P.C. PHUKAN, J- By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the impugned promotion order dated 17.8.99 in respect of the private respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to the post of Assistant Chemist and also directing the State respondents to convene a fresh meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) to consider promotion of the petitioners to the post of Assistant Chemist w.e.f. the date their juniors were promoted. 2. I have heard Mr H. Lalrinthanga, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr N. Sailo, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. None appeared for private respondent Nos. 4 & 5 inspite of due service of notices upon them. 3. The petitioner No. 1 appointed was Laboratory Assistant by order dated 27.7.88 and the petitioner No. 2 alongwith private respondents were appointed as Sample Collector vide order dated 27.7.88 and petitioner No. 3 was appointed as Media Maker vide order dated 27.7.88. All these posts carry the same pay scale of Rs.950/- - 1500/- p.nvThe petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 joined on 28.7.88, 1.8.88 and 4.8.88 respectively. The respondent No. 4 also joined on 4.8.88 and respondent No. 5 on 10.8.88. The respondent Government confirmed the services of Public Health Engineering Staff working under the Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering, Aizawl Division No. 1 including the petitioners and the private respondents w.e.f. 1.4.91. The above facts are not disputed. 4. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Assistant Chemist on officiating basis being the senior most Sample Collector till the post is filled up on regular basis by an order dated 22.9.94. The State respondents issued the provisional inter-se-seniority list amongst Sample Collectors by notification dated 2.12.97 placing the petitioner No. 2 at SI. No. 1 with the date of joining as on 1.8.80 over the private respondents. 5. The respondents Govt. published the Mizoram Public Health Engineering (Group C Posts) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1988 providing, inter-alia, that the post of Assistant Chemist shall be filled up by promotion from Sample Collector/Laboratory Assistant/Media Maker having High School Leaving Certificate with not less than eight years service in the Grades (Annexure-VIII). It is alleged that in complete violation of Recruitment Rules, respondent Government issued impugned order dated 19.8.99 (Annexure-IX) promoting the respondent Nos. It is alleged that in complete violation of Recruitment Rules, respondent Government issued impugned order dated 19.8.99 (Annexure-IX) promoting the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to the posts of Assistant Chemist superseding the petitioners who are senior to them on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee meeting held on 17.8.99. It is submitted that there was no adverse remarks against the petitioners for last 10 years in their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). It is, also submitted that it is a case of promotion by non-selection method where seniority of eligible candidates should be taken as yardstick for promotion; and the petitioners being senior to the private respondents with no adverse remarks against them, the impugned order promoting the private respondents can not stand in the eyes of law and is liable to set aside and quashed. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3, it is stated that the duly constituted D.P.C. meeting held on 17.8.99 considered about filling up of the two vacant posts of Assistant Chemist in the Public Health Engineering, Aizawl Division No. I. As per recruitment rules, the posts are to be filled up by promotion from the feeder grades of Laboratory Assistant, Sample Collector and Media Maker having eight years service in their respective grades by non-selection method. Hence, all eligible candidates from the three feeder grades were placed before the D.P.C. for consideration. After careful assessment of the suitability of the private respondent Nos. 4 & 5 for promotion to the posts of Assistant Chemist on the basis of their service records for the last eight years, the D.P.C; recommended for their promotion. Para 4 of the O.M. No. dated 3.2.98 (Anenxure-C/I to the affidavit-in-opposition) on procedure to be observed by the D.P.C. reads as under:- "Non-selection method Where the promotions are to be made on 'noivselection' basis according to recruitment rules, the D.P.C. need not make a comparative assessment of the records of officers and it should categorise the officers as "fit or not yet fit" for promotion on the basis of assessment of their record of service. While considering an officer^fit', guideline in para 3.3 should be borne in mind. The officers categorised as 'fit' should be placed in the panel in the order of their seniority in the grade from which promotions are to be made." 7. While considering an officer^fit', guideline in para 3.3 should be borne in mind. The officers categorised as 'fit' should be placed in the panel in the order of their seniority in the grade from which promotions are to be made." 7. Para 3.3 referred to above reads as under: "3.3 Government also desired to clear the misconception about 'average' performance. While 'average' may not be taken as an adverse remark in respect of an officer, at the same time, it cannot be regarded as complimentary to the officer, as 'average' performance should be regarded as routine and undistinguished. It is performance that is above average and performance that really noteworthy which should entitle an officer to recognition and suitable rewards in the matter of promotion." Admittedly, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 are senior to the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in the feeder grades, and the petitioner No. 3 has the same seniority with respondent No. 4 and is senior to the respondent No. 5. It is also not disputed that the petitioners have no adverse remarks against them. It is true that as per para 4 of the office memorandum, the officers categorised as 'fit' should be placed in the panel in the order of seniority in the grade from which promotion are to be made. As per para 4, it is the D.P.C. which is to categorise the officers as 'fit' or 'not yet fit' on consideration of several years' Annual Confidential Reports (as distinguished from such categorisation in ACR by the reporting/reviewing/accepting authority of the Department concerned on consideration of one year's A.C.R.). 8. Mr N. Sailo, learned Government Advocate produced the relevant records. It transpires from the records that the petitioner No. 1 & 2 have only 'average' remarks in their A.C.R.s for last seven years and hence do not deserve promotion in view of guidelines in para 4 read with para 3.3 as aforesaid. However, the petitioner No. 3 is admittedly senior to the respondent No. 5 and he has got one 'good', two 'very good' and one 'average' in four years immediately preceeding the D.P.C. meeting held on 17.8.99. However, the petitioner No. 3 is admittedly senior to the respondent No. 5 and he has got one 'good', two 'very good' and one 'average' in four years immediately preceeding the D.P.C. meeting held on 17.8.99. In the minutes of the meeting, the concluding sentence reads "The D.P.C. also recommends H. Lalchuailova to be placed in the panel for future vacancy." This shows that the petitioner No. 3 H. Lalchuailova was categorised as 'fit' for promotion and so his name was placed in the panel. Once he was categorised as 'fit' and was placed in the panel, he must have been placed in the panel in order of seniority as required under para 4, and he, being senior to the respondent No. 5, should have been placed in the panel above the respondent No. 5 and he (not respondent No. 5) should have been recommended for promotion to the post of Assistant Chemist against the existing vacancy and not against a future vacancy. 9. In view of the above, the State respondents are directed to promote the petitioner No. 3 H. Lalchuailova as Assistant Chemist against the post to which the respondent No. 5 was promoted after cancelling promotion of respondent No. 5 to the said post. If there is another vacancy of Assistant Chemist, the respondent No. 5 shall be promoted against such vacancy by issuing a fresh promotion order. In any case, the respondent No. 5 shall not be called upon to refund any amount he might have drawn in excess. 10. The recommendation and promotion of respondent No. 4 to the post of Assistant Chemist is left undisturbed. 11. This writ petition stands disposed of as indicated above. No costs.