Page No.# 1/15 GAHC040004322025 2026:GAU-AP:924 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/118/2025 Shri Biri Taha and 3 Ors Son of Late Biri Tai, permanent resident of Village Rakso, PO and PS Palin, Kra Daadi District, Arunachal Pradesh and place of posting Sangram, Po and PS Sangram, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh. 2: Khamjat Ajang Age: Occupation : Son of Shri Jaho Ajang permanent resident of Wasathong Village PO and PS Deomali Tirap District Arunachal Pradesh and presently post as Circle Officer Longding PO and PS Longding Longding District Arunachal Pradesh. 3: Smti Jyoti Borang Age: Occupation : Daughter of Late Apel Borang permanent resident of Village Ngorlung PO and PS Ruksin East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh and post as Circle Officer O/o ADC Ruksin Arunachal Pradesh. 4: Nabam Tarang Age: Occupation : Son of Late Nabam Taya Circle Officer cum I/C SDO Page No.# 2/15 Dollungmukh Kamle District Arunachal Pradesh VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Commissioner/ Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Personnel Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar PO and PS Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Nikita Danggen, Nani Kuru,Honi Tana Tara,Karmu Chotton,Oken Duggong Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), Advocate for the Petitioners : Ms. N. Danggen, Adv. Advocate for the respondents : Mr. S. Tapin, Sr. Govt. Adv. Date on which judgment was reserved : 14.09.2026. Date of pronouncement of judgment : 21.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : NA operative part of the judgment? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? - BEFORE- THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate Page No.# 3/15 representing the respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by non-consideration of their cases for giving retrospective effect to the petitioners’ appointment as APCS (Entry Grade) (Circle Officer) w.e.f. 29.06.2017 at par with other similarly situated officers. 3. The petitioners’ case is that they were amongst 18 candidates shortlisted for facing interview for recruitment to the post of APCS (Entry Grade), otherwise known as Circle Officer in the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service in the year, 2017. The recruitment process was initiated for Lateral Entry of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Services (Entry Grade) in terms of Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service Rule, 2006. Amongst 21 candidates, 18 candidates were shortlisted which included the petitioners. The petitioners after being shortlisted and after various scrutiny procedures were called for interview/ viva-voce. The recruitment process which commenced on 13.08.2014 was going on for a long time and on 03.03.2017, a date was fixed for interview/viva voce. When they arrived for appearing in the interview/viva voce, they were informed about the Office Memorandum dated 28.02.2017 (formally issued on 02.03.2017). By the aforesaid Office Memorandum, the cut off marks of 45% was introduced for the interview/viva voce. 4. In terms of the Office Memorandum, the petitioners were not selected for the post of Circle Officer in the aforesaid lateral entry recruitment process. Being highly aggrieved by the aforesaid non- Page No.# 4/15 selection, the petitioners filed a writ petition which was numbered and registered as WP (C) 241 (AP) 2017 on the ground that the said Office Memorandum was illegal and it is a settled position of law that ‘Rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has started’’. The Office Memorandum was also challenged on the ground that the same was in conflict with the recruitment Rules holding the field and the said Rules do not give any discretion to the selection committee to prescribe any cut off marks for the interview/viva voce. 5. After due consideration of the aforesaid writ petition, vide judgment and order dated 05.04.2019, the Hon’ble High Court had allowed the writ petition and a direction was issued to the respondent authorities to consider the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of APCS (Entry Grade) (Lateral Entry) without insisting on the cut off marks in the interview/ viva voce and based upon their performance, make the recruitment as per merit and in accordance with law. 6. The State of Arunachal Pradesh had challenged the aforesaid judgment and order dated 05.04.2019 passed in WP (C) 241 (AP) 2017, vide Writ Appeal No. 204/2020 and the same was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, vide judgment and order dated 12.02.2021, which had affirmed the judgment and order dated 05.04.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court passed in WP (C) 241 (AP) 2017. Consequently, in compliance of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 05.04.2019, the petitioners were appointed to the post of Circle Officer, vide Page No.# 5/15 separate orders i.e. order No. PERS-12/1/2021/745, PERS- 12/1/2021/744, PERS-12/1/2021/746 and PERS-12/1/2021/747 respectively. However, since the petitioners were not given any notional appointment at par with the other candidates selected in the year, 2017, on 06.12.2021, the petitioners submitted a joint representation to the respondent authorities requesting that their appointments should be given retrospective effect at par with similarly situated officers who were appointed in the same recruitment process in 2017. The same was not responded to by the respondent authorities and therefore, another joint representation was submitted in the year, 2022 reiterating the same request. The respondent authorities did not respond to both the joint representations submitted by the petitioners. 7. The Department of Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued a Memorandum, i.e., Memo No.-PERS-12/1/ 1/2024 dated Itanagar the 28th August, 2024, whereby, a provisional inter-se- seniority list of APCS officers was published. In the said list, the petitioners were placed below the Circle Officers appointed in the year, 2017, their date of appointment was mentioned as 16.11.2021. It is also stated that the petitioners were, however, placed above and ranked senior to those officers appointed in 2020. The petitioners filed another joint representation dated 24.02.2025 before the respondent authorities praying for immediate redressal of their grievances and the confusion that has been created in the seniority list. However, since the same was also not responded to, the Page No.# 6/15 petitioners have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition. 8. It is sated that the next higher promotional post for APCS (Entry Grade) is the APCS (Senior Grade) under Rule 25 of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service Rules, 2006. An officer in the APCS (Entry Grade) shall have to have a minimum of 5 years of service in the grade to be eligible for promotion to the APCS (Senior Grade). It is stated that some vacant posts for promotion to APCS (Senior Grade) are existing in the Department and therefore, the Department of Personnel, Government of Arunachal Pradesh is in the process of giving promotions to eligible officers. It is stated that for the aforesaid purpose, a communication No.PERS-32012/2/2021 dated Itanagar the 5th February, 2025 has been issued and the petitioners along with other officers who are in the zone of consideration have been directed to obtain No Objection Certificates (for short, ‘NOC’) from work place and Home town along with details of posting of places for obtaining vigilance clearance at the earliest. Accordingly, when the petitioners tried to submit their NOCs, the Department of Personnel informed them verbally that their cases for promotion would not be considered as they have not fulfilled the eligibility criterion of 5 years of service in the post of APCS (Entry Grade) as per the recruitment rules. Accordingly, the petitioners were advised not to submit their NOCs. 9. Ms. N. Danggen, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that due to anomaly in the seniority list, it is quite possible Page No.# 7/15 that later on those officers appointed in the year, 2020 would object to the petitioners’ promotions (if and when granted) as their appointments to the posts of circle officers are entered as 16.11.2021 whereas the direct recruits were appointed in the year, 2020. It is submitted that due to fault of the respondent authorities, the petitioners were not appointed in the year, 2017 along with other similarly placed officers. She submits that since the petitioners had to be appointed in the year, 2021 due to the fault of the respondent authorities and similarly placed officers who have been recruited under the same process had been appointed in the year, 2017, the petitioners should be also given notional appointments on the same date as those officers appointed in the year, 2017. She submits that their appointments were delayed due to the filing of the writ petition by the petitioners and thereafter, the Writ Appeal by the State, which consumed about 4 (four) years and thereby, delayed their appointments to the post of APCS (Entry Grade). She submits that the petitioners should have been given notional appointments from the date of appointment of other similarly placed officers. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the final inter-se-seniority list of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service Officers as on 08.07.2025, the same is placed before this Court and the same is marked as ‘X’ and kept on record. The forwarding letter dated 09.07.2025, wherein, the final inter se-seniority list has been annexed reveals that the date of appointment of the petitioners’ have been kept as same, i.e., in the year 2021. She submits that though the Page No.# 8/15 petitioners are not eligible for any salary for the period from 2017 to 2021, however, the petitioners are eligible to be given notional appointments in the year, 2017 which will put them at par with the other selected candidates who were appointed in the year, 2017. She submits that the law permits such notional appointment in the event a person is illegally not promoted due to the reasons not attributed to the person and subsequently, the person is promoted in a later date. She submits that in such cases notional appointment should be made on the date when others were appointed from the same selection process. In support of her case, the learned counsel has referred to the case of C. Jayachandran-vs-State of Kerala and Others; reported in (2020) 5 SCC 230, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a direct recruit whose appointment is held for no fault on his part due to the latches on the part of the Department, cannot be denied retrospective effect to his appointment when the other candidates faced the same selection process were appointed on an earlier date. 11. On the other hand, the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, Mr. S. Tapin appearing for the State submits that the petitioners were appointed in compliance of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court’s order in WA No. 204/2020 dated 12.02.2021, vide order No. PERS-12/1/2021 dated 16.11.2021. He further submits that for promotion of APCS (Entry Grade) to APCS (Senior Grade) a minimum of 5 years of regular service in the grade is required in terms of Schedule-II (5) of APCS Rules, 2018. He submits that since the petitioners joined their duties Page No.# 9/15 only in 2021, their services can only be counted from 2021 and therefore, there is no question of counting their service from 2017 as they did not perform their duties. He submits that since the petitioners have been appointed only in 2021, they cannot be given any retrospective appointment from 2017. He submits that since they were not borne in the cadre in 2017 but only in 2021, their seniorities have to be counted from 2021 only. He further submits that the petitioners are going to complete 5 years in November, 2026 and therefore, their cases would also be in consideration for promotion to the next higher post of APCS (Senior Grade) when they complete 5 years in service in APCS (Entry Grade) in November, 2026. In support of his submission, the learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the petitioners were not borne in the year, 2017 and since they have been appointed only in 2021, their seniorities have to be counted from 2021, he has referred to the case of K. Meghachandra Singh and Others-vs-Ningam Siro and Others; reported in (2020) 5 SCC 689, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the under the service jurisprudence, seniority cannot be claimed from a date when the incumbent is yet to be borne in the cadre. 12. It is seen from the above that in terms of the aforesaid recruitment process for Lateral Entry of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Service (Entry Grade), 21 candidates applied for the post of APCS (Entry Grade) (Circle Officer), however, 18 candidates were shortlisted including the petitioners. It is seen that the recruitment process Page No.# 10/15 commenced on 13.08.2014 and on 03.03.2017, the date was fixed for interview/viva voce. However, though recruitment process commenced on 13.08.2014, wherein, no criteria of minimum 45% cut off marks in the interview/viva voce was mentioned, the respondent authorities, vide Office Memorandum No. PERS-44/2017 dated Itanagar the 5th February, 2017 laid down the conditions that candidates who failed to secure a minimum of 45% marks in the interview/viva voce, they will not be considered by the Department. The aforesaid Office Memorandum came to be challenged by the petitioners as due to introduction of the minimum cut off marks in the interview/viva voce, the petitioners were not selected. After hearing of the aforesaid writ petition, the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, vide its judgment and order dated 05.04.2019 allowed the writ petition with the following directions:- “23. In view of the aforesaid discussions and after perusal of the materials on record including the original files produced, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the Office Memorandum dated 28.02.2017 (issued on 02.03.2017) is set aside. As the learned counsel for the petitioners had taken a specific stand not to disturb the selection of the private respondents, their selection is not interfered with. Consequently, the cases of the petitioners for appointment to the post of APCS (EG) Lateral Entry be considered without insisting on the cut off marks in the Viva-voce and based upon their performance, make the recruitments as per merit and in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise is directed to be undertaken and complete within an outer limit of 2 (two) months from today”. 13. The aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by the State of Arunachal Pradesh by filing Writ Appeal being WA No. 204/2020 before the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Page No.# 11/15 Gauhati High Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench, vide its judgment and order dated 12.02.2021 dismissed the Writ Appeal with the following observations:- “9. We are of considered view therefore that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition are liable to be affirmed. The Office Memorandum dated 28.02.2017 (issued on 02.03.2017) was liable to be quashed and set aside as it has rightly been done. The learned Single Judge has not interfered with the selection of candidates. As it has already been stated above, there were in total 19 vacancies, and 18 candidates, out of which 14 have already been selected. The ones who have not been selected were before the learned Single Judge and are also before us (as respondents in the present writ appeal), these private respondents have now to be given appointment on the remaining vacancies as has been already directed by the learned Single Judge. An order which we affirm”. 14. Now, the only question which remains to be answered is whether though the petitioners were appointed in the year, 2021, they should have been given notional appointments in the year, 2017 as other 14 candidates who also took part in the said selection process, have been appointed in the year, 2017, due to the fact that the delay in appointments occurred due to reasons attributable to the respondent authorities and not for any fault or latches on the part of the petitioners. 15. In the case of C. Jayachandran (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering a similar issue has observed as follows:- “35. The earlier writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed on 13-9-2010. The Division Bench of the High Court has directed to re-cast the seniority amongst the seven shortlisted candidates. The appellant was one of them. The challenge to the said order by three affected candidates remained unsuccessful when SLP was dismissed by this Court on 8-10-20107. The SLP was filed by the Page No.# 12/15 candidates who were granted benefit of moderation of marks. Once the direction of the Division Bench has attained finality, the appellant was entitled to seniority as per the select list to be revised as per merit of the candidates. In terms of Rule 6(2), the seniority is to be determined the serial order in which the name appeared in the appointment order. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for Respondent 5 that the appellant was not appointed by the same appointment order, therefore, the appellant cannot claim seniority is not tenable. The appellant was entitled to be appointed along with other three candidates but because of the action of the High Court in adopting moderation of marks, the appellant was excluded from appointment. The exclusion of appellant from appointment was on account of an illegal act by the High Court which has been so found by the judgment dated 13-9-2010. Since the select list has to be revised, the appellant would be deemed to be the part of the appointment along with other candidates in the same select list. As the actual date of appointment was on 24-2-2011, the appellant cannot actually be treated to be appointed on 30-3-2009 but is entitled to notional appointment from that date and consequential seniority”. “36. In Sanjay Dhar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court held as under: (SCC p. 191, para 16) "16. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed. The judgment under appeal is set aside. It is directed that the appellant shall be deemed to have been appointed along with other appointees under the appointment order dated 6-3-1995 and assigned a place of seniority consistently with his placement in the order of merit in the select list prepared by J&K PSC and later forwarded to the Law Department". 37. In Lakshmana Rao Yadavalli, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 397. para 13) "13. For the reasons recorded in Lakshmana Rao Yadavalli v. State of A.P.18, the present appeals are allowed and it is directed that the High Court as well as the respondent State will do the needful for giving appointment to the appellant with retrospective effect i.e. from the date on which she ought to have been appointed, however, she shall not be paid salary for the period during which she has not worked as a District and Sessions Judge. We are sure that the respondents will do the needful for the appointment of the appellant at an early date". “38. In view of the above, the appellant having been participated in the same selection process and in view of the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court, was rightly placed by the High Court by giving him revised select list placing him at Sl. No. 41 by pushing Badharudeen from general category candidate to OBC category candidate at Sl. No. 42”. Page No.# 13/15 “39. The appellant was wrongfully excluded from the process of f appointment on account of an illegal and arbitrary grant of moderation of marks. The Government in its Order dated 22-12-2010 cancelled the appointment of three District and Sessions Judges who were granted benefit of moderation. Badharudeen was earlier assigned general category seat but since the appellant was higher in merit, Badharudeen was pushed down and adjusted against OBC category seat at Sl. No. 42. Badharudeen has not challenged his pushing down at Sl. No. 42 either before the learned Single Bench of the High Court or before the Division Bench of the High Court or even before this Court. Therefore, as respondent, he cannot be permitted to dispute the grant of seniority to the appellant at Sl. No. 41. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel is not helpful to the arguments raised as the appellant therein sought seniority as direct recruit from the time when the vacancies occurred. To raise such an argument, reliance was placed upon judgment of this Court reported in Union of India v. N.R., wherein this Court held that a person is disentitled to claim seniority from the date he was not borne in the service. The said finding is in the context of the claim of the appellant to claim seniority from the date of availability of the vacancies; whereas in the present case, the appellant is claiming seniority from the date the other candidates in the same selection process were appointed but the appellant is excluded on account of an illegal act of the High Court of the moderation of marks. Therefore, the said judgment is not of any help to the arguments raised”. 16. From the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, what transpires is that it is an established principle of service jurisprudence that a person cannot be made to suffer due to fault or causes or latches on the part of someone else. The principles of fairness dictates that a candidate who has successfully cleared the selection process and his appointment has been delayed or held solely due to certain false or administrative latches of the appointing authority, he/she cannot be made to suffer due to such fault or administrative latches. If the candidates in the same selection process have been appointed earlier and due to certain latches or fault non attributable to the candidates aggrieved and he is appointed at a later Page No.# 14/15 stage, the appointing authority cannot take advantage of its own default and deny him the retrospective effect to his appointment from the date on which the other candidates, who have been already appointed/ selected, vide the same selection process. Therefore, it is discernible from the above that in the instant case also since the petitioners have been appointed in a delayed manner due to no fault of theirs and similarly situated candidates who have appeared in the same selection process, have been appointed in the year, 2017 only, there is no bar or any hindrance for recognizing their appointments with retrospective effect in a notional manner from the date on which the other candidates have been appointed in 2017. 17. This Court has also considered the case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra). However, the ratio laid down in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) cannot be made applicable to the instant case as the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Meghachandra Singh (supra) is distinguishable from the issued involved in the instant case, since in the present case, the petitioners are claiming seniorities from the date, the other candidates in the same selection process were appointed but the petitioners were excluded on account of reasons attributable to the appointing authorities. 18. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered view that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed and disposed of with the following directions: Page No.# 15/15 (i) The petitioners shall be deemed to have been appointed as APCS (Entry Grade) (Circle Officer) w.e.f. June, 2017, in the month, wherein, the other selected candidates were appointed; (ii) The appointment of the petitioners’ w.e.f. the month of June, 2017 till their actual appointments on 16.11.2021 shall be notional and they shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits. However, the petitioners shall be entitled to all other service benefits as well as consideration for promotion to the next higher post i.e. APCS (Senior Grade); and (iii) The aforesaid exercise is directed to be undertaken and completed within an outer limit of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 19. In the aforesaid terms, the instant writ petition is disposed of, as allowed. 20. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant Digitally signed by TAGE BUNYI Date: 2026.09.21 17:50:27 +05'30'