Page No.# 1/8 GAHC040010992024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/363/2024 Shri Lokap Yangfo and 9 Ors presently serving as Junior Engineer at office of the Chief Engineer, PWD Highway Zone, Itanagar, Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Nabam Sony Age: Occupation : presently serving as Junior Engineer at office of the Executive Engineer PWD Division Doimukh Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Jiken Makcha Age: Occupation : presently serving as Junior Engineer at office of the Executive Engineer PWD Division Raga Kamle District Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Hage Seema Age: Occupation : presently serving as Junior Engineer at office of the Executive Engineer PWD Division Naharlagun Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Kabak Bhatt Age: Occupation : Page No.# 2/8 presently serving as Junior Engineer at office of the Executive Engineer PWD Naharlagun Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Smti Bompi Bam Age: Occupation : presently serving as Junior Engineer at office of the Chief Engineer PWD SID and P Itanagar Papumpare District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Takhe Rikha Age: Occupation : presently serving as Junior Engineer at office of the Executive Engineer PWD Highway Division Khonsa Tirap District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Jumnya Basar Age: Occupation : presently serving as Junior Engineer at office of the Executive Engineer PWD Division Aalo West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Happy Ratan Age: Occupation : presently serving as Junior Engineer at office of the Executive Engineer PWD Division Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Chau Suktan Engling Age: Occupation : presently serving as Junior Engineer at office of the Executive Engineer PWD Division Namsai Namsai District Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 3/8 VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar 2:The Principal Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Building Itanagar. 3:The Joint Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Public Works Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Building Itanagar. 4:The Arunachal Pradesh Public Services Commission Age: 0 Occupation : represented by the Secretary APPSC APPSC Building Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : Tagum Jamoh, Lardam Murtem,N Doji,Keten Tabang Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Ajin Apang, Sr. Advocate,S/C APPSC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI ORDER Date : 04-02-2025 The instant writ petition has been filed with the following prayers: 1. A writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued for Page No.# 4/8 quashing and setting aside the impugned submission/requisition letter vide No. SPWD-11/5/2022-ESTT-PWD/606-08, Dated Itanagar the 5th August 2024, the Joint Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, written to the Secretary Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Itanagar. 2. A Writ in the nature of mandamus shall not issued to the Respondent authorities directing them to allocate 50:50 of all the vacancies of the Assistant Engineers of 2024 to Promotional quota and Direct Recruitment as per the Recruitment to the Post of Assistant Engineer Rules 2005. 3. After hearing the causes, that may be shown, your Lordship may be please to make the rule absolute, quash and set aside the impugned submission/requisition letter vide No. SPWD-11/5/2022- ESTT-PWD/606-08, Dated Itanagar the 5th August 2024, the Joint Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar written to the Secretary APPSC, Itanagar. 4. AND your lordship may be pleased to pass any other order, issue any other direction which your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the ends of Justice. 2. The petition has been instituted by 10 (ten) number of petitioners on the aspect of filling up of vacancies of Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD). The petitioners claim that they are the senior most Junior Engineers (hereinafter the JE) in the Department and as per the Rules holding Page No.# 5/8 the field, the ratio meant for promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineer (hereinafter the AE) from the rank of JE is 50%. The other 50% is for direct recruitment. It is the case of the petitioners, that in the exercise undertaken to determine the vacancies as on 31.12.2024, 38 (thirty-eight) number of vacancies in the post of AE have been earmarked. The grievance of the petitioners, is however, on the aspect that out of the 38 (thirty-eight) vacancies, while the quota for JE should have been 50%, which will amount to 19 (Nineteen), only 7 (Seven) number of posts have been earmarked for the promotional aspect, while 31 (thirty-one) number of posts have been earmarked for direct recruitment. 3. I have heard Shri T. Jamoh, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents. 4. Shri Jamoh, the learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing the attention of this Court, to the Recruitment Rules of the year 2005 has submitted that the Schedule to the said Rule, lays down the method of recruitment to the post of AE. He submits that as per the said Schedule, 50% of the vacancies were to be filled up by promotion, while 50% is to be filled up by direct recruitment. He submits that to be eligible for promotion one JE is required to serve 8 (eight) years as a regular employee and 5 (five) years for Degree Holders in the Grade. He had also informed this Court about an amendment in the year 2008 as per which, there is a requirement for JE(s) who have rendered 8 (eight) years of regular service to pass the accounts examination as JE. He has submitted that all his clients fulfil the required eligibility criteria and have all the qualification for being considered for such promotion. Page No.# 6/8 5. The learned counsel has, however, submitted that from the materials on record including the stand of the State, it appears that the total cadre strength of AE(s) is 145 (One hundred forty-five) and it appears that out of that 102 number of promotees are there and 44 (forty-four) numbers as direct recruitee. He has however, disputed the stand of the State that the numbers which has been arrived at in the name of promotees is not a justified number, inasmuch as in the past, certain post of JE(s) were upgraded along with the manpower, thereby, reducing the actual ratio which was available to JE(s) to get the benefit of promotion. He submits that in the year 2012, such an exercise was there for upgradation of JE(s) to the post of AE(s) along with the persons which was also repeated in the year 2015. He has informed that even recently, in the year 2023, 26 (Twenty-six) numbers of posts of JE(s) had been upgraded to the post of AE(s) with the manpower. On the aspect of the power of relaxation as given in Rule 6 of the Rules of 2005, the learned counsel has submitted that though there is a power to relax, the same could not have bene exercised to upgrade any post along with the manpower and the same is only intended to relax the Rules in case of giving a proper meaning to the recruitment provisions. 6. The learned counsel, accordingly, submits that the State Government be given a direction to identify the numbers of post of AE(s) which are illegally filled up by JE(s) by upgradation of their posts and without following the Rules holding the fields. 7. Per contra, Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh has submitted that the present exercise is done only by adhering to the requirement of the Rules. Though he has not disputed the submissions made that the posts of AE(s) are to be filled up at 50:50 ratio from promotion from Page No.# 7/8 the post of JE(s) and direct recruitment of Engineering Graduates, the cadre strength of 145 (One Hundred Forty-Five) of AE(s), however, is presently filled up by 102 (One Hundred Two) promotees and 44 (Forty-Four) numbers of direct recruitee. He has submitted that only to fulfil the objective of having a 50:50 ratio, the present division of post of 31:7 has been done. As regards the decision of the State to upgrade certain post of JE(s) in the past, along with the manpower, the learned counsel has submitted that the same was done as a policy decision by following the due process of law and the same was not the subject matter of any challenge. He has, however, submitted that to bring back the equilibrium and the ratio of 50:50, the present division is done in the ration 31:7 out of the 38 numbers of vacancy. 8. The foundation of the present challenge is on the basis of the Rules, which provides for filling up the post of AE from the JE and Engineering Graduates in the ration of 50:50. It is, however, a matter of fact that out of the total cadre strength of AE(s) which is 145 (One Hundred Forty Five), 102 (One Hundred Two) numbers are filled up by promotees and 44 (Forty Four) numbers are filled up by direct recruitee. It also transpires that in the year 2012, 2015 and lastly in the year 2023, certain posts of JE(s) were upgraded to the posts of AE(s) along with manpower. The learned counsel has laid immense stress on the aspect that such upgradation is not in accordance with the Rules. Though the aspect of upgradation has been sought to be justified by the learned State counsel who had contended that the same was done strictly in accordance with law, without there being a formal and specific challenge in the process of upgradation, this Court is of the opinion that the said aspect is not liable to be dealt with in this proceeding, more so, when the beneficiaries of those upgradation are not party respondents. In any case, in absence of a specific challenge, this Court would Page No.# 8/8 not be justified in embarking upon an issue which is not even the subject matter of dispute. 9. So far as the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that the power of relax the Rules as provided under Section 6 could not have been applied to upgrade, this Court is of the opinion that the said submission can be considered only in a writ petition, wherein, a specific challenge is made on the aspects of upgradation and not in this present case. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that no effective relief can be granted to the petitioners in this case. The petitioners, however, would be at liberty to put a specific challenge to the process of upgradation said to have been done earlier which, however, is to be considered strictly in accordance with law. 11. Writ petition stands closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant