1. The relieves sought for in the present writ petition are: 1. Issue Writ of Certiorari and/or any other appropriate Writ/order/direction quashing/setting aside the impugned Govt. Order dated 24.9.2001 (Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition) to the extent of the Respondents 3 to 8; 2. Issue Writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/order/direction to the Respondents No.1 to 2, to promote the petitioners to the post of Supervisor Kanungos in place of the Respondents No.3 to 7 or to any other posts of Supervisor Kanungos with retrospective effect, i.e. 24.9.2001, by maintaining the seniority position in the feeder posts. 3. Issue any other appropriate Writ/Order/direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice. 2. The writ petitioners being some of the senior most Mandols working in the Revenue Department, Govt. of Manipur, in this writ petition challenge the promotion order dated 24.9.2001 (Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition) for promoting the private respondents Nos. 3 to 8 by superseding the writ petitioners. 3. Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners as well as Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned G.A. appearing for the state respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. K. Bipinchandra Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 3 to 8. 4. A short fact of the writ petitioners in thumbnail are the writ petitioners are the senior and regular Mandols working in the Revenue Department, Govt. of Manipur. The Governor of Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred under the provisions to Article 309 of the Constitution of India makes the Recruitment Rules for the post of (1)Registrar Kanungo, (3) Supervisor Kanungo and (3) Amin (Mandol), etc. in super session of the previous orders vide order being No.1/55/61-5 Imphal, the 23rd March, 1968. According to the said Recruitment Rules dated 23.3.1968, the Amin(Mandol) would draw second subsequent increment and confirmation to the post is subject to their successful completion of Survey and Settlement training prescribed for the post of Amin(Mandol). The petitioners wanted to go for the said training for Survey and Settlement prescribed for the post of Amin(Mandol) for their second subsequent increment and conformation to the post of Amin(Mandol) as well for further promotion to the post of Supervisor Kanungo, but the concerned authority declined the prayer of the petitioners for sending them to the said training. The petitioners wanted to go for the said training for Survey and Settlement prescribed for the post of Amin(Mandol) for their second subsequent increment and conformation to the post of Amin(Mandol) as well for further promotion to the post of Supervisor Kanungo, but the concerned authority declined the prayer of the petitioners for sending them to the said training. This plea has been taken by the writ petitioners in para-6 of the writ petition which reads as follows: “6. That, the petitioners applied to the concerned authorities for allowing them to undergo Amin Training Course however the concerned authorities repeatedly declined the said prayers of the petitioners. At least the Government issued the orders dated 3.3.1993 thereby exempting the petitioners, along with other Mandols, from undergoing the survey and settlement training as prescribed in the existing Recruitment Rules. The names of the petitioners appeared at sl.nos. 8,9,21.22,24 and 26 respectively. The said exemption was for them who had completed 15 years of service.” This court passed an order dated 26.6.2004 in the present writ petition to the effect that “ This is an old case and requires immediate attention as per the learned counsel for the petitioners. No counter has been filed by the respondents. Case is adjourned with a caution that if counter is not filed within three weeks, matter may be listed for hearing and disposed of accordingly on the basis of the materials already on record.” This case was taken up for final hearing on 1.2.2005 and in the course of final hearing, this court was of the opinion that the serious allegation of the writ petitioners in the para-6 of the writ petition quoted above were required to be replied by the state respondents inasmuch as if the said serious allegation of the writ petitioners are correct, it would be clear that an injustice had been done to the writ petitioners because of the administrative lapses of the state respondents. In order to do justice to both parties, this court again passed an order dated 29.3.2004 for granting 2(two) weeks time to the respondents to file their affidavit-in-opposition. The state respondents had filed their affidavit-in-opposition dated 1.3.2005. The state respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition do not deny the said allegations of the writ petitioners in para-6 of the writ petition as quoted above. The state respondents had filed their affidavit-in-opposition dated 1.3.2005. The state respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition do not deny the said allegations of the writ petitioners in para-6 of the writ petition as quoted above. Therefore, it is correct that in spite of their repeated requests for sending them for survey and settlement training prescribed for the post of Amin(Mandol), the concerned authority had declined the prayer of the writ petitioners thereby causing a great injustice to them. The Govt. of Manipur, however, passed an order being No.1/44/79-Com(Rev)/Pt.I Imphal the 3rd September,1993 for exemption from undergoing the survey and settlement training as prescribed in the existing Recruitment Rules for the post of Mandol so as to enable the writ petitioners and others to enjoy their second and subsequent increments notionally with retrospective effect (without any arrear) and with arrear if any during the year 1993 (Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition). At the time of passing the said order dated 3.9.1993, the petitioners and others were made to believe by the State Government that the said order dated 3.9.93 shall exempt the requirements of completing the survey and settlement training prescribed for the post of Amin(Mandol) for further promotion to the post of Supervisor Kanungo. It may be required to mention that according to the said Recruitment Rules dated 23.3.1968, the post of Supervisor Kanungo is a cent percent promotion post and Amins(Mandol) who have successfully completed the training prescribed for the post of Amin(Mandol) and having at least 5(five) years regular service in the grade are eligible for promotion to the post of Supervisor Kanungo. 5. Though the writ petitioners have been working as regular Mandols for more than the periods ranging from 20 to 30 years, they have not been given the chance for promotion to the next higher post of Supervisor Kanungo but to their utter surprise, the government of Manipur issued order being No.1/4/94-Com(Rev)Temp-1, Imphal, the 24th September,2001(Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition) for promoting 46 Mandols including the present private respondent Nos. 3 to 8 who are junior to the writ petitioners to the post of Supervisor Kanungos in the Revenue Department, Govt. of Manipur. The writ petitioners are being aggrieved by the Govt. of Manipur for non-consideration of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Supervisor Kanungos and also by the said arbitrary order of the Govt. 3 to 8 who are junior to the writ petitioners to the post of Supervisor Kanungos in the Revenue Department, Govt. of Manipur. The writ petitioners are being aggrieved by the Govt. of Manipur for non-consideration of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Supervisor Kanungos and also by the said arbitrary order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 24.9.2001 (Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition) for promoting Mandols including the Mandols who are junior to the writ petitioners to the post of Supervisor Kanungo. Hence this writ petition. 6. The state respondents in their affidavit in opposition have stated that the grounds for the non-consideration of the writ petitioners for promotion to the next higher post of Supervisor Kanungo by issuing the impugned order dated 24.9.2001 are that (1) the writ petitioners are not eligible for promotion as they have not passed the prescribed training course till date as per the relevant Recruitment Rules and therefore, the ineligible candidates have not the right to challenge the promotion order. (2) there is no relaxation clause in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Supervisor Kanungo and thus the writ petitioners could not be promoted to the post of Supervisor Kanungo despite of existence of promotional avenue. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that it is the state respondents who refused to send the writ petitioners for survey and settlement training course as prescribed for the post of Amin(Mandol) in spite of repeated requests made by the writ petitioners and as such, the writ petitioners should not be suffered for the administrative lapses of the state respondents and it was not the fault of the writ petitioners for not completing the survey and settlement training prescribed for the post of Amin(Mandol) for promotion to the next higher post of Supervisor Kanungo. It appears that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners has force and acceptable under the law. It appears that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners has force and acceptable under the law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the decision of the Apex Court in Shri Amrik Singh and others - Vrs - Union of India and others, reported (1980)3SCC 393, wherein the Apex Court held that the Officers shall not suffer for the administrative lapses of the Government and there is no irregularity in exercise of the powers to relax the rules and regulations in favour of the government servants so as not to suffer them because of the administrative lapses of the government. Para-9 of SCC in Amrik Singh and others(Supra) is quoted hereunder: “9. Let us assume for a moment that the State Govt. had not reported to the Central Govt. and that the consultation with the Union Public Service Commission had not been made by the Central Govt.. Let us further assume that, in a strict view, that was needed. Even so, the Union Territories of Himachal Pradesh and Delhi should have formally told the Home Ministry about the officiation beyond three months by Ahluwalia in a cadre post. This was not done. The real line of distinction between a State and the Union of India might well be blurred a little when it is a Union Territory. Moreover, there is the circumstance that the entire service was in the melting pot for a few years because the All India Services were being switched from Himachal Pradesh and Delhi into all the Union Territories. Even more; since uncertainty prevailed while the question of a part of Punjab being tacked on to Himachal Pradesh came to engage the Administration. Amidst these fluctuating factors, the solecism committed by the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh in not having reported to the Central Government about continuing Ahluwalia, beyond 3 months, in a cadre post, was a venial sin for which the candidate was free from blame. Secondly, the argument, based on Sahney, a senior to Ahluwalia, being in an ex-cadre post and therefore, Ahluwalia's service during that period not being regular, also cannot be exaggerated out of proportion. Technically, the C.B.I. posts are ex-cadre posts, but it is a Central Govt. Department and nothing is suggested that there was something suspicious in Sahney being kept in the CBI to facilitate Ahluwalia's continuance in a Cadre post. Technically, the C.B.I. posts are ex-cadre posts, but it is a Central Govt. Department and nothing is suggested that there was something suspicious in Sahney being kept in the CBI to facilitate Ahluwalia's continuance in a Cadre post. Everything in this case is straightforward and, therefore, if there was any administrative lapse, Ahluwalia could not be victimized. Indeed, an unwitting hardship inflicted on a member of the Service under such circumstances can be relieved against by exercise of the residuary power of Central Government under Rule 3 extracted above. They passed the order (Annexure'X') which we reproduce: Annexure'x' No.24/16/71-Pers.II (IPS) Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya. MEMORANDUM S/Shri P.C. Sahney, K.S. Dhaliwal and V.K. Ahluwalia were appointed from the Indian Police Service by promotion from the State Police service on January 30, 1971 and allocated to the Himachal Pradesh Cadre of Service. 2. Prior to their appointment to the Indian Police Service, these Officers were holding the following posts. * * * * In accordance with Regulation 8 of IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 the Select List officers are to be appointed to the cadre post in the order in which their names appear in the Select List. As such in cases where a senior select list officer was not holding a cadre post, the officiation in a cadre post of a junior officer in the Select List was not approved by the Central Government because the appointment of Junior Select List officer to a cadre post was violative of the provisions of Regulation 8 of the Promotion Regulations. * * * Accordingly, it was decided that the rules may be relaxed to count the period of officiation against ex-cadre posts so as to give benefit of the service rendered by the junior officers in the cadre post for the purpose of seniority. Applying the ratio of the case of U.T. Cadre, the Government of India has come to the conclusion that the appointment of Shri P.C. Sahaney in the C.B.I. on deputation basis from December 7, 1964 to October 6, 1969 was made by the Central Government in public interest since Shri Sahney belonged to the U.T. Cadre which was managed by the Central Government. It can, therefore, be said that the question of misuse of provisions of rules and regulations by the State Govt. in this case does not arise. It can, therefore, be said that the question of misuse of provisions of rules and regulations by the State Govt. in this case does not arise. The certificates that but for his appointment to ex-cadre post in the C.B.I., Shri Sahney would have continued against a cadre post, was to be issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the fault, if any, lies with the Central Government and not with any State Government. It has, therefore, been tentatively decided to count the ex-cadre officiations of Shri P.C. Sahney from December 7,1964 to October 6, 1969 for the purpose of seniority in relaxation of the provisions of the I.P.S. (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. * * * In view of the counting of ex-cadre officiation of Shri P.C. Sahney for the period December 7m, 1964 to October 6, 1969, the Cadre officiation of S/Shri K.S. Dhaliwal and V.K. Ahluwalia prior to October 13, 1969 will not be violative of the provisions of Regulation 8 of I.P.S. (Appointment by Promotions) Regulations, 1955. It is, therefore, prepared to count the entire cadre officiation of S/Shri K.S. Dhaliwal and V.K. Ahluwalia for the purpose of their seniority. Accordingly, the crucial date in respect of S/shri K.S. Dhaliwal and V.K. Ahluwalia shall be March 28, 1965 and, November 11,1965, respectively. * * * Sd/-A.Jayaraman Under Secy to the Govt. of India. After full and second consideration, the Central Government passed Annexure'Y' dated December 1,1978, whereby Ahluwalia was given the benefit of 1961 as the year of the allotment. The period of officiation of Ahluwalia between August 1, 1968 and October 19, 1969 was approved by the Central Government after consultation with the UPSC. This retrospectively cured the infirmity that existed in Ahluwalia's officiation, beyond 3 months or 6 months, in a cadre post without consultation with the UPSC. The contravention of Regulation 8 w as, thus, relieved against.” 8. The Apex Court in a case arising from this court, viz State of Tripura and others - Vrs - K.K. Roy, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1249 , held that there should be provision for promotion. In the absence of such, the employee is entitled 2(two) higher grades, one upon expiry of the period of 12 years from the date of joining service and another on the expiry of 24 years thereof. Para-6 of SCC in State of Tripura and others(supra) is quoted hereunder: 6. In the absence of such, the employee is entitled 2(two) higher grades, one upon expiry of the period of 12 years from the date of joining service and another on the expiry of 24 years thereof. Para-6 of SCC in State of Tripura and others(supra) is quoted hereunder: 6. It is not a case where there existed an avenue for promotion. It is also not a case where the State intended to make amendments in the promotional policy. The appellant being a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution should have created promotional avenues for the respondent having regard to its constitutional obligations adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Despite its constitutional obligations, the State cannot take a stand that as the respondent herein accepted the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment knowing fully well that there was no avenue of promotion, he cannot resile therefrom. It is not a case where the principles of estoppel or waiver should be applied having regard to the constitutional functions of the State. It is not disputed that the other States in India, Union of India having regard to the recommendations made in this behalf by the Pay Commission introduced the scheme of Assured Career Promotion in terms whereof the incumbent of a post if not promoted within a period of 12 years is granted one higher scale of pay and another upon completion of 24 years if in the meanwhile he had not been promoted despite existence of promotional avenues. When questioned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, even could not point out that the State of Tripura has introduced such a scheme. We wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced by the Appellant like the other States in India, and what impeded it from doing so. When questioned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, even could not point out that the State of Tripura has introduced such a scheme. We wonder as to why such a scheme was not introduced by the Appellant like the other States in India, and what impeded it from doing so. Promotion being a condition of service and having regard to the requirements thereof as has been pointed out by this court in the decisions referred to hereinbefore, it was expected that the Appellant should have followed the said principle.” The Apex Court in R.K. Sethi and another - vrs - Oil and Natural Gas Commission and others, reported in (1997) 10SCC 616, held that by applying the principle of “Next Below Rule” if a junior employee is given promotion without considering his seniors, senior employee can claim the right to be considered for such promotion from the date the junior was promoted. Para-12 of SCC in R.K. Sethi and another (Supra) is quoted hereunder: “12. Once it is held that Telex Operators have been rightly placed en bloc below regular employees in AG-II cadre as a result of the merger of the said cadre in the cadre of AG-II on 25.4.1980, regular employees in AG-II cadre who were senior to the Telex Operators could rightly feel aggrieved if they were denied promotion while their juniors were promoted as AG-I. The “next below rule” in service jurisprudence seeks to ensure that if a junior employee is given promotion without considering his senior then the senior employee effect can claim the right to be considered for such promotion with effect from the date on which the junior was so promoted. The action of the commission is extending the benefit of promotion to regular employees in AG-II cadre as AG-I with effect from the date the Telex Operators were so promoted on account of the 12 years' policy, being in consonance with this principle, cannot, therefore, be held to be arbitrary or unreasonable. So also the further promotion from AG-I to the post of Superintendent (P&A) under the 18 years' Policy. We are unable to endorse the view of the High Court that since regular employees in AG-II cadre did not fulfill the criteria laid down in those policies, they could not be extended the benefit of the said policies. So also the further promotion from AG-I to the post of Superintendent (P&A) under the 18 years' Policy. We are unable to endorse the view of the High Court that since regular employees in AG-II cadre did not fulfill the criteria laid down in those policies, they could not be extended the benefit of the said policies. The High Court has failed to note that when it w as found that certain senior employees were left out of consideration for promotion because they did not fulfill the conditions regarding 18 years' service contained in the Office Memorandum dated 27.5.1982, the Commission modified the policy contained in the said Office Memorandum by issuing Office Memorandum dated 3.2.1983 whereby it was decided that such senior employees would be considered for promotion and, if found suitable, would be promoted with effect from 1.4.1982. In view of the said modification in the 18 years' Policy it cannot be said that regular employees in AG-II cadre could not be considered for promotion since they did not fulfill the criterion of 18 years' service.” The Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India and others - v - Jagmohan Sharma and others, reported in (1998) 9SCC 219, held that in a writ petition against non-promotion of the writ petitioners while promoting his junior, the proper relief to be granted, held, is not a direction to promote him but a direction to consider his case for promotion from the date of promotion of his junior the same criteria on which juniors are promoted. Para-6 of the SCC in Life Corporation of India (supra) is quoted hereunder: “6. In the facts, as noticed by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, the appropriate direction would have been to the appellants to consider the case of Respondent no.1 for his promotion to the post of Assistant Divisional Manager/Senior Branch Manager from the date his juniors from amongst Respondents 5 to 67 in the writ petition were promoted on the same criteria on which those respondents were promoted. We, therefore, modify the direction of the learned Single Judge, as noticed above, and direct that the appellants shall consider the case of Respondent 1 for his promotion with effect from the date his juniors from amongst Respondents 5 to 67 in the writ petition were promoted and if found fit for promotion, to grant to him all the consequential benefits. The consideration of Respondent 1 for promotion shall be on the same basis and on such material as was considered for promoting Respondents 5 to 67. The needful shall be done b y the appellant within three months. The order of the Division Bench dismissing the LPA shall also, thus, stand modified accordingly. The appeal is allowed and disposed of to the extent indicated above. No costs.” Similarly, the Apex Court in Virendra Kumar Singh - Vrs - State ofU.P. and others reported in (2001) 10 SCC 430 , held that the Civil Judge(Appellant) shall be entitled to promotion retrospectively w.e.f. 1975. 9. For the reasons given above and also considering the admitted factual position mentioned above, the state respondents are directed to consider the case of the writ petitioners for promotion to the next higher post of Supervisor Kanungo by exercising the powers for relaxation to relax the completion of survey and settlement training prescribed for the post of Amin(Mandol) for promotion to the next higher post of Supervisor Kanungo and in case there is no provision for such relaxation, the writ petitioners should be allowed to complete the said training as early as possible not later than one month from the date of receipt of this order and on completion of their training, the writ petitioners should be considered for further promotion to the next higher posts of Supervisor Kanungo and in the case of promotion, their promotions should be effective from the date of promotion of their juniors, i.e. the respondent Nos.3 to 8, to the higher post of Supervisor Kanungo, i.e. w.e.f. 24.9.2001. 10. With the above observation and directions, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. W.P.(C ) NO.1965 OF 2001 T. Nanda Kumar Singh, J. This writ petition is disposed of in view of the judgment and order placed on record in separate 12 (twelve) sheets.