Kh. Nobin Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Th. Rommel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A. Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the two interveners, Shri S. Jhalajit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7, Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 39 and Shri Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Respondents. Other private respondents are not represented by any counsel despite notices being served upon them.
(2.) THIS is the second round of litigation and by this present writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the validity and correctness of the recommendation of Review DPC and the Government order dated 18 -10 -2013 issued by the State Government on the basis thereof and have prayed for quashing thereof. One more prayer has been added for issuing direction to the State respondents to convene a fresh DPC for appointment on promotion to the post of MPS Grade -II in accordance with the judgment and order dated 12 -03 -2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007. Ccording to the petitioners, they were initially appointed as Sub -Inspectors of Police with effect from 26 -09 -1986 and 10 -05 -1982 respectively. A DPC was convened on 27 -03 -1998 for appointment of 22 Inspectors of Police, from amongst the eligible Sub -Inspectors, on promotion and on the recommendation of the said DPC, the State Government issued an order dated 28 -05 -1998 appointing 22 Sub -Inspectors of Police on promotion as Inspectors of Police including the petitioners. During their service career as Inspectors of Police, the petitioners have earned rewards and medals for outstanding and meritorious services rendered by them. 3.2 As many as 41 vacant posts of MPS Grade -II were available for appointment on promotion from amongst the eligible Inspectors of Police, out of which 2 vacancies occurred in the year 2005 -2006 and 39 vacancies occurred in the year 2006 -2007. A DPC was convened on 12 -01 -2007 for consideration of eligible Inspectors of Police for appointment on promotion to the post of MPS Grade -II and the said DPC recommended 41 Inspectors of Police against the aforesaid vacancies occurred in the year 2005 -2006 and 2006 -2007 for appointment on promotion. But the petitioners were not recommended for appointment on promotion by the said DPC. On the recommendation of the said DPC, a Government order dated 01 -03 -2007 was issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur appointing 40 Inspectors of Police/Subedars/Subedar -Majors as MPS Grade -II. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the said Government order dated 01 -03 -2007, the petitioners and one more person filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 praying for quashing the said recommendation of the DPC convened on 12 -01 -2007 and the Government order dated 01 -03 -2007 issued by the State Government. In other words, the petitioners had questioned the powers and competency of the DPC associated with MPSC to upgrade and downgrade the grading of ACRs of candidates already recorded by the competent authorities in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the same and procedure adopted by the DPC while making selection and recommendation. While the said writ petition was being considered, the learned Single Judge felt the necessity to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the alleged down -gradation of ACRs by the DPC, the State Government was directed to produce the relevant and original ACRs of the Private Respondents and the petitioners therein in a sealed cover and the MPSC was also directed to produce its DPC proceedings and Assessment Chart. In view of the discrepancies pointed out by the petitioners in their additional affidavit accompanied by an Assessment Chart as against the Assessment Chart prepared by the DPC, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), High Court was directed to examine and compare the grading of the candidates recorded in the Assessment Chart with that of the original ACRs and submit a report thereof. ACcordingly, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) prepared a chart showing the actual recording of the ACRs of the candidates which had remained undisputed/uncontroverted by any of the parties despite opportunities being given to them to raise their objection, if any. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the learned Single Judge, Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition on 12 -03 -2010 with the following direction: - "The respondents are directed to hold a Review DPC within 3 (three) months from today, keeping in view the observation and finding recorded above by the Court. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is made clear that the private respondent Nos. 8 to 45 shall continue under the present arrangement till the Review DPC, as ordered, is held within the time stipulated above." 3.4 ACcording to the petitioners, against the said judgment and order dated 12 -03 -2010, a writ appeal being W.A. No. 174 of 2012 was preferred by some of the private respondents which was dismissed by the Division Bench, Hon'ble Gauhati High Court on 13 -09 -2012. Another writ appeal preferred by the State Government was, later on, withdrawn. It may be relevant to mention here that the said W.A. No. 174 of 2012 which was initially registered as W.A. No. 39 of 2010 at Imphal Bench, Hon'ble Gauhati High Court came to be finally decided by the Division Bench of this High Court on 02 -06 -2015. A contempt petition being C.C. (C) No. 62 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners which was disposed of on 02 -05 -2013 with the following order: - "6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for the respondents, Mr. H. Samarjit Singh, on advance which I am inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 12 -03 -2010 for its implementation by a further period of 4 (four) months from today, as an outer limit if no appeal is filed by the respondents and no stay is obtained by the appellants of the order impugned. In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, then order dated 12 -03 -2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 shall be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within four months from the date of this order. In case if the order is not complied with even within the extended period fixed by the Court subject to what is discussed above, the respondents shall be held guilty for committing contempt of this Court order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts' Act would be aCcordingly passed against them." 3.5 In a purported compliance of the order dated 02 -05 -2013, a Review DPC was convened on 01 -07 -2013 which recommended the private and proforma respondents for appointment on promotion to the post of MPS Grade -II but to the shock and dismay, the petitioners were not recommended again for appointment on promotion. On the recommendation of the Review DPC, the State Government issued a Government order dated 18 -10 -2013 appointing the private and proforma respondents as MPS Grade -II. Being aggrieved by the said recommendation of the Review DPC and the Government order dated 18 -10 -2013, the petitioners filed the present writ petition.
(3.) SHRI A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the Review DPC had violated the judgment and order dated 12 -03 -2010 by which the State respondents therein had been directed to convene a Review DPC keeping in view the observations and findings recorded therein. The Review DPC had violated the provisions of the OM dated 29 -04 -1999 by exceeding its jurisdiction conferred thereunder when it downgraded the ACRs of the petitioners. In other words, the method adopted by the Review DPC was totally illegal. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 who were not aggrieved by the Government order dated 01 -03 -2007 and were not parties in W.P. (C) No. 267 of 2007, had been considered by the Review DPC when the benefits of the said judgment and order could not be extended to them. On the other hand, Shri Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Government Advocate, relying upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 submitted that the Review DPC was convened pursuant to the judgment and order dated 12 -03 -2010 of the learned Single Judge and on its recommendation, the State Government issued the impugned order. While holding its meeting, the Review DPC associated with MPSC had properly assessed the ACRs of the eligible candidates and had considered the merit of the candidates on the basis of their ACRs recorded by the competent authorities. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the earlier writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 did not direct that the review DPC be convened only in respect of the parties therein. The State respondents had no authority to exclude the eligible candidates who were within the zone of consideration. Supporting the contentions of the State respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, MPSC submitted that the Review DPC was convened pursuant to the judgment and order dated 12 -03 -2010 and since the Review DPC assessed the overall grading of the eligible candidates within the zone of consideration very carefully as per grading recorded in the ACRs, the question of down -gradation of ACR of the petitioners did not arise. It is further submitted that the ACRs of the petitioner No. 1 for the period 2001 -2002, 2002 -2003, 2004 -2005 and 2005 -2006 were VG, OS, OS & VG and in so far as the ACR for the period 2003 -2004 was concerned, there were two parts and ACR in respect of longer period was VG and therefore, the overall grading of ACRs came to be VG. There were about five persons including Shri M. Mubi Singh whose overall ACRs gradings were OS. Moreover, the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge did not mention the names of candidates to be considered by the Review DPC. The contention of Shri Jhalajit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 was more or less the same as that of the learned counsels appearing for the State respondents and MPSC. Shri Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 39 submitted that the Review DPC had failed to consider the ACRs earned by him for the reason that respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 who were not recommended by the earlier DPC, had been recommended by the Review DPC placing them above him by upgrading their ACRs. It is also submitted that since the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 were not aggrieved by the proceedings of the earlier DPC and had not challenged it, they were not required to be considered by the Review DPC. Shri H.S. Paonam learned Senior counsel appearing for the interveners submitted that there are two types of Review DPC -one, a review DPC convened in accordance with the provisions of the OM dated 29 -04 -1999 and the second, a review DPC convened in terms of an order passed by the Court. So far as the second review DPC is concerned, it will be confined to the candidates who were parties in the case.;