This writ petition has been filed by two petitioners, who are serving as Head Masters under Sadar Hills Autonomous District Council, Kangpokpi and whose services have been utilized as Assistant Inspector of Schools from time to time, challenging the orders being No. 2/6/98-CHA, dated 13.9.2002 and No. 2/6/98-CHA, dated 16.9.2002 by which the respondents No. 4 to 8 and the respondent No. 9 were promoted as Assistant Inspector of Schools and Deputy Inspector of School respectively under Sadar Hills Autonomous District Council, Kangpokpi, Manipur. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said promotion orders on the grounds that without considering their seniority, merits, their services during the period of ethnic clashes and their services as Assistant Inspector of Schools on in-charge basis, the said respondents 4 to 8 were promoted as Assistant Inspector of Schools and that the respondent No. 3, who was not eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector of School as per the Hill District Council (Deputy Inspector of Schools) Recruitment Rules, 1995 at the relevant time was promoted to the said post. It is also alleged that the said promotions, having been made only in favour of the Scheduled Tribes are violative of the provisions of Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services ( for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975. Further, the petitioners are challenging the legality and propriety of the proceedings of the DPC leading to the issuance of the said promotion orders. 2. I have heard Mr. N.Kotiswar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners Mr. L.Shyamkishore Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 1 and 2 and Mr.S.T.Kom, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the remaining respondents. 3. There is no dispute that as per relevant recruitment rules, the posts of Assistant Inspector of Schools and Deputy Inspector of Schools under the said Hills Autonomous District Council, Kangpokpi are selection posts. It is also ascertained that the two petitioners and the respondents No. 4 to 8 were holding the feeder posts and are eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Inspectors of Schools at the relevant time. Regarding the alleged violation of the provisions of Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services ( for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Act, 1975, it is ascertained that none of the private respondents was promoted to a reserved post for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Regarding the alleged violation of the provisions of Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services ( for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe) Act, 1975, it is ascertained that none of the private respondents was promoted to a reserved post for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Merely on the basis of the fact that all the promotees to the said posts are found to be Scheduled Tribes, it cannot be concluded that the said promotions were made in violation of the provisions of the said Act. There is nothing to show that there was cent per cent reservation in favour of the Scheduled Tribes by issuing any formal order in connection with the filling up of the said post by way of promotion . On the basis of the materials before the court, it cannot be concluded that the said promotions were made in violation of the provisions of the said Act. 4. The post of Assistant Inspector of Schools under Sadar Hills Autonomous District Council, Kangpokpi is a selection post. It is ascertained that the two petitioners and the respondents No. 4 to 8 were holding the feeder posts and are eligible for promotion to the posts of Assistant Inspectors of Schools at the relevant time. The impugned promotion order dated 13.9.2002 in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 8 was issued purportedly accepting the recommendation of the DPC held on 11.9.2002. As per the records produced by the Deputy Secretary (Hills), Govt. of Manipur, the respondents No. 4 to 8 were recommended by the DPC held on 11.9.2002 for filling up five vacant posts of Assistant Inspectors of Schools under Sadar Hills Autonomous District Council, Kangpokpi. On perusal of the records produced before the court, it is ascertained that no seniority list of those employees holding the feeder post was placed before the DPC. No reason is given as to why no such seniority list was produced. In the facts and circumstances, the only reasonable conclusion is that no such seniority list was prepared at that time. However, the list of eligible Headmasters for the posts of Assistant Inspector of Schools was before the DPC. Nothing is disclosed as to how and on what basis the said list of eligible Headmasters was prepared. In the facts and circumstances, the only reasonable conclusion is that no such seniority list was prepared at that time. However, the list of eligible Headmasters for the posts of Assistant Inspector of Schools was before the DPC. Nothing is disclosed as to how and on what basis the said list of eligible Headmasters was prepared. In the relevant recruitment rules of Assistant Inspector of Schools, nothing is provided as to how the selection for filling in the post of Inspector of Schools is to be made. In view of the omission on the part of the concerned authority to specify as to how the selection is to be made, it was necessary on the part of the concerned DPC to proceed in accordance with the Government instructions issued by way of office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999 which was published in Manipur Gazette, Extraordinary being No. 137 dated 9.6.1999. The said memorandum will have binding effect in the absence of any inconsistency or contradictions in between the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules and the said memorandum. In my considered opinion, the said office memorandum which was issued for guidance of all the departments in the State on the principles of promotions to higher posts to be followed by the Departmental Promotion Committees, in the absence of any alternative instructions or rules meant for Autonomous District Council, was applicable at the time of holding the DPC for filling up the posts under the Autonomous District Council. It is to be noted that as per Rule 53 of Manipur (Hill Areas) District Council Rules, 1972, all rules prevailing under the Manipur Government governing the conditions of service for Government servant are applicable to all officers and other employees of the Council in respect of matters except where the Rules, 1972 provide otherwise. The fact that the District Council had followed and acted purportedly in accordance with the Government instructions issued in the form of office memorandum while making appointment, can be seen from the fact of referring to Government Order No. 18/55/96-Adhoc-DP dated 26.7.1996 in the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent No. 9 on15.8.1997 ( Annexure -R/2 of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 4 to 9). The said office memorandum are in the nature of instructions given in the interest of all to prevent DPCs from proceeding at their sweet-will or in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner at the time of consideration for giving promotion to higher posts. Any deviation from the instructions in the office memorandum will have to be examined if such deviation is permissible under any law or statutory rules. 5. On perusal of the records, it is ascertained that while proceeding for making recommendation for giving promotion to the vacant posts of Assistant Inspectors of Schools, the DPC did not proceed in accordance with the said office memorandum. As per the said office memorandum, where promotions are to be made by selection, the DPC shall fix zone of consideration from among the eligible officers in the feeder grade having regard to the number of vacancies proposed to be filled up in the year. For 5(five) vacant posts, the normal zone of consideration should have been limited to 14 officers. When I examine the said list of eligible Headmasters for promotion, it is ascertained that there are 8 (eight) Scheduled Tribe Headmasters in between Sl.No.1 to 14 of the list. However, the said DPC held on 11.9.2002 considered the cases of all the eligible 26 Headmasters submitted to it instead of restricting the zone of consideration as per instructions contained in the said office memorandum. As a result of not restricting the zone of consideration, the said DPC completely ignored the seniority position of the said Headmasters. Mr. L.Shyamkishore, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the said list of eligible Headmasters is not the one prepared according to seniority. It has not been disclosed as to why the seniority list of eligible Headmasters is not produced. The possibility that it has not yet been prepared is not rule out. The question of seniority of any of the eligible Headmasters was not considered by the DPC at the time of making recommendation. It has not been disclosed as to why the seniority list of eligible Headmasters is not produced. The possibility that it has not yet been prepared is not rule out. The question of seniority of any of the eligible Headmasters was not considered by the DPC at the time of making recommendation. As per instruction No. 5.3.1 of the said office memorandum, while preparing the penal for promotion in respect of Class-II posts on selection basis, the DPC cannot ignore the inter-se seniority inasmuch as all Headmasters whose overall grading is equal to or better than the bench mark “good” are to be included in the penal for promotion to the extent of number of vacancies in order of their inter-se seniority in the feeder post. On perusal of the relevant records of the DPC, it is ascertained that the said prescribed instructions were not followed. The DPC made their selection ignoring the question of inter-se seniority completely and thereby in violation of the said instruction. The selection process that was followed by the said DPC is contrary to the one followed by all the Departments of the State in respect of the giving of appointment by way of promotion to a Class-II selection post. The post of Assistant Inspector of Schools being a selection post, the concerned DPC should have adopted the process of choosing carefully from among the eligible Headmasters by adopting the same process prescribed to be followed by all Departments of the State instead of the proceeding in the manner not adopted by other Departments. In the facts and circumstances, by not adopting the said instructions contained in the office memorandum, the said DPC adopted an arbitrary or discriminatory procedure in making recommendation for the said selection post of Assistant Inspector of Schools. The impugned orders of promotion issued in favour of the respondents No. 4 to 8 on the basis of the recommendation made by the said DPC is not sustainable in the eye of law. It violates article 14 of the Constitution. 6. The post of Deputy Inspector of Schools is also a selection post. Though there is dispute regarding the question if the respondent No. 9 was eligible for consideration for giving promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools at the relevant time, having regards to fact that she was having the educational qualification of B.A. with B.Ed. 6. The post of Deputy Inspector of Schools is also a selection post. Though there is dispute regarding the question if the respondent No. 9 was eligible for consideration for giving promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools at the relevant time, having regards to fact that she was having the educational qualification of B.A. with B.Ed. and that she had served regularly in the post of Headmaster of UJB school for more than 11 years in consequence of promotion order being No. 2/17/SH-ADC/81 dated 2.5.1987 before she was promoted to the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools on 21.1.1999. It is ascertained that though she had not rendered regular service of 5 years as Assistant Inspector of Schools, she was eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools as per relevant recruitment rule of Deputy Inspector of Schools when the DPC was held on 12.9.2002. On perusal of the relevant records, it is ascertained that the DPC, after due consideration of all eligible persons, recommended the respondent No. 9 for promotion to the vacant post of Deputy Inspector of Schools. As per records, the respondent No. 9 was given promotion to the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools on the recommendation of the DPC held on 21.1.1999 on consideration of her being the senior most Headmaster. A copy of the promotion order is at Annexure-A/17. There is nothing to show that any of the petitioners challenged the said promotion order promoting the respondent No. 9 to the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools. On the basis of the materials before the court, I do not find any valid ground for interfering with the order dated 16.9.2002 by which the respondent No. 9 was promoted to the post of Deputy Inspector of Schools. 7. Keeping in view all the relevant considerations including the need for not disturbing the settled position to the possible extent, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) A review DPC in respect of the DPC held on 11.9.2002 in connection with the promotion to the post of Assistant Inspector of Schools under the Sadar Hills Autonomous District Council, Kangpokpi is to be held in accordance with the said office memorandum dated 29.4.1999. On the basis of the result of the said review DPC, no promotion is to be disturbed as far as possible and if any of the private respondents 4 to 8 is found to have been not fit for selection as on 29.4.1999, he is to be pushed back so far as seniority position is concerned below the position of the petitioners who may be found to have been fit for promotion at the relevant time of the DPC. (ii) The present direction will not cover the cases of private respondents who may have been promoted to the next higher post or who may have retired in the meantime. 8. This writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.