As many as seven Jr. Manipur Civil Service ( Sr. Grade) officers are challenging the order dated 20.2.2010, issued by the department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Manipur, promoting 14 officers from the same cadre to the post of Jr. MCS ( Selection Grade). Since the impugned notification is one and the same in all the aforesaid writ petitions, these are being disposed of by this common judgment. This judgment will also dispose of the connected Misc. application. 2. Heard Mr. HS Paonam, learned Sr. Adocate, Mr. A. Mohendro, Mr. H. Maipaksana and Mr. S. Gunabanta, learned Advocates for the petitioners and Mr. Th. Ibohal learned Sr. Govt. Advocate for the State, , Mr. I Lalitkumra, learned Sr. Advocate for the MPSC, Mr. H.Debendra, learned Govt. Advocate, Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned Sr. Advocate, Mr. A. Mommel, Mr. M. Roshini Piba and Mr. I. Rojendra, learned Advocates for the private respondents. 3. The impugned decision of the State respondents has been challenged basically on the ground that the previous DPC for selection of 44 Jr. MCS ( Sr. Grade) was held on 2.2.2008 and the merit list was drawn up wherein the writ petitioners stood senior to the private respondents. However, when the DPC for selection of 14 Officers to the rank of MCS Officers (Selection Grade) was held on 17.2.2010, the previous merit list, prepared on 2.2.2008, was superseded and Junior Officers were promoted, ignoring the petitioners’ seniority position. It has been alleged that the merit list was prepared on the basis of manipulated ACRs. The impugned promotion order has also been assailed on the ground that the DPC should have accepted the earlier merit position and in addition to that only the ACRs for the year 2007-08 could have been considered as an additional input. This submission was made on the premise that the ACRs up to 2006-07 were already considered by the previous DPC for Sr. Grade MCS Officers on 2.2.2008 and a merit list was prepared on that basis. Hence, the DPC for selection grade was not competent to review the gradings given to the Officers in the previous exercise. 4. During the course of hearing the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate also placed the relevant files as well as the ACRs of the concerned Officers. 5. The appointment and promotion of the Junior MCS Officers from Sr. Hence, the DPC for selection grade was not competent to review the gradings given to the Officers in the previous exercise. 4. During the course of hearing the learned Sr. Govt. Advocate also placed the relevant files as well as the ACRs of the concerned Officers. 5. The appointment and promotion of the Junior MCS Officers from Sr. Grade to Selection Grade in two different Grades is governed by “ The Junior Manipur Civil Services Rules, 2007”. Rule 27 has laid down the constitution of Selection Committees for promotion to the rank of Sr. Grade and Selection Grade, eligibility of the candidates and other aspects. Apparently, the Selection Committees for Sr. Grade and Selection Grade are different. The Selection Committee for Selection Grade does not involve MPSC, whereas, for the Selection Grade, the Committee includes Chairman or Member of the MPSC. Promotion from Sr. Grade to the Selection Grade is to be made by the Selection Committee on merit with regard to the seniority basis. 6. After 2009 amendment of the Rules qualifying service for promotion of Jr. Grade MCS Officers to the Selection Grade has been reduced to 4 (four) years from 6(six) years and similarly the qualifying service of 13 (thirteen) years for Selection Grade has been scaled sown to 10 ( ten) years. 7. Strangely, in the affidavit of the State respondents No. 1,2 and 3 it was not indicated as to when the vacancies of 14 posts of Selection Grade MCS Officers occurred. However, in the affidavit of the MPSC this aspect was made clear. In the same affidavit, it has been stated that the 14 posts of the Selection Grade fell vacant in the year 2007-08. 8. The promotions are made in accordance with the Rules read with Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999. This O.M. has laid down the guidelines, inter-alia, as to how many Officers should be considered qua the number of vacancies, how many years ACRs should be considered, what should be the gradings for promotions etc. Under Clause 5.3.1, the Officers graded as “ Outstanding” would rank in en-bloc senior to those who are graded as “Very Good” and Officers graded as “Very Good” would rank en-block senior to those who are graded as “Good” as per this Clause. Under Clause 5.2.1 the Confidential Rolls for “five” preceding years should be considered to assess the merit and suitability of the Officers. Under Clause 5.2.1 the Confidential Rolls for “five” preceding years should be considered to assess the merit and suitability of the Officers. This Clause further gives the guidelines as to how the DPC should proceed if the Confidential Rolls for more than one years have not been written, including other eventualities. Under Clause 5.1.2 it has been clarified that the DPC enjoy full discretion to devise their own method in the following words: “5.1.2 At present, DPCs enjoy full discretion to devise their own methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered by them” 9. In the case of Union of India and Another –vs- A.K. Narula; reported in (2007) 11 SCC 10 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the DPC may not act only on the basis of gradings. In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering promotion of a CRPF Officer whose promotion was also to be considered on similar guidelines, as prescribed in the OM dated 29.4.1999 of the Government of Manipur. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations : “15. The guidelines give a certain amount of play in the joints to DPC by providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading recorded in CRs, but may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in CRs. DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately, but by adopting the same standards, yardsticks and norms. ……………………..” 10. In the case before me what I find from the concerned file that the ACR dossiers of only 20 Officers were forward to the MPSC on 28.1.2010 and 4.2.2010 for the years 2004-05 to 2008-09. The DPC was held on 17.12.2010. The Minutes of the meeting does not disclose as to how the merits of the Officers were assessed. It simply says that 14 Officers were selected after assessing their ACR gradings. The relevant paragraph of the meeting is reproduced below: “7.0 For 14(fourteen) vacant post zone of consideration is 32 (thirty two). However, the administrative department has furnished that there are only 20 (twenty) eligible Officers. The Committee after examining the Integrity Certificate and assessing the over all gradings of the ACRs of the eligible Officers, recommend the following Officers for promotion to the post of Jr. However, the administrative department has furnished that there are only 20 (twenty) eligible Officers. The Committee after examining the Integrity Certificate and assessing the over all gradings of the ACRs of the eligible Officers, recommend the following Officers for promotion to the post of Jr. MCS ( Selection Grade) in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms ( Personnel Division) Government of Manipur.” 12. The record of the Government included the ACRs of the Officers. I have also perused the same. What I have noticed is that in some cases there are two sets of ACRs in respect of same Officers. One set of ACRs has been written in the normal format with remarks by the Reporting Authority, Reviewing Officer and Accepting Officers, whereas, another set of ACRs is termed as “Special Assessment Report”. This fact has also been noted in the assessment chart prepared by the DPC. During the course of hearing the learned Govt. counsel could not explain as to why Special Assessment Report had to be prepared despite availability of the regular reports. 13. It was also noticed by me that in some cases, gradings of the reviewing and accepting authorities were obtained on the same date in respect to two to three years of ACR. In other words, final assessments were made after 2/3 years of the assessment year. Similarly, in few cases the overall grading given either by the Reporting Officer or the Review Officer was downgraded by the accepting authority, or vice versa. It is not known whether the DPC had taken into consideration all these aspects. 14. Under Office Memorandum dated 29.4.1999, 5(five) years ACRS can only be considered for assessing the merit and the suitability of the Officers of preceding year of vacancy. I have already noted earlier that as per the affidavit of the MPSC, the vacancies of 14 posts of Selection Grade MCS Officers arose in the year 2007-08. Hence, the Selection Committee should have taken into consideration only the ACR for the preceding 5 years. However, from the assessment chart prepared by the Selection Committee it appears that the ACRs for the year 2008-09 were also considered, which is prima facie against the O.M. dated 29.4.1999. The minutes of the meeting dated 17.2.2010 do not explain as to why the ACRs for 2008-09 had to be considered and whether it was in conformity to the Government O.M. 15. The minutes of the meeting dated 17.2.2010 do not explain as to why the ACRs for 2008-09 had to be considered and whether it was in conformity to the Government O.M. 15. It also appears to me that the recommendations of 14 Officers were made solely on the basis of the gradings given to the Officers in the respective ACRs. The minutes of the meeting do not indicate that the members of the Selection Committee made any special exercise to evaluate the assessment of the Officers on their own on the basis of the various entries reflected in the ACRs. In other words, it appears to me that the merit list was prepared mechanically and the Selection Committee was guided and entirely influenced on the basis of the ACR gradings. In my considered opinion to assess the merit of Officers, the ACR gradings can be one of several factors. However, the DPC/Selection Committee did not adopt any special method to assess the merit and suitability of the officers, although it was vested with such power under Clause 5.1.2 of the O.M. dated 29.4.1999. 16. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that it is a fit case wherein the Selection Committee/DPC should be directed to review its recommendations by way of a fresh exercise. 17. In the result the writ petitions stand allowed. The impugned promotion order dated 20.2.2010, promoting 14 Officers in the rank of Junior MCS (Selection Grade) is hereby set aside. The State Government is directed to take initiative for holding fresh DPC within two months. Thereafter the Selection Committee shall hold its meeting within next two month. In other words, the entire exercise should be carried out within a period of four months. Till then, the promotion of private respondents in the rank of Jr. MCS (Selection Grade) shall continue. 18. The Registry is directed to hand over the ACRs of the Officers and relevant files to the Sr. Govt. Advocate, Manipur immediately along with a copy of this judgment. _____________