LOUREMBAM DEBEN SINGH AND ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.