S.SERTO, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. H. Lamphu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Tapin, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Mr. R. Sonar, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 5.
(2.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the final seniority list of Assistants in the Department of Panchayati Raj circulated vide circular No.PR-112/2002/648 dated 25.8.2017 issued by the Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Got. of Arunachal Pradesh, wherein, the private respondent No. 5 was placed at serial No. 1 and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 of the same.
(3.) The brief facts and circumstances which has led to the filing of this writ petition are as given below: (i). Vide order No. PR-46/2004 dated 10.1.2005 issued by the Director (PR) Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the petitioner who was serving as UDC following issuance of her appointment order dated 8.8.2002 on officiating basis was regularised in that post on the recommendation of the DPC held on 7.1.2005 w.e.f. the date the DPC was held. Thereafter, vide Order No. PR-129/2005 dated 10.10.2006 issued by the Director of Panchayati Raj, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, she was appointed as an Assistant on officiating capacity w.e.f. 10.10.2006 vice Shri T. Tapak, Assistant who was appointed as Superintendent temporarily with the following terms and conditions: (a). That her officiating appointment shall not confer any right to claim for regular appointment to the post of Assistant and shall not count for the purpose of seniority in that grade. (b). That her appointment was subject to regularisation through the Departmental Promotion Committee in due course. (c). That the other terms and conditions which are not specified in the order shall be governed by the Rules and orders that may be in force from time to time. (ii). On 08.09.2011 a DPC was held in the office chamber of the Director(P.R) for considering regularisation and promotion of 3(three) Group-B, Non Gazetted Ministerial staff of the Department of Panchayati Raj. The 3(three) persons who were considered are (i). Ms. Likha Rina (the petitioner), (ii). Shri Debajit Pegu (private respondent No. 5) and (iii). Shri H. Rime. After considering the records, the board recommended regularisation of promotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant and promotion of private respondent to the same post w.e.f. the date of the DPC held i.e. 08.09.2011. Following the recommendation of the DPC, the Director(PR) Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued two different orders on the same date, regularising promotion of the petitioner and promoting the private respondent, vide order No. PR-56/91/380, dated 8.9.2011 and PR-56/91/381, dated 8.9.2011, respectively. In the year 2015, Government of Arunachal Pradesh Department of Panchayati Raj vide order No. PR-112/2002/138, dated 17.7.2015 notified the final seniority list of Ministerial staff of the Department as on 8.6.2015. In that notification the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1 and the private respondent was placed at serial No. 3. Being aggrieved the private respondent filed a writ petition being WP(C)No.301 (AP)2017 challenging the seniority list. On 16.06.2017 this Court disposed of the writ petition without going into the merit of the case but by directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representation of the private respondent (writ petitioner) within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order passed. (iii). In pursuance of the direction given, the Secretary (PR) Government of Arunachal Pradesh issued a modified final seniority list of ministerial staff of Panchayati Raj Department as on 8.6.2015. In that the private respondent No. 5 was placed at serial No. 1 and the petitioner was placed at serial No. 2 in the seniority list of the Assistant. Being aggrieved by the modified final seniority list the petitioner has come before this Court challenging the same, mainly on the ground that the period of her officiating appointment ought to have been counted towards her seniority and had it been so she would have been senior to the private respondent. ;