Recently, the Gauhati High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Arunachal Pradesh Staff Selection Board’s (APSSB) advertisement for filling a vacancy in the post of Driver [LMV] in the Department of Labour and Employment. The petitioner had sought regularization of his service as a Contingency Driver and claimed entitlement to be considered for promotion under the Group ‘C’ Driver Recruitment Rules. The court held that the petitioner’s claim could only be entertained in accordance with the amended rules and emphasized that selection and promotion processes must strictly adhere to statutory and executive regulations.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, serving as a Contingency Driver in the Department of Labour and Employment since 2012, sought regularization of his post following the regularization of another driver, Paresh Das, who had served as a Contingency Driver for over two decades. Despite multiple representations for regularization, the petitioner’s requests were not acted upon. Subsequently, APSSB published Advertisement No. 05/25 inviting applications to fill the post of Driver [LMV], reserved for Scheduled Tribes, which led the petitioner to approach the Guwahati High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The petitioner, through his counsel, contended that he had over twelve years of continuous service and possessed the requisite qualifications, making him eligible for promotion either by regularization or via the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), similar to Paresh Das. He argued that since there was a vacancy in the Department, his case should have been considered before issuing the advertisement.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State, represented by the Senior Government Advocate, argued that recruitment and promotion to the post of Group ‘C’ Driver are governed by the Group ‘C’ Driver Recruitment Rules, 2006, as amended in 2024. The rules prescribe that 50% of vacancies are filled by direct recruitment, 25% through LDCE from Contingency Skilled Drivers, and 25% through LDCE from Handymen with requisite qualifications. The vacant post advertised was reserved for direct recruitment, and therefore, the petitioner’s claim for regularization or LDCE promotion could not be entertained at present.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the petitioner’s experience and qualifications were acknowledged; however, the amended Recruitment Rules clearly outline the mode of filling vacancies. The Court observed, “Though a right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, such consideration must be in accordance with extant recruitment rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, which have the force of law. The amendment of these rules prescribes LDCE as the only method for promotion of Contingency Drivers. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot be considered for the present vacancy by way of regularization.”
The Court further explained that the vacancy advertised was to be filled through direct recruitment in line with the post-based roster and the 80:20 reservation policy, leaving no room for regularization at this stage. The Court reiterated that the petitioner could seek promotion when a vacancy arises in the 25% quota reserved for Contingency Drivers through LDCE.
The decision of the Court:
In view of the above, the Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the claim. The court upheld the APSSB’s advertisement and clarified that the petitioner may be considered for promotion under LDCE only when a suitable vacancy arises. The interim order, if any, was recalled, and no order as to costs was passed.
Case Title: Robin Padung Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 425/2025
Coram: Justice Manish Choudhury
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. N. Pada
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. S. Tapin
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
