- (1.) HEARD Mr. T. Son, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms G. Deka, learned counsel representing the State respondents, and Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Jini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private Respondent No. 5.
(2.) BY filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the review Departmental Promotion Committee, in terms of the direction of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 35(AP)/2008.
(3.) IT would be apposite to detail here -in -below the sequence of events leading to filing of this writ petition. The writ petitioner filed WP(C) No. 350(AP)/2007, challenging the promotion order dated 3.9.2007, issued by the State respondent, by which the private respondent No. 5 i. e. Shri Gorik Dirchi, Deputy Controller of Legal Metrology and Consumer Affairs, was promoted to the post of Controller of the said department. The petitioner's grievance in the writ petition was that, despite he being senior to the private respondent no. 5 in service, was illegally and unjustifiably deprived of promotion to the post of Controller of Legal Metrology and Consumer Affairs. The petitioner challenged the procedure adopted in recording the remarks in Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) of the officers, in his department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs. It was pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner that in terms of the procedure adopted for recording the Annual Confidential Reports of the officers in the Department of Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, notified by the State Government on 4.8.2000, the reporting authority is the Controller of the said department and the reviewing authority is the Commissioner and Secretary of the department, whereas the accepting authority is the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner alleged that in case of the private respondent No. 5, the Minister of the concerned department acted as the accepting authority, which was in violation of the procedure prescribed. Therefore, the petitioner prayed for quashing the promotion order of the private respondent to the post of Controller in the department of Legal Metrology and Consumer Affairs, made on the basis of the said illegal and irregular reporting of the ACR of Respondent No. 5.;