09.2024. 4. It is true that an employee does not have a fundamental right to be promoted to a higher post, however, it is equally well settled that right to consideration for promotion is now given a status of a fundamental right. 5. Be that as it may, as the State has already considered the case of the petitioners for promotion and they have also been promoted, therefore, nothing survives to be adjudicated in the present case. Accordingly, the present writ appeal stands closed with the aforesaid observation. It is needless to say that if the appellants are aggrieved by any term and conditions of their promotion including seniority, retrospective benefits etc. they shall always be at liberty to approach the learned Single Judge in this regard and in the event the petitioners approach, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 18.05.2023 in WP(C) 235/2023 shall not be an obstruction for consideration. Page No.# 6/6 6. With the aforesaid observation, the present writ appeal stands closed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant