Gauhati High Court - Itanagar
WP(C)/424/2025 on 18 December, 2025
Page No.# 1/17
GAHC040011562025 2025:GAU-AP:1409
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C)/315/2025
1. Phongam Josaham
AGE:- 45 Years
S/O:- Lt. W. Josaham
Mopa Khat Village, P/O-Kanubari,
Longding District, (A.P)
Place of Posting:- 1st IRBn, BHQ,
Namsangmukh
2. Rinchin Dakpa
AGE: 46 Years
S/O :- Lt. Sonam Topgey
Changdu Village, P/O & District -
Tawang, (A.P)
Place of Posting :-PHQ, MT, Chimpu
Unit-4th IRBn, Jully
3. Pennya Potom
AGE:-43 Years
S/O :- Karpak Potom
Degi Potom Village, P/O Dark,
West Siang District (A.P)
Page No.# 2/17
Place of Posting:- OPS Branch, PHQ,
Itanagar
Unit:-3rd IRBn Seijosa
4. Duyu Aago
AGE:-46 Years
S/O:- Lt. Duyu Atoh
Reru Village, P/O-Ziro,
Lower Subansiri District (A.P)
Place of Posating :-PTC, Banderdewa
Unit:- 2nd IRBn, Diyum
5. Yomto Riram
AGE:-43 Years
S/O:- Karyom Riram
Essichiku village, Lepa Rada District
(A.P)
Place of Posting:- C.C, C-Coy, 3ra IRBn,
Camp, Chimpu, Itanagar
6. Ige Gamlin
AGE:- 47 Years
S/O :- Gei Gamlin
Laggi Gamlin Village, P/O-Yomcha,
West Siang District (A.P)
Place of Posting :- C.C 5th IRBn, Tezu
(Lohit)
7. Michi Sambyo
AGE:- 47 Years
Page No.# 3/17
S/O :- Michi Ruja
Michi Village, P/O-Ziro,
Lower Subansiri District, (A.P)
Place of Posting:- 4th IRBn, BHQ,
Jully, Itanagar
...........Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State of Arunachal Pradesh
represented by Chief Secretary, Govt of
Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
2. The Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Govt of Arunachal
Pradesh, Itanagar.
3. The Commissioner, Home Department,
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
4. The Director General of Police,
Arunachal Pradesh Police,
PHQ, Chimpu, Itanagar
5. Shri Deepak Langkam, S/o Lt.
Maggul Langkam, aged about 59
years, presently posted at PHQ, Itanagar,
P.o & P.s Itanagar,
Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
Page No.# 4/17
6. Phassang Simi, So Lt. Phassang
Tanang, aged about 54 years,
presently posted as Officer-in-Charge
Doimukh Police Station, Papumpare
District, Arunachal Pradesh.
7. Mipak Riba, S/o Lt. Momi Riba,
aged about 54 years, presently posted
at Anti Corruption Branch, Itanagar, P.o
& P.s Itanagar, Papumpare District,
Arunachal Pradesh.
8. Tashi Yangi, So Lt. Tanong Yangki,
aged about 50 years, presently
posted at PHQ, Itanagar, P.o & P.s
Itanagar, Papumpare District,
Arunachal Pradesh.
9. Minli Geyi, So Kimin Geyi, aged
about 46 years, presently posted at
Seppa Police Station, East kameng
District, Arunachal Pradesh.
10. Rajen Yekar, So Shri Tabik Yekar,
aged about 50 years, presently
posted at PHQ, Itanagar, P.o & P.s
Itanagar, Papumpare District,
Arunachal Pradesh.
Page No.# 5/17
11. Inya Ete, S/o Lt. Roi Ete, aged about
49 years, presently posted at ACB,
Itanagar, P.o & P.s Itanagar,
Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
12. Khiksi Yangfo, So Lt. Taro Yangfo,
aged about 50 years, presently
posted at PS, Itanagar, P.o & P.s
Itanagar, Papumpare District,
Arunachal Pradesh.
13. Jumli Kamduk, S/o Lt. Tojum
Kamduk, aged about 47 years,
presently posted at PHQ, Itanagar,
P.o & P.S Itanagar, Papumpare
District, Arunachal Pradesh.
14. Tapun Messar, So Shri Tanyok
Messar, aged about 49 years,
presently posted at PHQ, Itanagar,
P.o & P.s Itanagar, Papumpare
District, Arunachal Pradesh.
15. Torun Mai, S/o Lt. Mai Tara, aged
about 48 years, presently posted at
PS, Papuhill, P.o & P.s Naharlagun,
Papumpare District, Arunachal
Pradesh.
16. Techi Nega, S/o Techi Rukh, aged
Page No.# 6/17
about 43 years, presently posted at
ACB, Itanagar, P.o & P.s Itanagar,
Papumpare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
........Respondents
Linked Case: WP(C)/269/2025
1. Sri Millo Ruja, S/O. Late Millo, Aged About 45 Years, Hanyang, Resident Of Chimpu, Itanagar, P.S.- Chimpu, Dist. Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh.
2. Sri Mitor Kino, S/O. Late Songni Kino, Aged About 41 Years, R/O. Chimpu, Itanagar, P.S.- Chimpu, Dist. Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh.
3. Sri. Kayin Ering, S/O. Late A. Ering, Aged About 48 Years, R/O. Niti Bihar, Itanagar, P.S- Niti Bihar, District Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh.
4. Tadar Nachung, S/O. Late Tako Hinda, Aged About 42 Years, R/O. Chimpu, Itanagar, P.S.- Chimpu, Dist.
Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh.
5. Bedum Borang, S/O. Late Oki Borang, Aged About 45 Years, R/O. Niti Bihar, Page No.# 7/17 Itanagar, P.S- Niti Bihar, Dist.-Papum Pare, Arunachal Pradesh.
.......Petitioners
-Versus-
1. The State Of Arunachal Pradesh, Represented By Its Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
2. The principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
3. The Commissioner, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
4. The Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
5. The Inspector General Of Police, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
6. The Deputy Inspector General Of Police (E), PHQ, Itanagar.
7. The Assistant Inspector General Of Police, (Establishment) Police Head Page No.# 8/17 Quarters, Itanagar.
8. The Secretary, Finance, Government Of Arunachal Pradesh.
.....Respondents Linked Case: WP(C)/424/2025
1. Tadar Nachung, aged about 42 years, S/o Lt. Tako Hinda Tadar, Vill- Yuba, po/ps - Nyapin, distt. - Kurung kumey AP, PRESENT ADD- O/O Commandant 4th IRBN BHQ Jully.
Mobile: 7005192159
2. MITOR KINO, AGE: 46 Years, S/O:- Lt.
Songni Kino, 1st IRBn, BHQ, Chimpu, Itanagar. Mobile: 9362371423.
3. Kayin Ering, aged about 48 years, Unit- 5th IRBn (APP), BHQ Pasighat, Present Add. C/O SP cum CSLO, HCM security office establishment, Itanagar. Mobile: 7005507373
4. MILLO RUJA, AGE:- 45 Years, S/O:- Lt.
Millo Halyang, 1st IRBn, BHQ, Chimpu, Itanagar. Mobile: 8794292933.
Page No.# 9/17
5. Bedum Borang, aged about 45 years, S/o Lt Oki Borang, Village Kiyit, PO/PS Mebo, Dist East Siang. Present Address: 0/0 HCM Security Cell Itanagar. Unit 5th IRBn BHQ Pasighat.
Mobile: 7005717148 ...... Petitioners
--Versus-
1. The State of Arunachal Pradesh represented by Chief Secretary, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
3. The Commissioner, Home Department, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
4. The DirectorGeneral ofPolice, Arunachal Pradesh Police, PHQ, Chimpu, Itanagar ......... Respondents Page No.# 10/17 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Advocates for the Petitioners: Mr. T. Pertin, Adv.
Mr. R. B. Yadav, Adv.
Advocate for the Respondents: Mr. N. Ratan, Addl. A.G Mr. D. Panging, Private Respondent Date on which judgment is reserved : 11.12.2025 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 18.12.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced? : Yes JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV) All these matters are being disposed of by this common order since the issues involved are common and similar.
[2.] Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/315/2025 and WP(C)/424/2025. Also heard Mr. R. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the Page No.# 11/17 petitioners in WP(C)/269/2025; Mr. N. Ratan, learned Addl. Advocate General for the State respondents in all the cases and Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the private respondent in WP(C)/315/2025.
[3.] By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners seek for a direction to the respondent authorities to immediately hold Departmental Promotion Committee for considering the case for promotion to the post of Arunachal Pradesh Police Service (Entry Grade) hereafter referred to as APPS (EG) for short. According to the petitioners 19(nineteen) vacancies to the post in question has arisen between 09.03.2022 to 30.11.2023 and therefore, the vacancies should be filled up in terms of the Rules in force when the vacancies have occurred. The petitioners contend that proposal for conducting DPC for promotion to the rank of APPS(EG) was sent by the Office of the Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Itanagar on 21.12.2023 to the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Home Department and that as per the information furnished to the petitioners, number of vacant post from 01.03.2022 to 06.12.2023 is 19 (nineteen) posts. Despite the proposal, since the official respondents have failed to take any steps to complete the process of the DPC the petitioners are before this Court.
[4.] It may be stated herein that the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1989 which provides for promotion to the post of APPS(EG) from the post of Inspector of Police was amended by the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service (Amendment) Rules, 2006 (Rules of 2006) and the same was notified on 03.08.2006. Rules 6 of the Rules of 2006 provides for the amendment of Rule 12(1) of the Principal Rules and substituting the same with Rule 12 (i) (a) which provides that the Departmental Promotion Committee shall consider from time to time the cases of Officers eligible under Sub-Clause (iv) of Clause (b) of Rule Page No.# 12/17 5 who have served in the cadre of Inspector of Police including Arunachal Pradesh Police (Civil), Arunachal Armed Police Battalion and Indian Reserved Battalion etc., for not less than 5 years and prepare the list of Officers recommended taking into account the actual vacancy at the time of selection and those likely to occur in the year. The Selection shall be made on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. In other words the amended Rules of 2006 provides an opportunity for persons in the cadre of Inspector of Police, Civil, Armed Battalion or Reserved Battalion not having less than 5 years of service to be considered for promotion to the APPS (EG).
[5.] Subsequently, the Rules of 2006 was amended by the Arunachal Pradesh Police Service (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2023 (Rules of 2023) which came into force from the date of its publication in the Official Gazette i.e., 28.12.2023. As per Rules 4 (iv) of the Rules of 2023, Rule 5 (1) in Clause (c) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 in the existing entries is to be substituted. Rule 4(iv) provides that APPS (EG) post of Sub-Divisional Police Officer/ Deputy Superintendant of Police/Assistant Commandant (AAPBn) Assistant Commandant (IRBn) shall be filled up by promotion from amongst the eligible Officers belonging to the respective feeder Grade/Cadre/Post of Inspector of Police (Civil/AAPBn/IRBn) as specified under Clause (b) (i) of Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 12 and Rule 26. In other words personnel belonging to the respective feeder grade of Inspector of Police either Civil, AAPBn or IRBn would be eligible for promotion in their respective feeder grade cadre.
[6.] The Rules of 2023 was again amended by the Arunachal Pradesh Service (Amendment) Rules, 2025 (Rules of 2025) which came into force from the date of its publication in the State Gazette i.e., 10.04.2025. As per the Rules of 2025, 50% of the post of APPS (Entry Grade) is to be filled up from eligible Inspector Page No.# 13/17 of Police (APP Civil), Inspector of Police (AAPBn) and Inspector of Police (IRBn) in accordance with the ratio based on present sanctioned strength of post of Inspector in different units namely: (i) 79.39% (Civil Police), (ii) 15.35% (IRBn),
(iii) 05.26% (AAPBn). According to the petitioners, this has greatly reduced the chance of promotion of the petitioners who are serving as Inspectors in the IRBn. That the same being an amendment which came into force much after the proposal was made for filling up of 19 vacancies to the State Government in the Home Department by the Police Head Quarters, the Rules of 2025 or the Rules of 2023 cannot be applied to the case of the petitioners and the petitioners should be considered in terms of the Rules of 2006.
[7.] This Court while issuing notice of motion on 21.07.2025 made an observation that considering the fact that the DPC had already begun on 21.12.2023, the pendency of the writ petition will not be a bar if 19 posts of the APPS (Entry Grade) which arose in 2022-23 are filled up under the Rules of 2006. It is submitted at the bar that due to this order, DPC has not been held till date.
[8.] Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. R. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners have strenuously argued that the respondent authorities having initiated the process for conducting a Departmental Promotion Committee, they cannot change the Rules of the game. Although the respondent Home Department may have called for up-to-date particulars of the eligible personnel but the same only amounts to keeping the process in abeyance and not a cancellation of the DPC. Therefore, the respondent authorities should be directed to complete the process of selection by convening the DPC and by applying the Rules of 2006.
[9.] Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that eligibility Page No.# 14/17 criteria for being placed in the select list, notified at the commencement of the recruitment process cannot be changed midway so the recruitment process unless the Rules permit. In this connection he relies upon the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (2025) 2 SCC 1 .
[10.] Mr. N. Ratan, learned Addl. Advocate General on the other hand submits that since the particulars of the candidates were not in proper shape and therefore, the Home Department on 10.04.2025 asked for updated Vigilance Clearance Certificate and other records for conducting the DPC. The Police Head Quarters in turn notified all the controlling authorities concerned to inform the personnels eligible for promotion from the rank of Inspector to APPS (EG) by sending WT message on 05.06.2025. While the process of updating the records was being awaited, the Rules of 2023 and thereafter the Rules of 2025 came into force. Such being the position, the DPC will have to now apply the Rules of 2025 for promoting eligible persons to the post of APPS (EG). He also submits that in view of the order of this Court dated 21.07.2025, the DPC could not be held till date. The learned Addl. AG submits that the case of Y.V Rangaiah Vs. J Sreenivasa Rao reported in (1983) 3 SCC 284 has now been overruled by the case State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Kumar and Ors. (2023) 3 SCC 773, wherein, it has been held that the right to be considered for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates and not as per the Rules in vogue when the vacancy occurred. He therefore submits that the Writ Petition should be dismissed and the respondent authorities allowed to fill up the vacancies in accordance with law and as per the Rules of 2025.
[11.] Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the private respondent in WP(C)/315/2025 adopts the arguments of Mr. N. Ratan, learned Addl. AG and Page No.# 15/17 submits that the Rules of the game cannot be changed in case of direct recruitment through Advertisement. But in the present case, it is a case of promotion and the right to be considered for promotion occurs on a date of consideration of eligible candidates. In other words, it is the Rule in force on the date when consideration takes place that has to be applied as held by Apex Court in Raj Kumar and Ors. (Supra). He submits that the case of Y.V Rangaiah (Supra) had already been overruled by the Apex Court in Raj Kumar and Ors. (Supra) and therefore, the petitioners do not have any case. He submits that the case of Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. (Supra) cited by Mr. T. Pertin is therefore not applicable to the present case. Mr. D. Panging, learned counsel for the private respondent relies upon the following authorities in support of his submission:
(i) Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. Vs. Dharamdeo Das (2024) SCC OnLine SC 1768,
(ii) K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr.
(2008) 3 SCC 512 and
(iii) Raj Kumar and Ors. (Supra)
[12.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record including the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the parties. From the projection made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioners should be considered for the promotion to the APPS (Entry Grade) in terms of the Rules of 2006 since the proposal was forwarded by the Police Head Quarters for conducting of DPC on 21.12.2023 to Page No.# 16/17 the Home Department. As already noticed on account of updated Vigilance Clearance Certificate and other records for conducting the DPC, Home Department had asked the Police Head Quarters to submit fresh proposal after making corrective measures. While the process was on, the Rules of 2006 got however amended by the Rules of 2023 and ultimately, by the Rules of 2025.
Under the circumstance, the question is as to whether the petitioners are to be considered under the Rules of 2006 after the Rules of 2025 have come into force.
[13.]The Apex Court in Raj Kumar and Ors. (Supra) had taken into consideration as many as fifteen decisions including the case of Y.V Rangaiah (Supra) on the issue as to whether vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of the Rules which existed on the date on which they arose. Answering the same in the negative, the Apex Court held that for want of a clear decision, the case of Y.V Rangaiah (Supra) continued to be cited as a precedent by distinguishing the same on one ground or the other. Therefore, for the sake of clarity the Apex Court at paragraph No.85.1 of the judgment overruled the case of Y.V Rangaiah (Supra) after coming to a finding that the right to be considered for promotion has to be in accordance with the Rules which prevails on the date on which consideration for promotion takes place. The Apex Court however did observe that there is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old Rules in the event restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit. The only requirement is that the policy decision of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchtone of Article 14.
[14.] In the present case, the Official respondents although not in many words have taken the stand that there were certain discrepancies and defects in the Page No.# 17/17 old recruitment Rules which therefore required the amendment of the old Rules. Likewise, the private respondents have also contended that there was much disparity amongst the in-service personnel since Civil Inspectors although senior to the IRBn Inspectors or the AAPBn Inspectors, they were being superseded by their juniors, in view of the common application and consideration of all the Inspectors of Police under the old Rules.
[15.] Be that as it may, upon due consideration of the case in its entirety and importantly in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar and Ors. (Supra), I am of the considered view that the petitioners cannot insist that the vacancies should be filled up in accordance with the Rules prevailing at the time of vacancy. The writ petitioners therefore cannot be said to have legitimate grievances. In the result, I do not find merit in the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.
[16.] The interim order passed earlier stands vacated. No costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant