JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. T. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondents. Prayers:- 2. In this petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order No. YKG-555/2023, dated 14.07.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong, Upper Siang District (DC hereinafter), whereby the petitioner herein was declared as not eligible to be promoted to the post of Political Assistant (PA hereinafter) and further, prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner as PA before constitution of regular Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC hereinafter) in compliance of the Recruitment Rules. Background facts:- 3. The background facts, leading to filing of this petition, are briefly stated as under:- “The petitioner has been working as senior most Public Interpreter (PI hereinafter) in the Office of the DC. He was initially appointed to the post of PI Grade – III, on 17.02.1993 and thereafter, he was promoted to the post of PI Grade – I. The petitioner being the most senior member of PIGrade – I, working in the Office of the DC, is the fittest and most qualified candidate to be promoted to the post of PA, in terms of Recruitment Rules, dated 18.10.1976, he was under legitimate expectation to be promoted to the post of PA in the department of the respondents. But, the respondent authorities have not promoted the petitioner to the post of PA and being aggrieved,he had filed one writ petition, being W.P.(C) No. 557/2023, before this Court and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to dispose of the pending representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the DC, being respondent No. 3, had disposed of the pending representation of the petitioner in terms of the order dated 14.07.2025, wherein the promotion of the petitioner to the post of PA has been denied on the ground that the petitioner cannot be promoted to the post of PA in terms of the standing Recruitment Rules, as because he has lack educational qualification of graduation, in term of the Office Memorandum (OM hereinafter) No. AR-74/2013/Vol-II, dated 29.08.2019 and its subsequent corrigendum, vide OM No. AR/85/2024/SECT-1-AR, dated 11.07.2024.” Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition with the aforementioned reliefs. Submissions:- 4. Mr. Submissions:- 4. Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that while the Recruitment Rules is holding the field, the respondent authorities cannot issue Executive Order or OM to supersede/override the fundamental rules, when the appointment procedure of PA is clearly laid down in the Recruitment Rules. 4.1. Mr. Tapak has pointed out that the feeder cadre for the post of PA is PI Grade – I and that the petitioner has been working as PI Grade – I since long and he is the most suitable person for being promoted to the post of PA. 4.2. Mr. Tapak further submits that in the Recruitment Rules, which is annexed with the petition, as Annexure No. 5, at page No. 24, it is provided that appointment to the cadre of PA will be made from the serving interpreters Grade – I and area superintendents belonging to NEFA tribes on the agency level, taking due care that districts and tribes are duly represented in the service as far as possible on the basis of merit cum seniority, on the recommendation of the DPC and determining the inter-se seniority of the incumbents, service rendered as interpreter Grade – II and III and other equivalent posts as the case may be, will be taken into consideration. There will be no direct recruitment to this cadre. 4.3. Mr. Tapak further submits that the procedure for appointmentis that there should be recommendation from the recommending authority, in respect of the persons who are of outstanding merit and ability and there should be screening board constituted by Governor/DC and the board has to recommend the suitable candidate for promotion to PA, taking into consideration of the following aspects of the candidates, i.e. (a) personality and character; (b) tact, energy, general intelligence; (c) integrity; (d) influence on his own tribe as well as on other tribe; (e) his service can more profitably be utilized by appointment to the cadre of PA; (f) physical fitness; (g) executive ability and (h) any special weight-age for a more backward or sensitive area within NEFA/now Arunachal Pradesh. 4.4. Mr. 4.4. Mr. Tapak also submits that the Recruitment Rules may be treated as a Rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, as because the said Recruitment Rules has been used by the department of the respondent authorities as fundamental rule for appointment of PA and therefore, the Om/Executive Order issued under Article 162 of the Constitution of India (Extent of Executive Power of State) cannot prevailed when the procedure of appointment of PA is clear and lucid and unambiguous. 4.5. Mr. Tapak further submits that the education qualification criteria are not only the sole criteria for appointment in public office, under democratic setup of governance and therefore, in practice, the procedures laid down in the Recruitment Rules,may it be the case of political leaders for contesting Election of MPs &MLAs or appointment as chairman in various post, where educational qualification has not been prescribed. 4.6. Mr. Tapak has also pointed out that the OM in question does not specifically mentioned that it will be applicable for appointment of PA. The standing appointment procedure of PA is being followed by the department of the respondent authorities till date, without any amendment in the Principal Rule/Fundamental Rule and therefore, the Rule making power of the department cannot be mortgaged or supplemented by the Administrative Reformed Department, when the intent and purpose of the Recruitment Rules is clear with regard to appointment of PA, because the executive order can only fill up the gaps or supplement, but not to change or alter the procedure of recruitment as per law or introduce new eligibility criteria, such as educational qualification without any formal amendment in the RecruitmentRules. 4.7. In that view of the matter, Mr. Tapak submits that the executive ordercannot prevail over the Recruitment Rules in case of conflict of law, because it has no statutory force and merely an administrative direction. Moreover, silence over the educational qualification cannot be the sole ground to deny appointment, when procedure of appointment of PA is clear in the Recruitment Rules, because in terms of the settled principle of law Recruitment Rules cannot bebrush aside by issuing executive order or OM, that too without amending the principal/fundamental rules. 4.8. In support of his submission, Mr. Moreover, silence over the educational qualification cannot be the sole ground to deny appointment, when procedure of appointment of PA is clear in the Recruitment Rules, because in terms of the settled principle of law Recruitment Rules cannot bebrush aside by issuing executive order or OM, that too without amending the principal/fundamental rules. 4.8. In support of his submission, Mr. Tapak has referred following decisions:- (i) Union of India vs. Somasundaram Viswanath and Others , AIR 1988 SC 2255 (ii) Ajay Kumar Das vs. State of Orissa and Others , 2009 Supp AIR (SC) 1739 (iii) The District Registrar Palghat and Others vs. M.B. Koyyakutty and Others , 1979 AIR (SC) 1060 (iv) Tabak Hanker vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh , W.P. (C) No. 319(AP)/2016 5. Per-contra, Mr. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate for the respondents submits that the Recruitment Rules, dated 18.10.1967, which is annexed with the petition, as Annexure No. 5, at page No. 24, does not provide any educational qualification for being promoted to the post of PA. Mr. Tapin also submits that the post of PA is a Group – B post. 5.1. Drawing attention of this Court to the Annexure No. 6 of the petition, Mr. Tapin submits that vide order dated 24.11.2000, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh had issued an order that the post of PA shall continue to be Group – ‘B’Gazetted and the pay structure attached to the said post falls under Group – ‘C’ after the revision of pay scale under 5th pay commission. Mr. Tapin also submits that since the post of PA is a Group – ‘B’ Gazette post and since no educational qualification is prescribed in the Recruitment Rules, the respondent authorities have issued the OM dated 29.08.2019, prescribing the educational qualification for Group - ‘A’ and ‘B’ posts and the said OM also covers the category of PA, since it is a Group – ‘B’ post. 5.2. Further, drawing attention of this Court to the Annexure No. 15, the OM dated 29.08.2019, Mr. Tapin submits that vide said OM, the basic educational qualification for being appointed in Group – A & B posts is fixed as Graduate/Bachelor Degree. 5.3. Mr. Tapin has referred to a judgment and order of this Court, passed in W.P.(C) No. 105/2021, dated 15.06.2022, especially paragraph Nos. Tapin submits that vide said OM, the basic educational qualification for being appointed in Group – A & B posts is fixed as Graduate/Bachelor Degree. 5.3. Mr. Tapin has referred to a judgment and order of this Court, passed in W.P.(C) No. 105/2021, dated 15.06.2022, especially paragraph Nos. 12 & 13,which was upheld in a appeal, being W.A. No. 18/2022 and submits that this Court was pleased to deal with the said OM dated 29.08.2019, wherein it is stated that if the Government felt that there is an immediate need for making rules/overriding all existing recruitment rules to have minimum educational qualification as graduation or Bachelor Degree in the entry grade for all Group – A & B posts/services in the State of Arunachal Pradesh and when the Recruitment Rules is silent, the respondent authorities can issue executive order to supplement the same. Mr. Tapin also submit that, therefore, relying upon the said OM, the respondent No. 3, the DC, had issued the impugned order, dated 14.07.2025, rejecting the representation of the petitioner, dated 06.12.2024. 5.3. Under such circumstances, Mr. Tapin submits that the said impugned order suffers from no infirmity or illegality requiring any interference of this Court and therefore, he has contended to dismiss this petition. Consideration of this Court:- 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the Recruitment Rules, dated 18.10.1967 and also the order of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, dated 24.11.2000, (Annexure No. 6) and also the impugned order dated 14.07.2025, passed by the DC. 7. In view of the pleadings of the parties and also in view of the submissions, so advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, the issues, to be decided by this Court are formulated as under:- (a) Whether the State respondents can issue OM/Executive Order prescribing educational qualification while the Recruitment Rules is in force and the field is occupied? (b) Whether the impugned order, dated 14.07.2025, Annexure No. 14 is illegal or arbitrary requiring any interference of this Court? 8. It is not in dispute that the Recruitment Rules for the post of PA is already in force, which was enacted on 18.10.1967. (b) Whether the impugned order, dated 14.07.2025, Annexure No. 14 is illegal or arbitrary requiring any interference of this Court? 8. It is not in dispute that the Recruitment Rules for the post of PA is already in force, which was enacted on 18.10.1967. It is also not in dispute that in the said Recruitment Rules, the educational qualification has not been prescribed for being promoted the Public Interpreter to the post of PA. 8.1. Further, it appears from the Annexure No. 6, the order of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, that the post of PA is a Group – ‘B’ Gazetted post, although the pay structure attached to the said post th falls under Group – ‘C’, after the revision of pay scale under 5 pay commission. 8.2. It also appears that the OM, dated 29.08.2019, the respondent authorities have fixed Graduation/Bachelor Decree as the basic educational qualification for appointment in Group – A & B posts/services. Notably, the said OM is not challenged in this petition. 8.3. Further, from the impugned order, dated 14.07.2025, it appears that the respondent No. 3, the DC had disposed of the representation filed by the petitioner by holding that the petitioner is not eligible for being promoted to the post of PA (Group – B Gazette) for want of minimum prescribed educational qualification as notified by the Government, in its OM dated 29.08.2019 and its subsequent corrigendum dated 11.07.2024. 9. The first issue, so formulated herein above arises, that whether the Government can issue such OM, while the Recruitment Rules is already in force and the filed is occupied. 10. In this context, this Court feels it necessary to refer to some of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, at this point. 10.1. 9. The first issue, so formulated herein above arises, that whether the Government can issue such OM, while the Recruitment Rules is already in force and the filed is occupied. 10. In this context, this Court feels it necessary to refer to some of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court, at this point. 10.1. In the case of A.B. Krishna and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others , (1998) 3 SCC 495 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that as a matter of fact, under Article 309 of the Constitution, once a legislature intervenes to enact a law regulating the conditions of service, the power of the Executive, including the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is totally displaced on the principle of "doctrine of occupied field" and if, however, any matter is not touched by that enactment, it will be competent for the executive to either issue executive instructions or to make a rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India in respect of that matter. 10.2. In the case of P.H. Paul Manoj Pandian vs. P. Veldurai , (2011) 5 SCC 214 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that once a law occupies the field, it will not be open to the State Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India to prescribe in the same field by an executive order. However, it is well recognized that in matters relating to a particular subject in absence of any parliamentary legislation on the said subject, the State Government has the jurisdiction to act and to make executive orders. 10.3. Again in the case of Satya Narain Shukla vs. Union of India and Others , (2006) 9 SCC 69 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “19. The appellant contended that the provision of the Central Staffing Scheme is ultra vires under Articles 309 and 312 of the Constitution of India. 10.3. Again in the case of Satya Narain Shukla vs. Union of India and Others , (2006) 9 SCC 69 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “19. The appellant contended that the provision of the Central Staffing Scheme is ultra vires under Articles 309 and 312 of the Constitution of India. Amplifying this, it is urged by the appellant that several rules have been framed by the Central Government in exercise of its statutory powers under the AIS Act, 1951 i.e. the Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1951; the Indian Administrative Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955;Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954; Indian Administrative Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1987; Indian Administrative Service h (Probation) Rules, 1954; and that these rules occupy the whole field of executive discretion, and, therefore, by the doctrine of occupied field there isno scope left for exercise of executive action outside the purview of these rules. It is difficult to accept this contention. Each one of these rules is intended to take care of a specific facet of IAS. No set of these rules is a exhaustive by itself of all the service conditions applicable to the IAS. It is, therefore, incorrect to contend that the field of possible executive action is completely occupied by the statute or the statutory rules framed thereunder, deriving force from Article 309 read with Article 312 of the Constitution. We have not been shown any provisions in these Rules which deal specifically with the subject of the procedure for selection of officers from the said cadre for the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary to the Government of India. This is a subject in respect of which the field does not appear to be occupied. Consequently, it was very much open to the executive to resort to executive instructions by way of an office memo for dealing with this subject. The contention, therefore, must fail.” 10.4. It is to be noted here that a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Mahendra Nath Mudoi and Others vs. State of Assam and Others, (2017) 6 GLR 381 , has also echoed similar principle by holding that if any matter is not touched by that enactment, it will be competent for the executive to either issue executive instructions or to make a rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India in respect of that matter. 11. 11. Thus, what can be crystallized from the aforementioned discussions is that when the field is occupied, with the enactment of the Act and Rules, then the State respondents has no authority to issue any Executive Order/OM to supplement the same, by exercising its jurisdiction, under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. But, when any matter is not touched by that enactment/rule, it will be competent for the executive to either issue executive instructions or to make a rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India in respect of that matter, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of A.B. Krishna (supra) ; P.H. Paul Manoj Pandian (supra) and Satya Narain Shukla (supra). 12. As in the instant case, the Recruitment Rules is silent in respect of the ‘educational qualification’ for PI, which is the feeder cadre of the post of PA, being promoted to the post of PA, which is indisputably a Group – ‘B’Gazetted post, the respondents authorities herein are competent to supplement the matter, which is not covered by the enactment. In that view of the matter, the Notification (which is not challenged in this petition) cannot be said to be devoid of any force. 12.1. On such count, the submission, so advanced by Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted. 12.2. This Court has gone also through the decisions referred by him. In the case of Somasundaram Viswanath (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when there is conflict between an OM/Executive Instruction and Rules, then the fundamental rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India will prevail over the supplementary rules/OM/Administrative Instructions where rule is clear. 12.3. In the case of Ajay Kumar Das (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that Executive Notification/Instruction (including policy decision or OMs) cannot override or supersede statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 12.4. In the case of The District Registrar Palghat (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the gap, on any point, in statutory rules or law enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, can be filled up by Government by administrative instructions, provided these are not inconsistent with rules or law. 12.5. Again, in the case of Tabak Hanker (supra) , this Court has held that OM cannot prevail over the Recruitment Rules unless amended. 12.6. 12.5. Again, in the case of Tabak Hanker (supra) , this Court has held that OM cannot prevail over the Recruitment Rules unless amended. 12.6. There is no quarrel at the bar about the propositions laid down in the said cases. But, this Court afraid that said propositions would not advance the argument of Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of the fact that in the instant case there is no conflict in the Recruitment Rules and OM as nothing is provided in the Recruitment Rules regarding educational qualification. It is not the case of the petitioner that something is provided in the Rule regarding educational qualification and something else is provided in the OM, which cannot be reconciled and only in that case, the Rule will prevail. 13. In view of the discussion and finding so recorded by this Court in the foregoing paragraphs, the submission of Mr. Tapak, learned counsel for the petitioner, cannot be accepted and also the same would not advance his argument. 14. Accordingly, the issue No. (i), so formulated by this Court, is answered in affirmative. 14.1. In view of the affirmative decision on the issue No. (i) and also examining the impugned order, dated 14.07.2025, in the light of the principles discussed herein above, this Court is of the view that the impugned order, whereby the representation filed by the petitioner was disposed of and thereby, rejected his claim for being promoted to the post of PA, the issue No. (ii) has to be answered in negative and accordingly, the same stands answered. 15. This Court is inclined to reiterate again, even at the cost of repetition also that, the OM, by which minimum qualification for being appointed in the post of Group– A & B post, has not been challenged in this petition by the petitioner. However, this OM was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 105/2021 and W.P.(C) No. 99/2021, but the same was upheld in the common judgment and order dated 15.06.2022 and also the same was affirmed in W.A. No. 18/2022, vide judgment and order dated 04.01.2023. 16. Under the given facts and circumstances on the record, this Court finds no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.