T.N.K. Singh, J.:- 1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.9.1999 passed in W.P(C) No. 431 of 1999. 2. Heard Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, learned counsel for the appellants of W.A. No. 204 of 1999 and Shri B.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the contesting respondents in this writ appeal. 3. A short factual matrix will suffice for decision of this Writ Appeal. The relieves sought for in the connected writ petition being W.P(C) No. 431 of 1999 are (1) to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ for quashing/setting aside the decision of the authorities of the RIMS/DPC held on 4.3.1999 fixing the date of eligibility for promotion to the post of Professor as on 1.2.1999 and (2) to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to review the proceedings of the DPC held on 4.3.1999 to consider the cases of the petitioners or hold a fresh DPC to consider the cases of the appellants/ writ petitioners. 4. The above relieves were prayed for by the appellants of this writ appeal in the W.P(C) No. 431 of 1999 on the main ground that they were aggrieved by the arbitrary and irrational fixation of the cut off date for determining the eligibility under the Time Promotion Scales Rules, 1991 as on 1.2.1999 while considering promotion by the DPC held on 4.3.1999 under the rules thereby depriving the opportunity of the appellants/ writ petitioners for promotion to the higher posts of Professor in the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (RIMS). 5. There is a scheme/rule called “Time Promotion Scale Rules, 1991” framed by the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences providing for giving promotion on time scale on the pattern of the Central Health Services. According to Rule 6(B) of the Time Promotion Scale Rules, 1991, appointing authority shall upgrade 22% of total regular posts of Associate Professors to the grade of Professors, and for computing the period of service in the grade of Associate Professor, the service rendered in the post of Assistant Professor on regular basis shall also be taken into account, provided the Officer has worked on regular basis for a minimum period of 6(six) years in the grade of Associate Professor in the regular basis for a period of 15 years of above as Assistant Professor and Associate Professor. By the order of the Chairman being No. B/1520/91-MC Imphal the 12th October, 1993 certain modifications in the Rules of the Time Promotion Scale Rules had been made. According to that modification, the Rule 6(B) is modified to the extent that 6(six) years of regular service as Associate Professor in continuous service period of 15 years or more (Associate Professor + Assistant Professor) OR 6(six) years of continuous service of Associate Professor in continuous service period of 20 years as Associate Professor + Assistant Professor + other service period of NERMC or any Govt. service provided the person is eligible for promotion as per MIC Rules. 6. Admittedly, the appellants/writ petitioners became eligible for promotion to the posts of Professors under the Time Promotion Scale Rules, 1991 on 19.2.1999. But only the case of the appellants/writ petitioners in W.P(C) No. 431 of 1999 was that the authority arbitrarily, whimsically and without any reason had fixed an artificial date 1.2.1999 as the cut off date for determining the eligibility for promotion to the post of Professors and basing on that artificial date 1.2.1999, the DPC for promotion to the posts of Assistant Professor under the Time Promotion Scale Rules, 1991 was held on 4.3.1999 thereby depriving the right of the appellants/writ petitioners guaranteed by the Constitution of India to consider for promotion to the higher post. This being so, the appellants/writ petitioners are challenging the cut off date, i.e. 1.2.1999, and also that had the cut off date been after 19.2.1999 but before the said DPC which was held on 4.3.1999 the case of the appellants/ writ petitioners would have been considered for promotion to the higher posts of Professors by the said DPC held on 4.3.1999. 7. The learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 22.9.1999 had not considered and decided the main issues, viz (i) as to whether the cut off date 1.2.1999 for determining the eligibility for promotion to the post of Professor was artificial and arbitrary or not; (ii) whether the cut off date 1.2.1999 was based on any reasonable basis, and (iii) if the cut off date 1.2.1999 had been fixed arbitrarily, whether review of the DPC held on 4.3.1999 will be required or not? The learned counsel appearing for the RIMS strenuously submitted that if the review of the DPC held on 4.3.1999 is to be held, definitely the interests of the persons who were already promoted to the posts of Professors on the recommendation of the DPC held on 4.3.1999 shall be affected. To substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the RIMS placed strong reliance to the decisions of the Apex Court in (1) State of Bihar & Ors. - Vrs- Kameshwar Prasad Singh & Ors., reported in (2000) 9SCC 94 that in the absence of persons likely to be affected by the relieves prayed for, the writ petition should normally be dismissed unless there existed specific reasons for non-impleadment of the affected persons, and (2) Medical Council of India - vrs - Swati Sethi & Ors, reported in (2004) 5 SCC 798 wherein the Apex Court after coming to the findings that Medical Council of India would be affected party or necessary party in deciding the time schedule/ time table for medical course in a writ petition. Accordingly, after adding the Medical Council of India and Dental Council of India matter was remitted to High Court for rehearing and disposal after providing opportunity to them. Coming back to the present case, as the learned Single Judge had not decided the main issues while passing the impugned judgment and order dated 22.9.1999, we are of the considered view that it would be more appropriate to decide the above points raised by the learned counsel for the RIMS along with other main issues mentioned above. 8. Regarding the cut off date, i.e. 1.2.1999, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously submitted that the said cut off date 1.2.1999 is fixed arbitrarily and an artificial date. In this regard, the learned counsel placed strong reliance in the decision of the Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in D.R. Nim - Vrs - Union of India, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1301 that authority cannot pick out a date from a hat for reckoning the service for promoted Indian Police Service Officers for the purpose of counting seniority. 9. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.9.1999 is required to be interfered with. 9. For the reasons discussed above, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.9.1999 is required to be interfered with. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.9.1999 is set aside and Appeal is allowed to the extent that the W.P(C) No. 431 of 1999 is remitted to the learned Single Judge for deciding the main issues discussed above. 10. However, it is made clear that any observations in the present judgment and order shall not cause any prejudice to the learned Single Judge while deciding the W.P(C) No. 431 of 1999 afresh. It is entirely left to the wisdom of the learned Single Judge to pass an appropriate judgment and order. No order as to costs.