KOPSI PANOR Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the alleged inordinate delay in considering the petitioners for promotion by the authorities concerned, the petitioners, who are working as Assistant Audit Officer/Sub Treasury Officer under the Department of Finance, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, have approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ (s) commanding the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners for promotion.

(2.) The essential facts giving rise to this writ petition are not in dispute. What emerges, in a nut shell, as the undisputed case of the parties is thus: The petitioners have been working as Assistant Audit Officer/Sub Treasury Officer/ Superintendents of Accounts under the Department of Finance, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, and their service conditions are governed by Arunachal Pradesh, (Accounts Officer/Treasury Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1993 (herein after referred to as the Recruitment Rules). There are three ways for recruitment to the posts of Group B, namely, Accounts Officer/Treasury Officers. According to the Recruitment Rules, 25% of these posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment, 37.5% by promotion and 37.5% by departmental examination. Out of 37.5% of the promotional quota, 60% are to be filled up from amongst the Inspecting Auditor (now called as Assistant Audit Officers), 12% from Superintendent of Accounts and 28% from Sub Treasury Officers. In the year 1996, four posts of Accounts Officer and Treasury Officers were created. Out of these four posts, two posts were for Inspecting Auditor, one for Sub Treasury Officer and one for Superintendent of Accounts. In the year 1999, as many as six such promotional posts were created. Out of these six promotional posts, two were for Inspecting Auditor (now called as Assistant Audit Officer), two for Sub-Treasury Officers and two for Superintendent of Accounts. In the year 2000, eleven promotional posts were created. Out of these eleven posts, five posts were for Assistant Audit Officers, three for Sub Treasury Officer and three for Superintendent of Accounts. Recruitment, by way of promotion to the posts of Accounts Officer/Treasury Officers, have not been made since 1996. In fact, the process for filling of the said posts by departmental promotion commenced in the year 2002, but even this process has not been brought to its logical conclusion due to non-availability of ACRs of some of the employees concerned. Confronted with this situation, the Department concerned has referred the matter to the Departmental Promotion Committee giving them certain guidelines (Annexure C to the affidavit-in-opposition of the State- respondents) whereby the DPC has been requested that for the purpose of evaluation, if the ACRs are not available, the DPC should consider the confidential report of the year preceding the period, in question, and if even confidential report of the preceding year is not available, then, the Confidential Report of the lower grade should be taken into account and if even Confidential Reports of lower grade are not available, all available Confidential Reports should be taken into account. The guidelines had been issued on 17.6.2002. The matter has, however, rested there and no further action has been taken.

(3.) I have perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. BL Singh, learned Senior Govt Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents.