1. Heard Mr. S. Jayenta Singh, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Rashmani, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr. N. Kotiswor Singh, learned Advocate appearing for and on behalf of the respondents 2 and 4. Office note dated 6.2.2004 indicates that service of notice to the respondents 8 & 9 had returned after proper service of notice, but in spite of proper service of notice, none appears for the respondents 8 and 9 to-day when the matter is taken up for final hearing. 2. By this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the order of the Governor of Manipur being No. 3/1/90-T(MV) dated 7th June, 1999 for promoting the private respondent no.8 and 9 to the post of District Transport Officer on officiating basis in the Transport (Motor Vehicle) Deptt. on the recommendation of the Manipur Public Service (for short 'MPSC'), a copy of which is available at Annexure-A/16 to the present writ petition. 3. At the very outset, the learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that so far the respondent no.9 who is a member of the Scheduled Caste promoting to the post of District Transport Officer (for short 'DTO') under the impugned order dated 7.6.1999 is concerned, the petitioner is not pressing the present writ petition. 4. The fact stated, in short, of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner was initially appointed as Inspector (Statistics) on ad hoc basis in the Motor Vehicles Deptt., Manipur by an order of the Government of Manipur being No. 2/17/74-T(B)Pt/2 dated 28th May, 1979, a copy of which is available at Annexure-A/1 to the present writ petition. It is said that in pursuance of the said order of the Government of Manipur dated 28.5.1979, the petitioner joined as Inspector (Statistics) on ad hoc basis in the Motor Vehicles Deptt. It is also said that the term of ad hoc appointment of the petitioner as Inspector (Statistics) in the Motor Vehicles Deptt., Govt. of Manipur had been extended from time to time and as such the petitioner was working as Inspector (Statistics) on ad hoc basis without any break. Ultimately, the ad hoc service of the petitioner as Inspector(Statistics) had been regularized under the order of the Director, Transport, Govt. of Manipur had been extended from time to time and as such the petitioner was working as Inspector (Statistics) on ad hoc basis without any break. Ultimately, the ad hoc service of the petitioner as Inspector(Statistics) had been regularized under the order of the Director, Transport, Govt. of Manipur being No. 33/2/83/MV dated 20th June, 1990, a copy of which is available at Annexure-A/8 to the present writ petition. Since the petitioner's ad hoc service as Inspector (Statistics) had been regularized with immediate effect under the said order of the Govt. of Manipur dated 20th June, 1990, the petitioner had approached this court by filing a writ petition being C.R.No.285 of 1992 for a direction to the respondents to regularize his service as Inspector (Statistics) from the date of initial ad hoc appointment. This court by an order dated 19.6.1992 passed in C.R.No.285 of 1992 had allowed the said writ petition to the extend that ad hoc service of the petitioner as Inspector(Statistics) should be regularized with effect from the date of his initial ad hoc appointment for the pensionary and other retirement benefits and not for seniority purposes, a copy of the said order of this court dated 19.6.1992 is available at Annexure-A/9 to the writ petition. 5. In pursuance of the order of this court dated 19.6.1992 passed in C.R.No.285 of 1992, the Governor of Manipur had issued an order being No. 2/11/85-T(MV)Pt, dated 6th March, 1993 for regularizing the ad hoc service of the petitioner as Inspector(Statistics) with effect from the date of his initial appointment from 28.5.1979. 6. The next higher promotional post from the post of Inspector (Statistics) is the District Transport Officer (for short 'DTO') in the Transport Department, Govt. of Manipur. The Governor of Manipur in exercise of the powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed the rules called “Motor Vehicles Department, Manipur (District Transport Officer) Recruitment Rules, 1994” (for short 'RR, 1994') vide notification dated 20th July, 1994, a copy of which is available at Annexure-A/11 to the present writ petition. According to the said RR 1994 for the post of DTO, the post of DTO is a selection post of all the Inspectors of the Motor Vehicles Department, Manipur with 5 years regular service in the respective service. According to the said RR 1994 for the post of DTO, the post of DTO is a selection post of all the Inspectors of the Motor Vehicles Department, Manipur with 5 years regular service in the respective service. Such being the situation the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of DTO under the RR 1994. 7. Admittedly, the respondent no.8 & 9 are also the Inspectors (Taxation) and they are also eligible for appointment by promotion to the post of DTO under the said RR, 1994. The Government of Manipur also prepared the final combined inter se seniority list of the Inspectors/ Senior Accountants/ Head Clerks of Transport Department, Manipur vide notification No. 3/2/91-T (MV) dated 10th February, 1998. In the said combined inter se seniority list notified under the said notification dated 10.2.1998, the name of the petitioner appeared at sl.no.3 and the names of the private respondents 8 and 9 appeared at Sl. No. 7 and 9 respectively. As per the final combined inter se seniority list, the petitioner is undisputedly senior to the private respondents 7 and 9. 8. The Director of Transport, Govt. of Manipur under his letter being No. 2/6/Apt/MV dated 17th September, 1998 requested the Secretary (Transport), Govt. of Manipur to take up necessary actions for filling the post of DTO. In the said letter of the Director of Transport, dated 17.9.1998, it is clearly indicated that there are two substantive vacancies in the post of DTO. From the said letter of the Director of Transport dated 17.9.1998, it is crystal clear that one vacancy of the DTO arose on the retirement on superannuation of one Shri H. Jugeshwor Singh, the then DTO on 28.2.1997 and another vacancy arose on being promoted one Shri Ph. Bijendra Kumar Sharma, the then DTO on 10.10.1998 to the post of Asstt. Director of Transport. It is clear that one vacancy each in the post of DTO arose in the recruitment year 1997 and 1998 respectively. 9. The state respondents also filed their affidavit-in-opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the dates of vacancies arose in the post of DTO as indicated in the said letter of the Director of Transport dated 17.9.1998 had not been denied by them. 10. 9. The state respondents also filed their affidavit-in-opposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition, the dates of vacancies arose in the post of DTO as indicated in the said letter of the Director of Transport dated 17.9.1998 had not been denied by them. 10. It is the admitted case of both the parties that the principle for promotion to the selection posts issued vide notification No. 17/2/80-DP dated 16.5.1981 of the Central Government had been adopted by the Government of Manipur in the year 1982 and the Dy. Secretary(DP), Govt. of Manipur under his letter dated 20th November, 1982 had circulated the said principle for promotion to the selection posts to all the Commissioners/Secretaries, All Secretariat Officers and others for informing that the said principles for promotion prepared by the Central Government had been adopted by the Government of Manipur, a copy of the said principles for promotion to selection posts is available at Annexurea-A/19 to the present writ petition. 11. According to the said principles for promotion to the selection posts, the departmental promotion committee shall for the purpose of determining the number of officers who should be considered from out of those eligible officers in the feeder posts restrict the field of choice and field of choice for one post would be 5 and 8 for 2. 12. Para-4 of the said principles for promotion to selection posts deals with the preparation of year-wise penal by the DPC where DPC have not held for a number of years. As per para-4 of the said principles for promotion to selection posts, even if the DPC could not be held for a number of years the DPC should be held in such a manner that the DPC is held for every year by starting from the earliest year of vacancy. Such type of DPC for preparation of penal for a number of years is a 'composite DPC' and the composite DPC is to prepare the combined select list. For easy reference, the relevant portion of the principles for promotion to the selection posts is quoted here under:….. “3(a) The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) shall for the purpose of determining the number of officers who should be considered from out of those eligible officers in the feeder grade(s) restrict the field of choice as under, with reference to the number of clear regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the year. “3(a) The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) shall for the purpose of determining the number of officers who should be considered from out of those eligible officers in the feeder grade(s) restrict the field of choice as under, with reference to the number of clear regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the year. Number of vacancies Number of officers to be Considered 1. 2. 1. 5 2 8 3 10 4 or more three times - the number of vacancies.” “4. PREPARATION OF YEAR-WISE PANELS BY D.P.C. WHERE THEYHAVE NOT MET FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. (a) Instructions already exist that D.P.Cs. should meet at regular annual intervals for the preparation of select lists and where no such meeting is held in any year, the appointing authority should record a certificate that there were no vacancies to be filled during the year. Administrative Ministries should obtain periodical information/certificates on the regular holding of D.P.Cs. (b) Where, however, for reasons beyond control DPC could not be held in any year even though the vacancies arise during that year (or years) the first DPC that meets thereafter should follow the following procedure. (i)Determine the actual number of regular vacancies that arose in each of the previous years\years immediately preceding and the actual number of regular vacancies proposed to be filled in the current year separately. (ii)Consider in respect of each of the years those officers only who would be within the field of choice with reference to the vacancies of each year starting with the earliest year onwards. (iii)Prepare a 'select list' for each of the years starting with the earliest year onwards. (iv) Prepare a consolidated 'select list' by placing the select list of the earlier year above the one for the next and so on. Illustration: D.P.C. meets in 1980. Number of vacancies in the year 1978 and 1979 were 8 & 7 respectively. It is proposed to fill also 9 more vacancies during 1980. There are 100 eligible Officers. Panel for 1978 : Number of vacancies 8 Field of Choice 24 Take Officers 1 to 24 D.P.C. Classified Sl.No.20 as 'outstanding' and Sl.No.7 and 15 not fit' and rest Very good. Panel list will be.. Sl.No. 20,1,2,3,4,5,6, 8. Panel for 1979:- Number of vacancies 7 Field of choice 21. This comprises officers No. 7.9 to 19, 21 to 29 (Total.. Panel list will be.. Sl.No. 20,1,2,3,4,5,6, 8. Panel for 1979:- Number of vacancies 7 Field of choice 21. This comprises officers No. 7.9 to 19, 21 to 29 (Total.. 21) The D.P.C classified No. 7 as 'not fit' and rest 'Very Good'. Panel will comprise of Sl.No.9 to 15. Panel for 1980: No. of vacancies 9. Field of Choice 27. This will comprise of Nos. 7, 16 to 19, 21 to 42. No. 40 is graded 'Very Good' and the rest as 'Good'. Consolidated select list Sl.Nos. 20, 1 to 6, 8, 9 to 15, 40, 7, 16 to 19, 21 to 23.” 13. It is said that for the said 2 vacancies in the posts of DTO, one vacancy for the recruitment year 1997 and another vacancy for the recruitment year 1998, a departmental promotion committee associated with the Manipur Public Service Commission (for short 'MPSC') was held on 3.6.1999 and on the recommendation of the said DPC associated with the MPSC the private respondents 8 and 9 had been appointed by promotion to the post of DTO on officiating basis vide order of the Government of Manipur being No. 3/1/90-T(MV) dated 7th June, 1999, a copy of which is available at Annexure-A/16 to the present writ petition. 14. The petitioner is assailing the said promotion order dated 7.6.1999 only on the main, inter alia, ground that the respondent no.8 cannot be within the zone of consideration for appointment by promotion to the one vacancy in the post of DTO for the year 1997 and the said DPC associated with the MPSC on 3.6.1999 was not held by following the said principles for promotion to the selection posts. 15. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned G.A. as directed by this court has placed the proceedings of the DPC held on 3.6.1999 associated with the MPSC before this Court and this court has also carefully perused the proceedings of the said DPC held associated with the MPSC on 3.6.1999. From the bare perusal of the proceedings of the said DPC held on 3.6.1999, it is clear that the said DPC did not follow the guidelines in para-3(a) and para-4 of the said principles for promotion to the selection posts which has been quoted above in entirety inasmuch as the said DPC did not prepare the year-wise select list. From the bare perusal of the proceedings of the said DPC held on 3.6.1999, it is clear that the said DPC did not follow the guidelines in para-3(a) and para-4 of the said principles for promotion to the selection posts which has been quoted above in entirety inasmuch as the said DPC did not prepare the year-wise select list. The two vacancies in the post of DTO one of which arose in the year 1997 and another arose in 1998 had been taken as the vacancies arose in the same recruitment year. But according to the said principles for promotion to the selection posts, separate year-wise penal should be prepared for the one vacancy for the recruitment year 1997 and for consideration of the one vacancy in the year 1997 only. 5(five) eligible Inspectors according to the final combined inter se seniority list of the Inspectors shall be considered and writ petitioner is very much within the zone of consideration for the vacancy for the recruitment year 1997. Since the private respondents 8 and 9 whose seniority position according to the said seniority list at sl. No. 7 and 9 cannot be within the zone of consideration for appointment by promotion for one single post of DTO for the recruitment year 1997. The further case of the petitioner is that since the respondent no.8 who is also a candidate in the general category cannot be within the zone of consideration for one single post of general category in the year 1997. It is also admitted case of both the parties that another vacancy arose in the year 1998 is the reserved post and for that reserved post both the petitioner and the respondent no.8 cannot be considered for appointment by promotion. 16. This court from perusal of the proceedings of the DPC held associated with the MPSC on 3.6.1999 and also from perusal of the principles of promotion to the selection posts as well as the said letter of the Director of Transport dated 17.9.1998, is of the considered view that the private respondent no.8 cannot be within the zone of consideration and as such he cannot be recommended for appointment to the lone post of DTO for the recruitment year 1997 by the said DPC associated with the MPSC held on 3.6.1999. Consequently, the appointment of the respondent no.8 on the recommendation of the said DPC associated with the MPSC held on 3.6.1999 under the order of the Director, Govt. of Manipur dated 7.6.1999 will be illegal. 17. For the reasons discussed above, this court is of the considered view that an interference to the said proceedings of the said DPC associated with the MPSC held on 3.6.1999 and the impugned order dated 7.6.1999 for appointing the private respondent no.8 by promotion to the post of DTO are required. Accordingly this writ petition is allowed and the impugned promotion order dated 7.6.1999 for promoting the respondent no.8 to the post of DTO is hereby quashed. Further, the state respondents are directed to hold a review DPC of the earlier DPC associated with the MPSC held on 3.6.1999 within 4(four) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order. However, Private respondents 8 and 9 shall be allowed to continue as DTO till the review DPC is completed.