T. Nandakumar Singh, J.;- The present writ appeals, having similar question of facts and law, were heard jointly for being disposed of by a common judgment and order; accordingly, these two writ appeals are disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2. Heard Mr. R. S. Reisang, learned GA appearing for the appellants/respondents and Mr. Premkrishna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner. 3. The Writ Appeal No.57 of 2010 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 08.01.2008 passed in WP (C) No. 662 of 2006 directing the appellants/respondents in the writ petition to consider the case of the writ petitioner as a special case for appointment as Follower, as and when vacancy arises and also to pay the stipend amount of Rs. 20,250/-, yet to be paid to the writ petitioner, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The Writ Appeal No. 70 of 2010 is direc­ted against the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 14.01.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 951 of 2008 directing the appellants/respondents in the writ petition to appoint the writ petitioner as Follower against one of the the two vacancies available in the 4th IRB within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment and order. 4. In order to avoid repetition of facts, the facts in short, sufficient for deciding the present appeals, leading to filing of WP (C) No. 662 of 2006 is, briefly noted, inasmuch as the learned single Judge passed final judgment and order dated 14.01.2009 in WP(C) No. 951 of 2008 after taking into consideration of the judgment and order of the learned single Judge dated 08.01.2008 passed in WP (C) No. 662 of 2006. 5. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The Writ Petitioner was a hard core member of the banned organization namely, RPF/PLA. The State of Manipur is heavily infested by many underground organizations and many youths who are misguided join underground organizations; as a result of the many unlawful activities of the members of the underground organizations, the State of Manipur has a serious law and order problem. The State of Manipur is heavily infested by many underground organizations and many youths who are misguided join underground organizations; as a result of the many unlawful activities of the members of the underground organizations, the State of Manipur has a serious law and order problem. In order to solve the problem of underground activities, the State of Manipur, as approved by the Government of India, formulated a scheme for surrender-cum-rehabilitation of militants in the Northeast States and the said scheme had been circulated to the (1) Director General of Police, Manipur, (2) All the Deputy Commissioners, Manipur, (3) All the Superintendents of Police, Manipur and (4) Director, Information & Public Relations, Manipur, etc. etc. vide letter of the Special Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur being No. 4/14(6)/95-H(Reh)/Pt.1 dated 19.04.1999. Under the said scheme of rehabilitation of militants or/surrendered, the Government of Manipur had provided many incentives and also benefits to the members of underground organizations who surrend­ered to the State Government. It is also stated in the scheme that benefits under the scheme will be applicable to those militants who had surrendered after 01.04.1998. Admittedly the writ petitioner surrendered before the then S.P., Imphal West, Manipur. 6. The writ petitioner was not fully paid the amount of stipend mentioned in the said surrender scheme, he was paid only Rs. 2,000/- for one month and he has to be paid Rs. 22,000/- for the remaining eleven months. 7. The writ petitioner and other surrenderees appeared before the duly constituted Special DPC for appointment to the post of Riflemen and Follower held w.e.f, 06.09.2002 to 10.09.2002; and the Special DPC recommended 74 surrenderees for appointment in two categories, i.e. in category (1)40 surrenderees were recommended for appointment as Riflemen and in category (2) 34 surrenderees were recommended for appointments as Follower in 4th IRB. The said recommendation of the Special DPC held w.e.f 06.09.2002 to 10.09.2002 was approved by the Government of Manipur vide Home Department's letter No. 4/14(6)795-H (Reh) Pt-II/dated 29.11.2002 and 29.04.2003. After approval of the recomm­endation of the said Special DPC by the Government of Manipur, the Director General of Police, Manipur issued order being No. E7 31/41/2000-PHQ (Adm) dated 30.05.2005 that the approval for appointment of 74 surrenderees recommended by the Special DPC shall be subject to Police verification and medical fitness examination and formal order for appointment will be decided in due course. The relevant portions of the said order of the DGP, Manipur dated 30.05.2005 is quoted hereunder: "GOVERNMENT OF MANIPUR POLICE DEPARTMENT Orders by the Director General of Police. Manipur Iraphal, the 30th May, 2005 No. E/31/41/2000-PHQ(Adm)/On recomm­endation of the sepecial DPC for appointment of Surrenderees as Riflemen/Followers in Manipur Police Department which was held w.e.f. 6th Sept to 10th September, 2002 and as approved by the Government vide Home Department Manipur letter No. 4/14/(6)/95-H (Reh) Pt-II dated 29.11,2002 and 29.04.2003 the following candidates (surrenderees) are approved for appointment as Riflemen in 4th IRB Bn in Manipur Police Department subject to Police Verification and medical Fitness Examination, "A'RIFLEMEN: FOLLOWERS'B' SI. Particulars 1. Jubileethang Hmar " S/o Lalseimrem Hmar Address Taithu Village P. S. Parbung 9. Moiranethem Sana Singh Phumlou Siphai, Imphal West, s/o M. Amuthoi Sinph (Writ Petitioner) P. S,. Lamsang, to 34. Md. Noor Hussain S/o Md. Fajul Karim Santhel Mayai Leikai P. S. Mayang Imphal. The date and time schedule for Medical Examination and formal order for appointment will be decided in due course. Sd/- (A. K. Parashar) Director General of Police Manipur, Imphal." 8. Out of the 74 appointees (surrenderees) under the said order of the DGP, Manipur dated 30.05.2005, forty appointees (surrenderees) in the category of Riflemen were allowed to join service but the remaining 34 appointees (surrenderees) were not allowed. Being aggrieved by such partial treatment meted out to the appointees (surrenderees), the petitioner filed represen­tation to respondent No.3, the Director General of Police, Manipur for allowing him to join service as per the said order of the Director General of Police, dated 30.05.2005. The said representation was kept unattended and hence, the present writ petition, i.e. W.P (C) No, 662 of 2006 for a direction to the appellents/respondents in the Writ Petition to allow the petitioner to join service pursuant to the said order of the DGP dated 30.05.2005 and also to provide stipend for the remaining eleven months. 9. The respondents filed their affidavit in opposition wherein it is stated that the forty appointees (surrenderees) under the said order of the DGP, Manipur dated 30.05.2005 for the category 'A'had already been allowed to join as Riflemen in the 4th IRB and that there was excess of 199 posts in the rank of Follower in the Manipur Police Department. 9. The respondents filed their affidavit in opposition wherein it is stated that the forty appointees (surrenderees) under the said order of the DGP, Manipur dated 30.05.2005 for the category 'A'had already been allowed to join as Riflemen in the 4th IRB and that there was excess of 199 posts in the rank of Follower in the Manipur Police Department. The excess number of posts in the category 'B' Follower as on 01.07.2006 is 49 and in that view 34 appointees (surrenderees) cannot be fitted to the post of Follower till date. In other words, the appellants/respondents in the Writ Petition in their affidavit in opposition clearly admitted that the writ petitioner is one of the appointees (surrenderees) under the said order of the DGP, Manipur dated 30.05.2005 but he could not be formally appointed or fitted in the post of Follower as there was no vacancy as on 01.07.2006 and also that the appointees (surrenderees) under the said order of DGP dated 30.05.2005, so far as the category of Riflemen are concerned had already been allowed to join service. Relevant portions of the affidavit in opposition filed the appellants/respondents in the Writ Petition, i.e. para 4,5 are quoted hereunder: "4. That, with regard to para No. 11 of the writ petition, I beg to state that the petitioner is admissible to the stipend of Rs. 24,000/- (Rupees twenty-four thousand) only for the period upto 16.01.2002. Against this amount, a sum of Rs. 3750 (Rupees three thousand seven hundred and fifty) only had been paid to the petitioner and there is balance of Rs. 20,250/- (Rupees twenty thousand two hundred and fifty) only. For clearance of the balance amount of all the surrenderees including the petitioner, the Government of Manipur has been moved for a decision in this regard. 5. That with regard to para Nos. 12 to 15 of the writ petition, I beg to state that as approved by the Government vide letters No. 4/14(6) 95-H (Reh) Pt-II dated 29.11.2002 and 29.04.2003 on the recommendation showing eligibility of every individuals surrenderee candidate in this regard, PHQ has issued order No. E/31/41/2000-PHQ (Adm) dated 30.05.2005 regarding consi­deration for appointment of 40 (forty) surren­derees as Riflemen and 34 (thirty four) surren­derees as Followers in 4th IRB out of 74 surren­derees candidates. The difference is offering the posts between 40 and 34 candidates is the outcome of the recommendation by the special DPC constituted for examining fulfilment of the requisite qualifications required for those posts by the surrenderee candidates. It may not be out of place to mention that 40 surrenderees have been appointed as Riflemen in the 4th IRB on their fulfilling of all the requsite qualifications as required for the post. The remaining 34 surrenderee candidates were found refrained themselves from fulfiling of the requisite qualifications required for the post of Riflemen and as such they were recommended for the post of follower under the rehabilitation scheme. It is, further, to reiterate that at the time of giving apointment to the 40 surrenderee as Riflemen in the 4th IRB, there was an excess of 199 (one hundred and ninety nine) posts in the rank of Followers in Manipur Police Department. The excess number of posts in the same grade is still existed as having 49 posts as surplus as on 01.07.2006. In that view the 34 surrenderees cannot be fitted to the posts of Follower till date." 10. The learned single Judge had finally disposed of the WP (C) No. 662 of 2006 vide judgment and order dated 08.01.2008; operative portions of which read as follows; "5. After hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of all the documents relied upon by the respective parties and taking into consideration of the surplus position for appointment of such candidates, I am of the considered view that since the case of the petitioner has already been approved and recommended by the order of the Director General of Police, Manipur, Imphal dated 30.5.2005, the case of the petitioner may be considered first as a special case, as and when the vacancy arises. With regard to the stipend as admitted by the respondents in their counter, the balance amount of Rs. 20,250/- shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the event of failure to pay the stipulated amount within a stipulated period, an interest @ 9% per annum shall be added till payment. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the directions indicated above-No order as to costs." 11. In the event of failure to pay the stipulated amount within a stipulated period, an interest @ 9% per annum shall be added till payment. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the directions indicated above-No order as to costs." 11. It is stated in the subsequent WP (C) No. 951 of 2008 that in spite of direction of the learned single Judge in the judgment and order dated 08.01,2008 passed in WP (C) No. 662 of 2006, the appellants/respondents in this writ petition, even though there are two vacancies in the posts of Follower in the 4th IRB, which he came to know through an application under RTI Act to the Public Informantion Officer, dated 04,11.2008, had not allowed the writ petitioner to join the post of Follower by issuing formal appointment orders. In WP (C) No. 95"l of 2008, the appellants/respondents, in spite of giving sufficient opportunity, the learned GA appearing on behalf of the appellants/respondents to take the instructions, could not get instruction and accordingly, WP (C) No. 951 of 2008 was disposed of vide impugned judgment and order dated 14.01.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 951 of 2008 directing resp­ondent No. 3, the DGP., Manipur to appoint the petitioner against one of the two vacancies available in the rank of Follower in the 4th IRB within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 12. The grounds, among others for filing the appeals are that (1) there is no vacancy in the post of Follower for allowing the writ petitioner to join as Follower by issuing formal appointment order. Here it is worth to mention that the said order of the DGP, Manipur dated 30.05.2005 it is stated that approval for appointment of the writ petitioner as Follower is subject to Police verification and medical fitness examination; and formal order for appointment will be issued in due course and (2) lifespan of the DPC for appointment as Follower had already been lapsed on 10.09.203 as Special DPC was held on 10.09.2002. Again, here it is worth to mention that the recommendations and proceedings of the Special DPC held on 10.09.2002 had been approved by the Government vide Home Department letter No. 4/14/(6)/95-H (Reh) pt-II dated 29.11.2002 and 29.4.2003 and also the orders had already been issued by the DGP, Manipur himself vide his order dated 30.05.2005 with the condition that approval for appointment of the writ petitioners shall be subject to Police Verification and medical fitness examination; formal appointment orders will be issued in due course. 13. This Court (Division Bench) in WA No 57 of 2010 passed order dated 29.11,2010 which read as follows: "Heard Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned Sr. GA appearing on behalf of the appellants-State of Manipur. The contention of the appellants in the present appeal is that the Scheme formulated vide circular dated 19th April, 1999 does not provide for any guarantee for employment and as such no direction ought to have been issued by the learned Single Judge to appoint the respondent in the next available vacancy, that too as a special case. It appears from the order issued to Director General of Police, Manipur dated 30th May, 2005 (Annexure-A/2) that pursuant to the approval of the Home Department, Government of Manipur, contained in the communication dated 29th November, 2002 and 29th April, 2003, 40 surrenderees were selected for appointment as Riflemen and 34 surrenderees were selected for appointment as Followers in the Manipur Police Department, for which the interview was conducted between 6th September to 10th September, 2002. The learned counsel appearing for the State also submits that there was no vacancy at the relevant time- selection and at present also there is no vacancy in the post of Follower; but persons selected for appointment as Rifleman have been appointed since there were vacancies in the post of Rifleman. To appreciate such contention of the learned State Counsel, the relevant records pertaining the approval for holding DPC, as accorded by the Home Department vide communication dated 29th Nov., 2009 and 29th April, 2003 as well as the records of selection are required to be perused, which shall be produced by the learned State Counsel on the next date fixed. List this case on 06.12.2010 along with the records of WA No. 70 of 2010." 14. List this case on 06.12.2010 along with the records of WA No. 70 of 2010." 14. Pursuant to the said order of this Court dated 29.11.2010 passed in WANo. 57 of 2010, the learned GA placed two files i.e. 1) File No. E. 31/41/2005-PHQ (Adm); and 2) No. E 31/41/2005-PHQ (Adm) (Pt-1). On perusal of note No. 44 of file No. E 31/417 2005-PHQ (Adm) (Pt-1) it is crytal clear that there are 54 vacancies in the post of Follower in the unit of M.R/1RB and 67 vacancies in the CDO in Civil Police as on 01.09.2008 as provided by Sub-(Estt) PHQ (F/J).Therefore. it is clear that the direction of this Court in the judgment and order dated 08.01.2008 passed in WP (C) No. 662 of 2006 should have been complied; but for reasons only known to the respondents, direction of this Court had not been complied. It also appears from Note No. 46 of the said file that without any justification or reasons the appellants/respondents had decided to file appeal. Even in Note No. 47 it is indicated that approval of the Government on the recommendation of the Special DPC for appointment of surrendered militants as Riflemen/Follower had already been conveyed by the Home Department. Government of Manipur. Till date, the Government has not cancelled the earlier approval order given for appointment of the surrenderees. As such, in the absence of Government order for cancelling the approval given in the recommendation of the Special DPC, decision of the DGP, Manipur for not appointing the recommended candi­dates for the reasons of expiry of DPC, may be the deciding factor in the appeals. 15. As such, in the absence of Government order for cancelling the approval given in the recommendation of the Special DPC, decision of the DGP, Manipur for not appointing the recommended candi­dates for the reasons of expiry of DPC, may be the deciding factor in the appeals. 15. On perusal of the notes, in the given case, it is clearly indicated in the file mentioned above that the ground for denying of appointment of the recommended candidates, reason being expiry of DPC, may not be sustainable inasmuch as the Government of Manipur had approved the proceedings of the said DPC held from 06.09.2002 to 10.09.2002 and its recommendations long after the date, i.e 10.09.2003 which, according to the DGP, Manipur is the date for expiry of the DPC vide the said Government ofManipur Home Department's letter No. 4/14/(6)/954-H (Reh) pt-II dated 29.11.2002 and 29.04.2003 and also the DGP, Manipur himself had already issued order dated 30.05.2005 that approval for appointment of the recommended appointees/surrenderees made by the Special DPC held from 06.09.2002 to 10.09.2002 shall be subject to Police verification and medical fitness; formal appointment orders will be issued in due course. In such factual circumstances the question of expiry of DPC does not at all arise. For easy reference, page No. 174 of file No. E 31/41/2005-PHQ (Adm) (Pt-1) is quoted as under: "VACANY POSITION OF FOLLOWER OF MR/ IRB AS ON 01.09.2008 UNIT S P V E 1MR 65 73 - 8 2MR 65 73 - 8 5MR 65 65 - - 6MR 65 63 2 - 7MR 65 75 - - 8MR 65 67 2 - MPTS 52 52 0 1-IRB 69 70 1 2-IRB 69 71 2 3-IRB 69 69 - 4-IRB 69 67 2 5-1RB 69 68 1 6-IRB 69 68 1 7-IRB 69 69 - TOTAL 925 871 75 21 Actual vacancy = (925-871)= 54 VACANCY POSITION OF FOLLOWERS OF C1V1LPOLICE AS QN01.09.2008 UNIT S P V E I/W 2 2 - - CMT(CP) 4 4 - - CDOBn 69 - 69 - TOTAL 73 6 69 2 Actual vacancy = (73-6) = 67 (CDO) 16. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in S. Pratap Singh Vs. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in S. Pratap Singh Vs. State of Punjab: AIR 1964 SC 72 (V 51 C 7) held that: "The Constitution enshrines and guarantee the rule of Jaw and Art 226 is designed to ensure that each and every authority in the State, including the Government acts bona fide and within the limits of its power and we consider that when a Court is satisfied that there is an abuse or misuse of power and its jurisdiction JEL invoked, it is incumbent on the Court to afford justice to the individual- It is with these consideration in mind that we approach the facts of this Case." 17. The Apex Court in Roshan Deen Vs. Preeti Lal: (2002) 1 SCC100 held that: ".... Time and again this Court has reminded that the power conferred on the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it (vide State of U.P Vs. District Judge, Unnao): (1984) 2 SCC 673 . The very purpose of such constitutional power being conferred on the High Courts is that no man should be subjected to injustice by violating the law. The lookout of the High Court is, therefore, not merely to pick out any error of law through an academic angle but to see whether injustice has resulted on account of any erroneous interpretation of law. If justice became the by-product of an erroneous view of law the High Court is not expected to erase such justice in the name of correcting the error of law" (emphasis supplied) 1 8. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India : (1991) 3 SCC 47 held that ordinarily notification for appointment to the vacancy in the post or/in the service of the Government merely amount to an informative to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the posts. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is not under legal duty to fill up any of the vacancies. However. it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancy has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is not under legal duty to fill up any of the vacancies. However. it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancy has to be taken bonafide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test and no discrimination can be permitted. The ratio laid down by the (C/B) of the Apex Court in Shankarasan Dash Vs. Union of India (supra) are that the selected candidates do not acquire any right to the post; but the decision of the State Government not to fill up the vacancy has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons and State cannot act in an arbitrary manner in taking decision not to fill up the vacancies. The Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation & Ors. Vs. United Labour "The Founding Fathers placed no limitation or fetters on the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution except self-imposed limitations. The arm of the Court is long enough to reach injustice wherever it is found. The Court as sentinel on the qui vive is to mete out justice in given facts." 19. For the foregoing reasons the writ appeals are devoid of merit and, accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs. 2, 000/- (Rupees two thousand) only which shall be deposited in the account of the High Court Bar Association, Manipur for utilising it in the interest of poor litigants approaching this Court and the said amount of Rs 2,000/- shall be deposited within one month from today by the appellants. This Court further direct the appellants/respondents in the writ petition to issue formal appointment order to the Writ Petitioner of WP (C) No. 662 of 2008 as Follower within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.