I.A. Ansari, J.
1. With the help of the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is presently serving as a Station Superintendent in the department of Arunachal Pradesh State Transport, (hereinafter referred to as 'the APST department') has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ/writs setting aside and quashing the order, dated, 23.03.2002 (Annexure P/7 to the writ petition), whereby the department concerned has promoted the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to the posts of Senior Station Superintendent, and commanding the respondents to promote the petitioner to post of Senior Station Superintend with effect from 29.11.1995.
2. In a nutshell, petitioner's case may be narrated as follows : The petitioner joined the APST department, on 22.3.1976, as an Upper Division Clerk, he was promoted as an Assistant Station Superintendent on 28.2.1983 and by order, dated 18.2.1987 (Annexure P/1 to the writ petition), the petitioner, who is person from unreserved category, was promoted to the post of Station Superintendent. According to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh State Transport Department (Group C Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1986, the next promotional post for a Station Superintendent is Senior Station Superintendent. The post of Senior Station Superintendent has to be filled up by promotion from amongst the serving Station Superintendents of the department with six years of regular services in the grade. As the petitioner has been made Station Superintendent on 18.2.1987, became eligible for receiving promotion as Senior Station Superintendent on 18.2.1993. On the basis of 40 point roster, which governed the promotion in the department concerned, the second promotional post of Senior Station Superintendent was meant for person reserved category and the petitioner, being the senior-most Station Superintendent under the un-reversed category, ought to have been promoted accordingly. Ignoring this aspect of the matter, State respondents promoted three numbers of Station Superintendents to the post of Senior Station Superintendent. However, one of the persons, who was so promoted, namely, Shri Tako Takey died in the year 1997. Though the post of Senior Station Superintendent, thus, fell vacant, State respondents did not promote the petitioner. Despite several representations made by the petitioner seeking promotion, the same was ignored by the taking recourse to the Government orders, dated 15.10.1997 and 8.9.2001 (Annexures C and B respectively to the Affidavit-in-Opposition), which imposed a ban on filing up on non-plan posts. However, the Government changed its promotional policy by notification, dated 1.2.2001 (Annexure P/9 to writ petition), whereby promotions were required to be made on the basis of 100-point roster. The State respondents, thereafter, promoted private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by impugned order, dated, 23.4.2002 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). The promotions were so accorded to the said two private respondents on the basis of the notification, dated 1.2.2001, aforementioned, though this notification clearly states that the promotional policy of 100-point roster will not apply in matters of determination of seniority and also clearance of backlogs. Since the petitioner became eligible for promotion as far back as in the year 1993 and post of a Senior Station Superintendent had become available in the year 1997 itself on account of the demise of Shri Tako Takey aforementioned, petitioner's case was a case of backlog promotion and the notification, dated 1.2.2001, could not have been legally applied for according promotions to the two private respondents aforementioned.
3. The respondents have contested this case by filing their Affidavit-in-Opposition, their case, being briefly, stated, thus : Though the petitioner is the senior-most Station Superintendent as per the relevant seniority list and though a post of Senior Station Superintendent had fallen vacant in October 1997, the petitioner could not be promoted to said post on account of the Government order, dated, 15.10.1997 (Annexure C to the Affidavit-in-opposition) banning, due to financial constrains, filling up of all non-plan posts. Subsequently, when the occasion arose for promoting the Station Superintendents to the posts of Senior Station Superintendent, the Government policy with regard to promotion got changed from 40-point roster to 100-point roster, vide orders, dated, 21.9.2002 and 1.2.2001 (Annexure E and F respectively to the Affidavit-in-Opposition). The petitioner's case could not be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 19.4.2002 as both the posts of Senior Station Superintendents were, according to 100-point roster, not meant for candidates of un-reserved category. The petitioner has, thus, been legally ignored from being promoted.
4. I have carefully perused the materials on record including the relevant Recruitment Rules and the promotional policies. I have heard Mr. R. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.L. Singh, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf on the State respondents. The two private respondents aforementioned have not contested this case.
5. On perusal of the materials on record and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, what attracts my eyes, most prominently, is that the facts, relevant for disposal of this writ petition, are not in dispute. The petitioner, admittedly, received promotion as a Station Superintendent on 18.2.1987 and under the relevant Recruitment Rules, he became eligible for promotion to the post of Senior Station Superintendent on 18.2.1993, i.e., after six years of regular services in the grade of Station Superintendent. While three Station Superintendents, namely Sir Doi Dirchi, Sir Pintom Loyi and Sri Toko Takey were promoted, on 29.11.1995, to the posts of Senior Station Superintendent, the petitioner was ignored. A post of Senior Station Superintendent fell vacant in 1997, when Shri Tako Takey aforementioned died. At the relevant time, the 40-point roster system for promotion was in vogue and as per this promotional policy, the petitioner, being senior-most Station Superintendent, was eligible for promotion as a candidate from un-reserved category. The petitioner was, however, not promoted on account of the ban, which the State Government had imposed on filling up of non-plan posts. The next promotion in the APST department took place in year 2002, i.e., when the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were promoted vide order, dated 23.4.2002, aforementioned to the posts of Senior Station Superintendent, but this time too, petitioner's case was ignored on the ground that promotional policy vide Government order, dated 1.2.2001, aforementioned had changed from 40-point roster to 100-point roster.
6. It is of utmost importance to note that while changing, vide notification, dated 1.2.2001, the promotional policy from 40-point roster to 100-point roster, the notification made it clear that the new promotional policy will not apply to the matters of determination of seniority and clearance of backlog.
7. In view of the fact that the petitioner became eligible for promotion as far back as in October 1993 and post for promoting him to the grade of Senior Station Superintendent fell vacant in the year 1997, his case was, undoubtedly a case of filling up of back-log promotion. To a pointed querry made by this Court, learned Senior Govt. Advocate candidly concedes that petitioner's case was a case of back-log promotion. In this view of the mater, it is clear that the notification, dated 1.2.2001, aforementioned could not have been applied to the case of the petitioner.
8. What logically follows from above discussion is that when the State respondents decided to fill up the posts of Senior Station Superintendent, they ought have considered petitioner's case for promotion in accordance with 40-point roster system, but having not done so, they have completely ignored the petitioner's case for promotion and instead, they have, vide impugned order, dated 23.4.2002, promoted the two private respondents, which was wholly illegal. If the promotions granted to the two private respondents are allowed to stand good on record, it will cause seripus miscarriage of justice, but I must hasten to add that though the petitioner was claimed promotion to the post of Senior Station Superintendent w.e.f. 29.11.1995, when three Station Superintendents, namely, Shri Doi Dirchi, Sri Pintom Loyi and Sri Tako Takey aforementioned were promoted to the posts of Senior Station Superintendent, the fact remains that the petitioner never challenged the promotion granted to these three persons and he can not, therefore, be promoted w.e.f. 29.11.1995. However, since there was a clear vacancy for promotion to the post of Senior Station Superintendent in October 1997, there is no reason why the petitioner shall not if he is found fit for promotion, be granted promotion w.e.f. October 1997.
9. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety, the impugned order, dated 23.4.2002 (Annexure P/7 to the writ petition) aforementioned is hereby set aside and quashed and State respondents are hereby directed to place, within a period of one month from today, the petitioner's case for promotion before the Department Promotion Committee in accordance with 40-point roster and it the Departmental Promotion Committee clears petitioner's case for promotion, he shall be promoted as a Senior Station Superintendent with effect from October, 1997.
10. With the above observations and directions this writ petition shall stand disposed of.
11. No order as to costs.