Judgment :- U.V. Bakre, J. Heard Mr. S. M. Walwaikar and Mr. J. Godinho, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A. N. S. Nadkarni, learned Advocate General on behalf of the respondents. 2. Both the above petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment since issues involved and the reliefs claimed in both are the same. 3. By these petitions, the petitioners have sought the following reliefs: (a) For a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the decision dated 20/12/2005 of the review D.P.C. (b) For a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to follow the law declared by this Court in the matter of Ashok Redkar and Ors (supra) and to consider the petitioners to the post of Ward Sister by reviewing the decision of respondent no. 2 taken on 20/12/2005. 4. The petitioners belong to the reserved category of Scheduled Castes. The petitioners joined Goa Medical College as Staff Nurses. The petitioner of Writ Petition No. 237/2006 joined on 01/06/1993 whereas that of Writ Petition No. 238/2006 joined on 06/08/1996. Both were promoted to the post of Ward Sister against substantive vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, on recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.), following the judgment of this Court in the case of “Mr. Ashok Redkar and two others Versus State of Goa and 37 Ors”(Writ Petition No. 272/1996) . The above promotions were challenged by one Eliza Rodrigues and others in Writ Petition No. 244/2001 on various grounds. Said Writ Petition No. 244/2001 was withdrawn in view of the affidavit filed by the Government stating that they have decided to hold review D.P.C. as per the norms applicable at the relevant time. However, respondent no. 2 revoked the promotion of the petitioners without holding the D.P.C. The petitioners filed Writ Petitions No. 306/2005 and 307/2005 respectively, thereby challenging the order of reversion. By order dated 12/09/2005, said Writ Petitions No. 306/2005 and 307/2005 were disposed of by observing that if the promotions are given by review D.P.C. and if the petitioners are aggrieved by such decision, then, the petitioners can challenge such decision in accordance with law. The petitioners then filed Writ Petitions No. 421/2005 and 422/2005, respectively. As a result of the order passed in the above Writ Petitions, review D.P.C. met on 20/12/2005. The petitioners then filed Writ Petitions No. 421/2005 and 422/2005, respectively. As a result of the order passed in the above Writ Petitions, review D.P.C. met on 20/12/2005. By memorandum dated 10/01/2006, the petitioners were intimated that the review D.P.C. which met on 20/12/2005, arrived at a conclusion that the petitioners are not falling within the extended zone of consideration in terms of Office Memorandum (O.M.) No. 22011/1/90-Estt. (D) dated 12/10/1990 and O.M. No. 22011/1/90-Estt (D) dated 22/4/1992 read with O.M. No. 22011/1/02-Estt (D) dated 15/11/2002 and as advised by Government of Goa, Directorate of Social Welfare, Panaji vide letter No. 61-2-2003-BC/(30)3105 dated 02/12/2005 and, therefore, they are not considered for promotion. By letters dated 24/01/2006, the petitioners requested the Dean, Goa Medical College to furnish the details i.e. the names of candidates/Staff Nurses selected, if any, by the review D.P.C. held on 20/12/2005 for promotion to the post of Ward Sister; whether any order of promotion, if any, issued in favour of the candidates selected by the said review D.P.C.; and whether the selection process was undertaken by complying with the mandate of the law as laid down by the High Court, Panaji Bench in the judgment dated 25/09/1998 in the case of “Mr. Ashok Redkar and two others Versus State of Goa” in Writ Petition No. 272/1996. By reply dated 10/02/1996, respondent no. 2 informed the petitioners that the matter of promotion has been decided, inter alia, by following the judgment dated 25/09/1998 passed in the said Writ Petition no. 272/1996. 5. According to the petitioners, respondent no. 2 has falsely represented to them that the review D.P.C. had followed the ratio of the judgment in the said case of “Mr. Ashok Redkar and two others” (supra) inasmuch as if the review D.P.C. had followed the said ratio, then, respondent no. 2 ought to have prepared a separate list of Scheduled Castes candidates and the petitioners being the senior most Staff Nurses in the Scheduled Castes category, ought to have been listed above other eligible Schedule Caste candidates in the list. Ashok Redkar and two others” (supra) inasmuch as if the review D.P.C. had followed the said ratio, then, respondent no. 2 ought to have prepared a separate list of Scheduled Castes candidates and the petitioners being the senior most Staff Nurses in the Scheduled Castes category, ought to have been listed above other eligible Schedule Caste candidates in the list. In the O.M. dated 11/07/1968 issued by the Government of India, it has been specifically provided that there will be reservation for promotions to the posts by selection in Groups “C” and “D” appointments and it has been laid down that the select lists of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes candidates should be drawn up separately to fill up reserved vacancies and that the officers belonging to these classes should be adjudged separately and not along with other officers and if they are fit for promotions, they would be included in the list irrespective of their merit as compared to other officers. It is further provided in the said O.M. dated 11/07/1968 that officers not belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (i.e. the candidates from General Category) would not be considered whilst drawing up separate list for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the decision taken by the review D.P.C. is in breach of undertaking given by the respondents to the High Court in its affidavit and hence, respondents no. 2 and 3 are guilty of contempt of the High Court. The petitioners, therefore, alleged that the decision taken by review D.P.C. in the meeting dated 20/12/2005, thereby excluding the petitioners, is liable to be quashed and set aside. 6. On behalf of the respondents, the Dean of Goa Medical College has filed affidavit in which, inter alia, it is stated as follows: The review D.P.C. was held on 20/12/2005 and all eligible candidates for promotions to the post of Ward Sister were considered. Vide letter dated 02/12/2005, the Director of Social Welfare has clearly stated that clarification regarding promotion has been envisaged in O.M. No. 22011/1/02-Estt. (D) dated 15/11/2002. Vide letter dated 02/12/2005, the Director of Social Welfare has clearly stated that clarification regarding promotion has been envisaged in O.M. No. 22011/1/02-Estt. (D) dated 15/11/2002. Third paragraph of the said O.M. dated 15/11/2002 clearly states that the provisions of O.M. dated 12/10/1990 and 22/04/1992 are in replacement of all the previous orders issued by the Departments and that for any D.P.C. held after issue of the said O.M. dated 15/11/2002, the size of zone of consideration/extended zone of consideration was/is required to be considered only on the basis of the provisions of the said Memorandum and no reference has to be made to any further instructions on the said subject issued by the Departments prior to 12/10/1990. The O.M. dated 11/07/1968 is superseded by O.M. dated 15/11/2002. The review D.P.C. was held on 20/12/2005 pursuant to clarification received from Social Welfare Department regarding zone of consideration for promotion which was envisaged in O.M. dated 15/11/2002. The petitioners are wrongly referring to O.M. dated 11/07/1968,which is not applicable to them as the same is superseded by O.M. dated 15/11/2002. The said vacancies arose in the year 1999-2000. The petitioners were inadvertently promoted by the D.P.C. which was held in 2001 by following previous O.M. dated 11/07/1968 which was not in force and this was not brought to the notice of D.P.C. at the relevant time. The review D.P.C. which met on 20/12/2005 has considered the candidates from the seniority list which came within extended zone of consideration. Therefore, the O.M. dated 15/11/2002 has been strictly complied with. 7. Rule was issued in both the matters on 22/8/2006, with a direction that all further promotions shall be subject to the result of the petitions. 8. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, contended that the O.M. No. 01/12/1967-Estt. (C) dated 11/07/1968 still holds good and is not superseded by the O.M. dated 15/11/2002 and hence, the judgment dated 25/09/1998 in Writ Petition No. 272/1996 is applicable to the petitioners. They, therefore, submitted that a separate list for S.C./ S.T. and groups “C” and “D” will have to be prepared and the review D.P.C. will have to be conveyed and cases of the petitioners will have to be considered. Learned Counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the O.M. dated 15/11/2002 basically deals with the size of zone of consideration and refers to the O.M. dated 12/10/1990 and 22/04/1992. Learned Counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the O.M. dated 15/11/2002 basically deals with the size of zone of consideration and refers to the O.M. dated 12/10/1990 and 22/04/1992. They pointed out that the said O.M. dated 12/10/1990 and 22/04/1992 refer to O.M. dated 24/12/1980 and clarify about extended zone of consideration. They further pointed out that in all the above O.M., O.M. dated 11/07/1968 does not figure. Learned Counsel, on behalf of the petitioners, then invited our attention to the said O.M. dated 11/07/1968 which lays down that select list of S.C./S.T. officers should be drawn up separately and not along with other officers. According to learned Counsel, the zone of consideration and extended zone of consideration is separate for S.C./S.T. and there has to be a separate list of S.C./S.T. 9. On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that the candidates from S.C./S.T. category have to be considered along with the General category candidates and that when adequate number of S.C/S.T. candidates are not available, the zone of consideration for S.C./S.T. candidates is to be extended by five times the number of vacancies and only when the S.C./S.T. candidates fall within the zone of consideration or the extended one of consideration, they can be considered for the purpose of promotions. He contended that the O.M. dated 11/07/1968 does not survive now on account of the O.M. dated 15/11/2002 and even otherwise, the O.M. dated 11/7/1968 nowhere lays down that the candidates from S.C./S.T. category, wherever they stand, should be considered. According to learned Advocate General, the preparation of separate list is for having competition amongst S.C./S.T. candidates. He, therefore, urged that even if a separate list of S.C./S.T. is prepared, the same has to come within the zone of consideration/extended zone of consideration and not beyond that. He further submitted that the O.M. dated 15/11/2002 was not in existence when the judgment, in the case of “Ashok Redkar and Others”(supra), was passed and, therefore, the petitioners are not covered by the said judgment. Learned Advocate General invited our attention to the procedure for filling up of reserved vacancies in terms of reservations provided to them in different cases of promotions stated in “Swamy's Reservations and Concessions in Government Services”. 10. We have minutely perused the entire material on record and have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties. 11. Learned Advocate General invited our attention to the procedure for filling up of reserved vacancies in terms of reservations provided to them in different cases of promotions stated in “Swamy's Reservations and Concessions in Government Services”. 10. We have minutely perused the entire material on record and have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for both the parties. 11. As per the minutes of review D.P.C., held on 20/12/2005, the candidature of both the petitioners for promotion to the post of Ward Sister against the quota reserved for candidates. The learned Counsel have relied upon the case of “The Commissioner of Central Service & Customs & Anr. Vs. Jayakumar & Anr.”. They, therefore, urged that the petitions be allowed. S.C. category, has not been considered as both the petitioners were not figuring within the extended zone of consideration in terms of the O.M. No. 22011/1/90-Estt. (D) dated 12/10/1990 and the O.M. No. 22011/1/90-Estt. (D) dated 22/04/1992 read with O.M. 22011/1/02-Estt. (D) dated 15/11/2002 and as advised by the Government of Goa, Directorate of Social Welfare, Panaji vide their letter No. 61/2/2003-BC-(30)/3105 dated 02/12/2005. The question, therefore, is whether it is necessary for the candidates of Schedule Caste category to figure within the zone of consideration or the extended zone of consideration along with candidates of General category, for being promoted, against the quota reserved for S.C. category. 12. The O.M. No. 22011/1/90-Estt. (D) dated 12/10/1990 and O.M. No. 22011/1 /90-Estt. (D) dated 22/04/1992 respectively lay down the revised instructions and clarification regarding the O.M. No. 22011/3/76-Estt. (D) dated 24/12/1980. The said O.M. dated 24/12/1980, amongst other matters, states that where adequate number of S.C./S.T. candidates are not available within the normal field of choice, as indicated above, the field of choice may be extended to five times the number of vacancies and the S.C./S.T. candidates (and not any other) coming within the extended field of choice should be considered against the vacancies reserved for them. Thus, the O.M. dated 12/10/1990 speaks of revised instructions in respect of extended zone of consideration provided under the O.M. dated 24/12/1980 and O.M dated 22/04/1992 speaks of the clarification about the intention to have the extended zone of consideration said under O.M. dated 24/12/1980, which was to continue. 13. In the case of “Ashok Redkar and Others” (supra), the petitioners belonged to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. 13. In the case of “Ashok Redkar and Others” (supra), the petitioners belonged to the reserved category of Scheduled Caste. According to the Government, the petitioners were not coming within the extended zone of consideration as applicable to S.C./S.T. and hence, could not be considered for promotions and since no candidates from S.C./S.T. were available, the vacancies reserved for S.C./S.T. were duly de-reserved as laid down under O.M. No. 36011/3/76/Estt. (SCT) dated 22/1/1977 and these vacancies were filled from the General category. Learned Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case held that the controversy in question is governed by O.M. No. 1/12/67-Estt. (C) dated 11/07/1968. It has been held that the O.M. dated 12/10/1990 and 22/04/1992 speak of extended zone of consideration which was provided under notification dated 24/12/1980 which was to continue. It has been observed that the subject of O.M. dated 24/12/1980 was principles for promotion to selection post and this O.M. was issued since large number of clarifications were being sought by various Ministries/Departments. Learned Division Bench has further observed that specifically on 02/05/1983, the Department of Personnel and A.R. issued O.M. No. 36011/13/83-Esst. (SCT) on the subject “Principles for promotion to Selection Post” with further clarification regarding the application to Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes employees. The said O.M. dated 02/05/1983 has been quoted by learned Division Bench in the said judgment and the same reads as under: “The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M. No. 22/11/3/76-Estt), dated the 24th December, 1980, wherein the field of choice in respect of the posts to be filled by promotion on selection basis and the system of preparing select list have been revised. It has been mentioned therein that if adequate number of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes are not available, the field of choice be extended to five times the number of vacancies but Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers so considered in the extended field will be placed enbloc at the bottom. Various Ministries/Departments have been seeking clarifications in the matter of applications of these orders to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes employees particularly in the context of the earlier orders contained in this Department O.M. No. 1/12/67-Estt.(c) dated the 11th July, 1968: after careful examination of the issues, it is clarified as follows: (a) In promotions by selection in Groups 'C' and 'D' the earlier instructions contained in the O. M. No. l/12/67-Estt. (C) dated 11.7.1968 would continue to apply in the case of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes employees as these are not superseded by the instructions of 24-12-1980. However, the procedure for identifying year-wise vacancies and preparation of year-wise panels for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, will be as per O.M. dated 24/12/1980. (b) As regards promotion by selection from Group 'C' to Group 'B' within Group 'B' and from Group 'B' to the lowest rung of Group 'A' the principles enunciated in the O. M. of 24/12/1980 will apply to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes officials subject to the modification that meritorious Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates, even in the extended field of choice should not be made to lose the advantage earned by virtue of their superior merit in comparison to others in the normal zone. It has, therefore, been decided that such of the meritorious Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates who are in the extended field and get selected should retain their position in the panel in accordance with their gradation by the D. P. C. To this context, para 3 (c) of the O. M. dated 24-12-1980 may be deemed to have been amended. 2. Ministry of Finance etc. may circulate this to all other offices for appropriate necessary action.” 14. Learned Division Bench in the aforesaid case of “Mr. Ashok Redkar and Others”, has held that the O.M. No. 36011/13/83-Esst. (SCT) dated 02/05/1983 clearly stated that in promotions by selection in groups “C” and “D”, the earlier instructions contained in the O.M. No. 1/12/1967-Esst. (C) dated 11/07/1968 would continue to apply in the case of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes employees as these are not superseded by the instructions of 24/12/1980. It has been further held that subsequent O.M. dated 12/10/1990 and 22/04/1992 are in continuation of O.M. dated 24/12/1980 and the same do not in any manner, whittle down the force of O.M. No. 36011/13/83-Esst. (SCT) dated 02/05/83 which would hold the field of promotions of Groups “C” and “D”. Learned Division Bench further found that the Brochure on reservation of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in services, Eight Edition, issued by Ministry of Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training , New Delhi, 1993 has also printed note at page No.138 under the head “Promotions by selection in Groups “C” and “D” (Class III and IV appointments)”. Paragraph 4 of the O.M. No. 36011/13/83-Esst. Paragraph 4 of the O.M. No. 36011/13/83-Esst. (CST) dated 02/05/1983 has been reproduced therein. Learned Division Bench has held that for any promotions by selection in Groups “C” and “D”, the instructions contained in O.M. No.1/12/67-Estt. (D) dated 11/07/1968 would continue to apply in the case of Scheduled Castes/ Schedule Tribes employees as these are not superseded by the instructions of O.M. dated 24/12/1980. It has been held that the procedure for identifying year-wise vacancies and preparation of year-wise panel as contained in O.M. dated 24/12/1980 will be applied for preparation of separate panels for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 15. In the case of “Mr. Ashok Redkar and Others” (supra), it was found that the instructions of preparation of separate panel/separate select list for Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes had not been followed. It was, therefore, held that the cases of the petitioners and others who are otherwise eligible for being considered, have therefore, to be examined and considered by following the instructions shown in paragraph (3)(a) of O.M. No. 1/12/67-Estt. (C) dated 11/07/1968. 16. The post of Ward Sister falls under Group “C” (Class III) and is the selection post. Paragraphs 2(B)(b), 2(C) and 3(1), (2), (3), and (4) of O.M. No.1/12/67-Estt. (c) dated 11/07/1968 which pertain to Class III and IV appointments provide as under: “2(B)(b)-Class III and IV appointments:-There will be reservation at 12 ½ per cent and 5 per cent of the vacancies for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively in promotions made by selection in or to class III and IV posts, in grades or services in which the element of direct recruitment, if any, does not exceed 50 %. Select Lists of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes officers should be drawn up separately to fill the reserved vacancies as at present; officers belonging to these classes will be adjudged separately and not along with other officers; and if they are fit for promotion, they should be included in the list irrespective of their merit as compared to other officers. Promotions against reserved vacancies will continue to be subject to the candidates satisfying the prescribed minimum standards. 2(C). Promotions against reserved vacancies will continue to be subject to the candidates satisfying the prescribed minimum standards. 2(C). Promotions on the basis of seniority subject to fitness:-There will be no reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in appointments made by promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness, but cases involving supersession of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes officers in Class-I and II appointments will, as at present, be submitted for prior approval to the Minister of Deputy Minister concerned. Cases involving supersession of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Officers in Class III and IV appointments will, as at present be reported within a month to the Minister or Deputy Minister concerned for information. 3. The following instructions will apply to the filling of vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under the orders contained in this Office Memorandum:- (1) (a) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Officers who are within the normal zone of consideration should be considered for promotion along with others and adjudged on the same basis as others and those Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes amongst them who are selected on that basis may be included in the general select list in addition to their being considered for separate Select List for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively. (b) If candidates from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes obtain on the basis of their positions in the aforesaid general Select List, less vacancies than are reserved for them, the difference should be made up by selected candidates of these communities who are in the separate Select List for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes respectively. (2) In the separate Select List drawn up for (i) Scheduled Castes and (ii) Scheduled Tribes, Officers belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, as the case may, will be adjudged separately amongst themselves and not along with other Officers, and, if selected, they should be included in the concerned separate Select List, irrespective of their merit as compared to other officers. It is needless to mention that Officers not belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will not be considered whilst drawing up separate Select Lists for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. It is needless to mention that Officers not belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes will not be considered whilst drawing up separate Select Lists for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. For being considered for inclusion in the aforesaid separate Select Lists, the zone of consideration for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, would be of the same size as that for the general Select List, that is, if for the general Select List, the zone of consideration is 5 times the number of vacancies likely to be filled, the zone of consideration for the separate list for Scheduled castes will also be 5 times the number of reserved vacancies for them, and likewise for Scheduled Tribes. Subject of course to the condition that Officers coming within such zone are eligible by length of service etc. as prescribed, for being considered for promotion. (3) For giving effect to the reservation in promotion prescribed in this Office Memorandum it has been decided that a separate roster on the lines of the roster prescribed in Annexure I to office Memorandum No. 1-3-63-SCT(I) dated the 21 st December, 1963 (in which points 1, 9, 17, 25 and 33 are reserved for Scheduled Castes and point 4, and 21 for Scheduled Tribes) should be followed. If, owing to non-availability of suitable candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as the case may be, it becomes necessary to de-reserve a reserved vacancy, a reference for de-reservation should be made to this Ministry indicating whether claims of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates, eligible for promotion in reserved vacancies have been considered in the manner indicated in (1) and (2) above. When de-reservation are agreed to by this Ministry, the reserved vacancies can be filled by other candidates, subject to the reservations being carried forward to two recruitment years in accordance with this Ministry's Office Memorandum No.1/4/64-SCT(I), dated the 2 nd September, 1964. (4) Where promotions in the above manner are first made on a long-term officiating basis, confirmations should be made according to the general rules viz., that an officer who has secured earlier officiating promotion on the basis of his place in the Select List should also be confirmed earlier and thus enabled to retain the advantage gained by him, provided that he maintains an appropriate standard vide para. 1(iii) of the Ministry's Office Memorandum No. F. 1/I/55-RPS, dated the 17th February, 1955. But the principle of reservations would not apply again at the time of confirmation of promotees.” 17. From the above, it can be understood that if the O.M. dated 11/7/1968 is not superseded, then the case of petitioners is covered by the judgment in the case of “Mr. Ashok Redkar and Others” (supra) and they are bound to succeed in the present petitions. The only question that arises, therefore, is whether the said O.M. dated 11/07/1968 still holds good or whether the same has been superseded by O.M. dated 15/11/2002. 18. The O.M. No.22011/1/02-Estt. (D) dated 15/11/2002 provides for clarification regarding the zone of consideration for promotion to “Selection Posts” for S.C. and S.T.. It says as under: “The undersigned is directed to say that extant instructions on the subject of zone of consideration to be adopted while determining the number of officers to be considered for promotion to posts in any Group by 'selection' including an extended zone of consideration for SC/ST employees, are prescribed vide this Department's O.M. No. 22011/1/90-Estt.(D). dated the 12th October, 1990 read with O.M. No. 22011/1 /90-Estt.(D) dated the 22nd April, 1992 (S1. Nos. 277 and 188 of Swamy's Annual, 1990 and 1992 respectively. 2. References have been received in this Department seeking to know whether various instructions of Department of Personnel and Training relating to the size of zone of consideration for selection posts, particularly in regard to zone of consideration for SC/ST candidates, that were issued prior to 12-10-1990 continue to be valid as aforementioned DoPT office Memorandum, dated 12-10-1990 (read with Office Memorandum, dated 22-4-1992) do not specifically provide that they have been issued in supersession of the earlier orders on the subject issued by this Department. 3. To clear the doubts expressed in this regard, it is hereby clarified that provisions of this Department's Office Memorandum, dated 12-10-1990 and 22-4-1992 ibid are self contained and are in replacement of all previous orders issued by this Department for regulating the size of zone of consideration for promotion by 'selection' of posts in all Groups, including an extended zone of consideration for filling up vacancies reserved for SC/ST candidates. Therefore, for any original DPC held after issue of aforesaid Office Memorandum, the size of zone of consideration/extended zone of consideration was/is required to be considered only on the basis of provisions of these Office Memorandum and no reference is to be made to any other instruction on the subject issued by this Department prior to 12-10-1990.” 19. It is true that the above O.M. dated 15/11/2002 was not existing when the judgment in the case of “Mr. Ashok Redkar and Others” (supra), was passed. However, admittedly, prior to coming into force of the said O.M. dated 15/11/2002 i.e. in the year 2001 and more precisely on 20/02/2001, the petitioners were already promoted to the post of Ward Sister and, therefore, the said O.M. dated 15/11/2002 which appears to have been issued by the respondents along with Circular dated 14/03/2003 could not have been applied to the petitioners. As per the said O.M. dated 15/11/2002, the provisions of O.M. dated 12/10/1990 and 22/04/1992 are in replacement of all previous orders issued by the Department of Personnel and Training for regulating the size of zone of consideration for promotion by “Selection” of post in all Groups including the extended zone of consideration for filling up vacancies reserved for S.C./ S.T. candidates and no reference is to be made to any other instructions on the subject issued by the department prior to 12/10/1990. It is pertinent to note that in the aforementioned case of “Mr. Ashok Redkar and Others” (supra), learned Division Bench of this Court has referred to the Brochure of Reservation for Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Services, Eight Edition issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, 1993 in which the note at page no.138 under the head of “Promotions by Selection in Groups “C” and “D” (Class III and IV appointments)” reproduced paragraph (a) of O.M. No. 36011/13/83-Estt. (SCT) dated 02/05/1983. The said O.M. dated 02/05/1983 in turn refers to O.M. dated 11/07/1968 and states that the said O.M. dated 11/07/1968 would continue to apply in the case of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes employees. 20. (SCT) dated 02/05/1983. The said O.M. dated 02/05/1983 in turn refers to O.M. dated 11/07/1968 and states that the said O.M. dated 11/07/1968 would continue to apply in the case of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes employees. 20. In the case of “ Commissioner of Central Service and Customs and another” (supra), the question was “is a member of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes not entitled to be promoted to Group 'C' Post despite the existence of reserved vacancy merely because his name does not come within the zone of consideration ?” Learned Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala has held thus: “11. A perusal of the above instructions shows that so far as promotions in Groups C and D services are concerned, the authority has to prepare a separate list of persons who are fit for promotion from amongst the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The members of the weaker sections, who fall within the normal zone of consideration, shall be considered for promotion along with others. Under Sub-clause (b), if candidates from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes promoted on the basis of their position in the general select list are less than the number of vacancies reserved for them, the difference is to be made up by promotion of the persons from the separate select list prepared for the members of these categories. In other words, in the case of Groups A and B services, the benefit of reservation is admissible to a member of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes only if he falls within the zone of consideration. However, in the case of Groups C and D services, the benefit is granted even if the man does not fall within the zone of consideration. In fact, the instructions envisage the preparation of separate select lists for members of Scheduled Castes and Tribes. The person, whose name is borne on the select list, is entitled to be promoted against the reserved vacancy. This being the essential difference in the conditions laid down in the instructions, there appears to be infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. ” 21. As has been rightly contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners, the O.M. dated 15/11/2002 basically deals with the size of zone of consideration and refers to the O.M. dated 12/10/1990 and 22/04/1992 which also pertain to the zone of consideration. ” 21. As has been rightly contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners, the O.M. dated 15/11/2002 basically deals with the size of zone of consideration and refers to the O.M. dated 12/10/1990 and 22/04/1992 which also pertain to the zone of consideration. In all the said Office Memoranda, O.M. dated 11/07/1968 does not figure. O.M. dated 11/7/1968 pertains to the reservation for Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes in posts filled by promotion and insofar as class III and IV appointments are concerned, inter alia, to the preparation of separate select lists of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to fill the reserved vacancies, in which lists the officers of General Category cannot be included. 22. In the circumstances above, it cannot be said that the O.M. dated 11/07/1968 has been superseded by O.M. dated 15/11/2002. In our view, the said O.M. dated 11/07/1968 still holds good and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Mr. Ashok Redkar and Others” (supra), squarely applies to the present petitioners. It is not the case of the respondents that the vacancies of posts of ward sisters have been de-reserved. 23. Petitions, therefore, succeed. The decision of the review D.P.C. dated 20/12/2005 is quashed and set aside, the respondents shall follow the law declared by this Court in the matter of “Mr. Ashok Redkar and Others” (supra) and shall consider the petitioners to the post of Ward Sister by holding review D.P.C. expeditiously and in any case within a period of three months. 24. Rule is made absolute, in the above terms, with no order as to costs. 25. Petitions are disposed of accordingly.