Charu Tanya & Ors

Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. G. Bam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, for the respondent.

By filing these writ petitions, the petitioners have put to challenge the order dated 11.04.2025, issued by the Commissioner (Education) Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby their regularization/appointment as Block Education Officers (BEOs) has been revoked and consequent to which they have been reverted to their original posts of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs). The petitioners have also prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to treat them at par with the 32 BEOs who were regularized by order dated 12.09.2017 and for restoration of all consequential service benefits, including salary, allowances, seniority and other service conditions.

Having considered the similitude of the issues involved in both these writ petitions on facts and law, same are heard analogously and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

The petitioners in both the writ petitions are serving as Block Education Officers (BEOs) under the Department of Elementary Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Teachers, subsequently re-designated as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs), and thereafter came to be appointed/functioning as Assistant District Education Officers (ADEOs)/Block Education Officers (BEOs) at different points of time. The dispute in the present proceedings essentially relates to their regularization/appointment in the BEO cadre and the subsequent decision of the respondent authorities to revoke such regularization/ appointment.

It is the case of the petitioners that initially there were 32 sanctioned posts of BEOs in the Directorate of Elementary Education. Pursuant to a meeting held on 19.06.2012 in the office of the Director of Elementary Education, wherein the requirement of additional 135 posts of BEOs was considered, the State Government issued Notification dated 28.04.2015, providing, inter alia, for the classification of the post of BEO, eligibility for recruitment and promotion, pay scale and other conditions relating to the said post. Thereafter, pursuant to the said notification dated 28.04.2015, the State Government appointed 102 individuals as BEOs. In the meantime, a number of persons serving as TGTs and functioning as BEOs sought regularization in the BEO cadre. However, the process of regularization did not proceed as contemplated, which led to the institution of WP(C) No. 447(AP)/2015, wherein this Court, by order dated 10.02.2016, directed the authorities to adhere to the notification dated 28.04.2015 and to implement the decision taken in the meeting dated 19.06.2012 in its letter and spirit. In the said proceedings, it was also brought to the notice of the Court that steps were being taken for regularization of 32 BEOs and the services of the other similarly situated BEOs would also be regularized in due course.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the respondent authorities processed the regularization of 32 senior most BEOs against the 32 sanctioned posts, consequent to which they were regularized by order dated 12.09.2017. The remaining 114 BEOs, including the present petitioners, continued to await their regularization. In the meantime, the State Government issued the Block Education Officer (Group-B Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017” for short), which, inter alia, prescribed the method of recruitment to the post of BEO, including recruitment by promotion/regularization. Thereafter, the petitioners, having exercised their option for being considered in the BEO cadre, approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 596/2018, seeking implementation of the earlier decision and their regularization in the BEO cadre.

The said WP(C) No. 596/2018 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 22.04.2021, on the basis of the written instructions placed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, indicating that the Department had no objection to implementation of the notification dated 28.04.2015 and the decision taken in the meeting dated 19.06.2012. As the said order was not implemented within the stipulated period, contempt proceedings came to be initiated, including Contempt Case (C) No. 27/2021. The respondent authorities also sought extension of time for compliance by filing I.A.(C) No. 177/2022 in the connected writ proceedings. However, the prayer for extension was declined by this Court by order dated 04.11.2022.

Thereafter, the State Government, by notification dated 06.01.2023, notified the approval of the Governor for conversion of 114 posts of TGTs into posts of BEOs under the Directorate of Elementary Education, pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 21.12.2022. Thereafter, the matter regarding continuation of the process of regularization of the functioning BEOs was considered in a meeting held under the chairmanship of the Commissioner (Education) on 21.11.2023. Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities issued the notification dated 03.01.2024, published in the Arunachal Pradesh Gazette dated 31.01.2024, whereby 114 TGTs were regularized in the BEO cadre against the converted posts. The said notification records that the action was being taken in compliance with the order dated 22.04.2021 passed in WP(C) No. 596/2018 and pursuant to the Cabinet-approved conversion of the posts.

Subsequently, the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued show-cause notices to the petitioners questioning the validity of their appointment/regularization as BEOs, on the ground that the provisions of the BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017 had not been complied with and their appointment was not pursuant to a recommendation of a duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). Accordingly, the petitioners submitted their replies, stating, inter alia, that their regularization had been effected in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules and the judicial directions of this Court.

Thereafter, the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued the impugned order dated 11.04.2025, whereby the petitioners' regularization/appointment as BEOs was revoked and they were reverted to their original posts of TGTs. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions.

Mr. T. T. Tara, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order dated 11.04.2025, whereby the petitioners' regularization as BEOs has been revoked and they have been reverted to their original posts of TGTs, is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable in law inasmuch as the impugned order does not disclose any specific violation of the BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017 or the notification dated 28.04.2015, which provides that the then incumbent BEOs would form part of the newly created cadre, and the same has been issued only on the ground that their regularization was not preceded by a recommendation of a duly constituted DPC.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the respondent authorities have failed to appreciate the distinction between appointment and regularization. The petitioners had already been functioning as BEOs and their services were subsequently regularized pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 447(AP)/2015 and WP(C) No. 596/2018, the conversion of 114 TGT posts into BEO posts pursuant to the Cabinet decision and the applicable Recruitment Rules. Therefore, the requirement of a DPC applicable to promotion cannot be invoked to invalidate their regularization. He submits that the petitioners had exercised their options for the BEO cadre pursuant to the communication dated 13.06.2017 and were already functioning as BEOs.

Mr. Tara, learned Senior Counsel, submits that 32 similarly situated BEOs had earlier been regularized by order dated 12.09.2017 without constitution of a DPC and as such, the petitioners, who are similarly situated, cannot be treated differently without any rational basis. He submits that the impugned order has serious civil consequences, as it results in reversion of the petitioners from BEOs to TGTs, affecting their rank, pay and other service benefits. Although the petitioners had submitted their replies to the show-cause notices, the same were not duly considered before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioners be permitted to continue as BEOs with all consequential service benefits.

On the other hand, Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, submits that the impugned order has been passed after due consideration of the report of the Committee constituted to examine the legality of the appointments/regularization of the BEOs made in the year 2024. The Committee found that the appointments were not made in accordance with the provisions of the BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017, particularly as no DPC was constituted and the prescribed requirements relating to length of service and educational qualification were also not adhered to. He submits that the said BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017 constitute the existing statutory framework governing appointment to the post of BEO and the notification dated 28.04.2015 cannot override the statutory Rules. Convening of a DPC is a statutory requirement, particularly since the post of TGT is a Group-B Non-Gazetted post, whereas the post of BEO is a Group-B Gazetted post.

Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the petitioners cannot claim parity with the 32 BEOs,who were regularized by order dated 12.09.2017, merely on the ground that no DPC was held in their case, as any procedural irregularity in the earlier regularization cannot constitute a precedent for continuing the same illegality. The impugned order has been passed after examining the Committee's report and accepted by the competent authority as well as after following due process and no legal or constitutional right of the petitioners has been infringed.

Due consideration has been extended to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials placed on record, including the relevant recruitment rules, notifications and the earlier orders of this Court passed in WP(C) No. 447(AP)/2015 and WP(C) No. 596/2018.

The issue involved in these writ petitions relates to the regularization of the petitioners, who had been serving as Block Education Officers (BEOs) for a considerable period and the subsequent decision of the respondent authorities to revoke such regularization on the ground that their appointment was not in accordance with the BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017. The petitioners were initially serving as Trained Graduate Teachers (TGTs) and were thereafter allowed to function as BEOs. The record reveals that the issue relating to regularization of such functioning of BEOs had been the subject matter of earlier proceedings before this Court.

In WP(C) No. 447(AP)/2015, several persons similarly situated to the present petitioners had approached this Court seeking, inter alia, regularization in the BEO cadre. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by order dated 10.02.2016, whereby this Court directed the authorities to adhere to the notification dated 28.04.2015 and to implement the decision taken in the meeting held on 19.06.2012 in its letter and spirit. It was also noticed by the Court that steps were being taken by the Department for regularization of 32 BEOs and the services of the other similarly situated BEOs would also be regularized accordingly. For ready reference, the order dated 10.02.2016, passed in WP(C) No. 447(AP)/2015, is reproduced herein below:-

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, 32 senior-most BEOs were regularized by the respondent authorities vide order dated 12.09.2017. However, the petitioners continued to await their regularization. In the meantime, the Block Education Officer (Group-B Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2017 were notified vide Notification dated 29.08.2017 and published in the Extraordinary Gazette of Arunachal Pradesh on 30.08.2017, which prescribed the method and conditions for recruitment to the post of BEO, including the manner in which eligible persons could be considered for appointment/ regularization.

As the petitioners' claim for regularization was not acted upon, WP(C) No. 596/2018 came to be filed. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court on 22.04.2021 on the basis of the instructions placed by the learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, indicating that the Department had no objection to implementation of the notification dated 28.04.2015 and the decision taken in the meeting dated 19.06.2012. The non-compliance of the said order thereafter led to contempt proceedings. The prayer made by the respondent authorities for extension of time for compliance was also declined by this Court vide order dated 04.11.2022.

Thereafter, pursuant to Cabinet Decision dated 21.12.2022, the respondent authorities issued Notification dated 06.01.2023, whereby approval of the Governor of Arunachal Pradesh was notified for conversion of 114 posts of TGTs into BEOs under the Directorate of Elementary Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The notification itself refers to the Cabinet decision dated 21.12.2022 as well as the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 596/2018. The relevant portion of the notification reads as under:

The record further reveals that, thereafter, the respondent authorities consciously proceeded with the process of regularization of the petitioners and ultimately, vide notification/order dated 03.01.2024, the petitioners, along with other similarly situated persons, were regularized in the BEO cadre against the converted posts. The said notification specifically records that the regularization was being made in compliance with the order dated 22.04.2021, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 596/2018, and in terms of the Cabinet-approved conversion of 114 TGT posts into BEO posts.

It is an admitted position that the petitioners were allowed to serve and function as BEOs and in the year 2024, the respondent authorities themselves proceeded to regularize/appoint them in the BEO cadre. However, subsequently, the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued show-cause notices questioning the validity of their appointment/regularization, primarily on the ground that the same had not been made in accordance with the BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017 and that no duly constituted DPC had recommended their appointment. The petitioners submitted their respective replies to the show-cause notices.

Thereafter, the impugned order dated 11.04.2025 has been issued by the Commissioner (Education), whereby the appointment/ regularization of the petitioners as BEOs has been revoked and they have been reverted to their original posts of TGTs. The basis for such action, as emerges from the impugned order and the stand taken by the respondents, is that the appointment of the petitioners as BEOs was not made in accordance with the BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017, particularly in the absence of a recommendation of a duly constituted DPC.

At this stage, it would be appropriate to take note of the relevant provisions of the Block Education Officer (Group-B Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 2017, which prescribe the method of recruitment to the post of BEO. The relevant provisions are extracted hereinbelow:

A plain reading of the aforesaid provisions makes it evident that although Rule 10 prescribes promotion as the method of recruitment to the post of BEO, it specifically curves out the manner of initial constitution of the cadre by regularization of the existing BEOs as on 10.02.2016, i.e. the date of the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 447(AP)/2015. Rule 11, on the other hand, prescribes the eligibility for recruitment by promotion or regularization from the post of TGT, subject to the conditions stipulated therein.

Thus, the BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017 themselves recognize regularization as a mode for the initial constitution of the BEO cadre. Therefore, the said provision has to be considered along with the notification dated 28.04.2015, the subsequent conversion of 114 TGT posts into BEO posts pursuant to the Cabinet decision and the orders passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 447(AP)/2015 and WP(C) No. 596/2018.

Upon consideration of the materials placed on record, this Court finds that the case of the petitioners cannot be viewed in isolation from the earlier proceedings before this Court and the subsequent conscious decisions taken by the respondent authorities themselves. The petitioners had been permitted to function as BEOs; their claim for regularization had been the subject matter of WP(C) No. 447(AP)/2015 and WP(C) No. 596/2018; and pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings, the State Government converted 114 TGT posts into BEO posts by notification dated 06.01.2023. Thereafter, the respondent authorities themselves proceeded to regularize the petitioners in the BEO cadre against the converted posts.

In the conspectus above, it is evident that the regularization of the petitioners was not an action independently initiated by them or obtained by any misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Rather, the record discloses a conscious decision of the competent authorities to proceed with their regularization in the backdrop of the earlier orders passed by this Court, the conversion of the posts and the BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017. In such circumstances, the subsequent decision to revoke their regularization merely on the ground that the process was not preceded by a recommendation of a DPC requires to be considered in the light of the specific provision contained in Rule 10 relating to the initial constitution of the BEO cadre by regularization.

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to have their cases considered for regularization in the BEO cadre in terms of the notification dated 06.01.2023 and the BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017, as well as the earlier directions issued by this Court in WP(C) No. 447(AP)/2015 and WP(C) No. 596/2018. The subsequent decision of the respondent authorities to simply revoke the petitioners' regularization on the ground that the earlier process was not preceded by a DPC, without undertaking the exercise of considering their cases for regularization in terms of the applicable statutory framework and the converted posts, cannot, in the considered opinion of this Court, be sustained.

Consequently, the impugned order dated 11.04.2025, issued by the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to reconsider the cases of the petitioners for regularization to the post of BEO in accordance with the BEO Recruitment Rules, 2017 and the notification dated 06.01.2023, keeping in view the earlier orders passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 447(AP)/2015 and WP(C) No. 596/2018 and the fact that 114 TGT posts have already been converted into BEO posts. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.

Writ petitions stand allowed and disposed of in terms above. No order as to cost(s).