Page No.# 1/6 GAHC040006692025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : Review Pet./4/2025 Manoj Kumar Rai and 16 Ors Son of Late Bashishta Rai, Resident of Down Police Colony, Naharlagun, PO Naharlagun, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Tator Bui Age: Occupation : Son of Taa Bui presently working at Daporijo Police Station PO Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Tagio Leriak Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Take Leriak presently working posted at Palin Police Station PO PS and District Kra Daadi Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Gemo Jini Age: Occupation : Son of Late Rege Jini presently working at Roing Police Station Lower Dibang Valley District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Pema Wangchu Age: Occupation : Son of Zongdhar Norbu presently working at Tawang Page No.# 2/6 District Tawang Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Niri Rama Age: Occupation : Son of Late Niri Talo presently working at Doimukh Police Station PO Doimukh Papum pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Techi Tado Age: Occupation : Son of Late T Solo presently working at Itanagar Police Station PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Vijay Kumar Age: Occupation : Son of Late R J Singh presently working at Tezu Police Station PO and PS Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Koncho Tsering Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tsering Mindup presently working at Tawang Police Station PO PS and District Tawang Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Pema Jamsten Age: Occupation : Son of S Choida presently working at Yingkiong Police Station PO and PS Yingkiong Upper Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 3/6 11: Licha Taj Age: Occupation : Son of Late Licha Kan presently working at Ziro Police Station PO and PS Ziro Lower Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 12: M Bharali Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tara Prasad Bharali presently working at Daporijo Police Station Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 13: Joram Takap Age: Occupation : Son of Late Joram Son presently working at Yupia Police Station PO and PS Naharlagun Papum pare (Rural) District Arunachal Pradesh. 14: T N Namsa Age: Occupation : Son of Sang Ngoiru Namsa presently working at Tawang Police Station PO PS and District Tawang Arunachal Pradesh. 15: Lobsang Gendhen Age: Occupation : Son of Kelsang Lhundup presently posted at Changlang Police Station Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 16: Danny Sarke Age: Occupation : Son of Tading Sarke presently posted at Daporijo Police Station Page No.# 4/6 PO and PS Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 17: Tate Nabam Age: Occupation : Son of H Nabam presently posted at Doimukh Police Station PO and PS Doimukh Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Secretary (Home) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar 2:The Commissioner of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Home Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 3:The Director General of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Home Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 791111 4:The Inspector General of Police Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Home Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Uttam Deka, K Gara,M Lego,Wanglat Khomrang,Tame Rimi,Tadar Bai,Chorpok Modi Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Page No.# 5/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 03.06.2025 (A.D.Chouhdury,J) 1. Heard Mr. U. Deka, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh. 2. The present review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by us in WA No. 02/2024. 3. The petitioners herein preferred the connected writ appeal i.e. WA/2/2024 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.05.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, in WP(C) 235/2023. The learned Single Judge by the said judgment dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the employees do not have the fundamental legal right, much less legal right to be promoted to a higher post. Accordingly, it was opined that though the petitioners may have completed six years of service as required to be promoted way back in the year 2020, they donot have any vested right to be promoted as Sub Inspector of Police (Civil) as soon as they complete six years of service. 4. This Court in its order under review dated 19.02.2025 observed that though an employee does not have a fundamental right to be promoted to a higher post, however, right of consideration for promotion is now given a status of fundamental right. Be that as it may, an affidavit was filed by the appellants in the proceeding of writ appeal bringing on record that the all the appellants, seventeen in numbers have in the meantime promoted by order dated 30.09.2024. Page No.# 6/6 5. Now the present review petition is filed seeking a review to the effect that it was inadvertently pleaded in the affidavit that the petitioners were promoted by order dated 30.09.2024, rather it should have been pleaded as “regularization” inasmuch as by order dated 03.02.2023, services of the petitioners were regularized and accordingly a review is sought. 6. This Court is of the opinion that whether the order dated 30.09.2024 is an order of regularization or an order of promotion shall not touch on the merit of determination made by this Court under its order dated 19.02.2025 and/or shall have any impact on the decision that was rendered by this Court in the order under review. In fact, the order dated 03.02.2023 was not at all subject of adjudication in the order under review. 7. That being the position, the use of the word “promotion” by this Court under the order of review based on the pleading made in the affidavit by the appellant instead of “regularization” shall have no bearing on the determination already made. That being the position, this Court finds no merit in this review petition. Accordingly, same stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant