ORDER : 1. The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition has called in question the order dated 28-7-2011 by which after conducting a review DPC, the petitioner has not been found fit for promotion on the post of Director, Health Services, as also the proceedings of the review DPC said to be convened on 15-6-2011 on various grounds amongst others, essentially on the ground that the proceedings of review DPC were not in consonance with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and were also violative of the specific directions issued by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in the Original Application filed by the petitioner. It is contended that since the Madhya Pradesh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Promotion Rules, 2002’) would not be attracted, the entire consideration done by the respondents was de hors the directions issued by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and this Court, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be quashed. It is the case of the petitioner that since such review DPC is not convened in terms of the specific orders, the order impugned is liable to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to be promoted on the post of Director from the date the said benefit was extended to the juniors to the petitioner. 2. The petition was initially filed before the Bench of this Court at Indore but subsequently has been filed in this Court as the petitioner is presently posted within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. However, the fact remains that when the petition was filed at Indore, the respondents-State had filed a return in the said case but since the same was taken back by the petitioner for presentation before the appropriate Bench, despite grant of opportunity, return has not been filed by the respondents in the present writ petition. The copy of the return filed at Indore has been placed on record of this petition by the petitioner and it appears that the respondents wish to go by the said return. The copy of the return filed at Indore has been placed on record of this petition by the petitioner and it appears that the respondents wish to go by the said return. However, during the course of arguments, Division Bench order passed by this Court in another writ petition has been relied by the respondents and it is their stand that the order impugned has rightly been passed as the petitioner is not found fit for promotion on due consideration in accordance to the Promotion Rules, 2002 and since such a direction was issued by the Division Bench of this Court at Indore in some other writ petition, no fault can be found in the proceedings conducted by the review DPC and as such the writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. In the light of these submissions of learned Counsel for the respondents-State, the matter is to be decided. 3. The history of the litigation is that when initially in accordance to the provisions of the Rules, which were in vogue at the relevant time, a DPC meeting was convened and certain promotion orders were issued in respect of some of the persons, O.A. No. 611/1998 was filed by the petitioner before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Indore. One Dr. Yogiraj Sharma was made a respondent in the said Original Application. Yet another Original Application was filed by another person, who too was aggrieved with the promotion of Dr. Yogiraj Sharma and the said Original Application was registered as O.A. No. 910/1998. Both the Original Applications were heard together and by common order dated 6-11-1998, the Original Applications were decided. At the relevant time the petitioner and Dr. Ashok Sharma, who has filed O.A. No. 910/1998, both were posted as Joint Director, Public Health, at Ujjain and Indore respectively. The grievance set forth in the original application was that in terms of the Madhya Pradesh Public Health and Family Welfare (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'Rules of 1988), the consideration of the petitioner was not rightly done as the record of the Annual Confidential Report was not made available and, therefore, there was no appreciation of the merits at that time for consideration. While allowing the Original Application, the Tribunal recorded the facts relating to non-availability of the ACR records of the officers, who were considered by the DPC held in that year. It was found that the ACRs of certain officers were not available and, therefore, categorical findings were recorded by the Tribunal that the DPC was not justified in considering the cases of the candidates in appropriate manner without the ACR records of officers. While recording such findings, the Tribunal gave a decision and issued directions in the following manner, as is reflected from paragraph 22 of the order passed in the aforesaid original application, which reads thus: “22. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the orders dated 31-3-1998 (Annexure A-1) promoting the respondent Dr. Yogiraj Sharma to the post of Director, Family Welfare and the order dated 3-8-1998 (Annexure A-15) modifying the order (Annexure A-1) and promoting the Respondent Dr. Yogiraj Sharma to the post of Director, Public Health and Family Welfare in a higher scale are hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to constitute a fresh D.P.C. and again consider the filling of the vacant posts keeping the following in view in strict sense: (i) Depending upon whether the restrictions regarding zone of consideration imposed by the Rules of 1997 issued by the G.A.D. of the Government if incorporated in the Recruitment Rules of 1988 of the Department, the zone of consideration shall be seven or atleast five for consideration. The case of Dr. Ashok Virang who stands at S. No. 6, shall be considered if only the provisions of Recruitment Rules, 1988 are to be followed which provide for a zone of seven times. If the provisions of Rules of 1997 have been accepted by the Department or incorporated in the Recruitment Rules even then if Dr. K.K. Shukla has refused consideration for promotion Dr. Virang's number would then find at S. No. 5 and would then come within the zone of consideration. (ii) Correct name of the post, its creation and its scale on which selection is to be made should be ascertained clearly and recommendations should be made for the same post clearly mentioning the same in the proceedings by the D.P.C. to avoid any confusion and illegality. (ii) Correct name of the post, its creation and its scale on which selection is to be made should be ascertained clearly and recommendations should be made for the same post clearly mentioning the same in the proceedings by the D.P.C. to avoid any confusion and illegality. The actual number of vacancies of the post of Director should be ascertained and action to select candidates for all the posts should be taken as per rules. (iii) The C.R. of all the five years of all the eligible candidates falling within the zone of consideration should be considered to allow the assessment of comparative merit on equal footings ignoring unreasoned, un-communicated remark ‘Kha’ of Dr. Ashok Sharma. (iv) As already directed in O.A. No. 66/1998 before holding D.P.C. the seniority list as directed should be prepared and acted upon, if it applies to the cases. The above directions should be complied with within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order because, as was claimed and done by the respondents, that the post of Director could not be kept vacant for long in the interest of Government work.” 4. Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, who was respondent in the said case, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal approached the Division Bench of this Court at Gwalior by filing W.P. No. 1847/1998 (Dr. Yogiraj Sharma vs. State of M.P. and Others). The said writ petition was decided by order dated 20-10-2000. After full analysis the Division Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that it was not open to the Tribunal to issue certain directions as have been indicated hereinabove and passed the order in the following manner, as is reflected in paragraph 11 of the judgment, which reads thus: “11. In the result, the writ petition is partly allowed. The direction of the Tribunal for constitution of the D.P.C. and consideration of eligible five officers of the cadre of Joint Director, including Dr. Ashok Sharma, for promotion to the post of Director, Public Health and Family Welfare, is maintained and rest of the directions as preparation of seniority list, ignoring the gradation ‘Kha’ of Dr. Ashok Sharma etc. are set aside. The order of this Court dated 25-1-2000, staying the hearing of the petition O.A. No. 1508/98 filed by the respondent Dr. Ashok Sharma in the Tribunal, questioning the selection of the petitioner Dr. Ashok Sharma etc. are set aside. The order of this Court dated 25-1-2000, staying the hearing of the petition O.A. No. 1508/98 filed by the respondent Dr. Ashok Sharma in the Tribunal, questioning the selection of the petitioner Dr. Yogiraj Sharma, stands vacated. No order as to costs.” 5. It is noteworthy that even when the order passed in the Original Application of the petitioner herein was not sought to be challenged but since the common order was passed in O.A. No. 611/1998 filed by the petitioner and O.A. No. 910/1998 filed by Dr. Ashok Sharma, the Division Bench decision would be applicable in the case of the present petitioner as well, as the said common order was called in question by Dr. Yogiraj Sharma. However, it appears that the State had not initiated any proceedings challenging the order passed by the Tribunal nor called in question the order passed by the Division Bench anywhere. It further appears that the order passed by the Division Bench modifying the order of the Tribunal was not being complied with and, therefore, certain contempt proceedings were initiated under section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, before the Tribunal. However, since the Tribunal was closed, all pending petitions were transferred to the respective Benches of the High Court under an enactment and contempt application filed before the Tribunal was also transmitted to the High Court where the same was registered as M.C.C. No. 679/2003. The said M.C.C. was decided on 8-2-2008. The operating part of the order passed by the Bench of this Court at Indore on aforesaid date in the aforesaid M.C.C. reads thus: “The directions as issued by the Tribunal modified by the High Court has not been carried out, however urged that it is a fit case of deliberate and wilful non-compliance of the order of the Court. Considering the fact that this petition was filed before the Tribunal invoking the jurisdiction under section 17 of the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. On abolition of Tribunal all the cases have been relegated to this Court. Therefore, it is thought proper to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to carry out the order passed by the Tribunal, modified by the High Court, which is quoted herein above, now within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Therefore, it is thought proper to dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to carry out the order passed by the Tribunal, modified by the High Court, which is quoted herein above, now within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. Accordingly this petition is disposed of.” 6. It is, thus, clear the direction to hold a review D.P.C. as was issued by the Tribunal, was neither interfered nor was set aside by any higher forum. From the reading of the direction issued by the Division Bench also it is clear that the direction to hold the review D.P.C. was not interfered by the Division Bench and, therefore, the review D.P.C. was to be held keeping in mind the year of vacancy and the rules, which were in vogue at the relevant time and not otherwise. It appears that rightful consideration was not done and yet another writ petition being W.P. No. 6787/2008 was filed by the petitioner herein seeking compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal as modified by the Division Bench of this Court and in terms of the order passed in M.C.C. No. 679/2003. Said writ petition came up for hearing before the single Bench of this Court at Indore and as all the facts including the fact that directions were already issued on earlier occasion to constitute a review D.P.C. but the said order was not being complied with, were brought to the notice of this Court, ultimately the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 2-5-2011 giving a categorical direction that the order passed by the Tribunal, so modified by the Division Bench, be complied with. The operating part of the order passed by this Court, Bench at Indore, reads thus: “Resultantly the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the State Government to hold a review DPC as directed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal as well as by this Court vide order dated 8-2-2008 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. In the present case, the order of M.P. State Administrative Tribunal is dated 6-11-1998 and the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1847/1998 is dated 20-10-2000. The order passed in Cont. Pet. In the present case, the order of M.P. State Administrative Tribunal is dated 6-11-1998 and the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 1847/1998 is dated 20-10-2000. The order passed in Cont. Pet. is dated 8-2-2008 and even after expiry of 2 years from the date of order passed in Cont. Petition the respondents have not cared to obey the order passed by this Court and therefore keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case a cost of Rs. 5000/- is imposed upon the respondent State. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.” 7. It appears that the review DPC was not rightly held and on 19-11-2009 a junior to the petitioner was promoted to the post of Director, Public Health & Family Welfare. Calling in question the said order, W.P. No. 3926/2010 (S) was filed by the petitioner before the Bench of this Court at Indore. The said writ petition also came up for hearing on the same day when the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2008 was heard and by the order of the same date the said writ petition was also disposed of. The order of promotion of said Dr. A.N. Mittal was quashed and further direction was given to hold a fresh DPC keeping in view the provisions of the Recruitment Rules as also the Promotion Rules of 2002. The operating part of the order passed in this writ petition reads thus: “It is pertinent to note that the respondents have not held the DPC till date as directed by this Court and on the contrary again promoted a junior on temporary basis depriving the petitioner of his legitimate right of consideration as directed by this court in the earlier round of litigation and therefore as the DPC has not been held in consonance with the provisions of the MP Public Services Promotion Rules, 2002, the proceedings of the DPC and the consequential promotion order dated 19-11-2009 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to hold a fresh DPC keeping in view the provisions of the MP Public Services Promotion Rules, 2002. The aforesaid exercise of holding DPC be concluded within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid this writ petition stands allowed.” 8. The respondents are directed to hold a fresh DPC keeping in view the provisions of the MP Public Services Promotion Rules, 2002. The aforesaid exercise of holding DPC be concluded within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid this writ petition stands allowed.” 8. This order passed in W.P. No. 3926/2010 (S) was sought to be challenged by Dr. Amarnath Mittal in W.A. No. 306/2011 before the Division Bench of this Court at Indore and the said writ appeal was considered and decided vide order dated 20-7-2011. However, the facts relating to previous litigations though recorded, were not weighed and Division Bench overlooking the Division Bench directions issued on earlier occasion, directed to hold the review DPC in terms of the Promotion Rules of 2002 only. The operating direction of the Division Bench in this writ appeal reads thus: “21. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the view that no case to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge except that official respondents No. 1 and 2 shall hold a fresh DPC under Rule 7 of Rules of 2002, as prayed by the appellant is made out. The appeal has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.” 9. It is noteworthy that there was no whisper with respect to the compliance of the order issued by the Division Bench of this Court at Indore on earlier occasion nor any result of the said consideration was brought to the notice of the Court with a categorical declaration that the present petitioner, though was considered in the review DPC in compliance of the previous orders, was not found fit for promotion and, therefore, the orders passed in subsequent writ petition was to be complied with. This fact is not even noted in the order passed by the Division Bench when the writ appeal filed by Dr. Amarnath Mittal was decided. It is also noteworthy that the order passed in W.P. No. 6787/2008 filed by the present petitioner was sought to be challenged by the State Government before the Division Bench of this Court at Indore by filing W.A. No. 422/2011 but the said writ appeal was treated to be hopelessly barred by limitation and was dismissed vide order dated 17-8-2011. That being so, the entire controversy is to be considered in the light of these facts. 10. That being so, the entire controversy is to be considered in the light of these facts. 10. If from the analysis of facts made herein above the order impugned is tested, it would be clear that though it is said that the order is passed in compliance of order dated 6-11-1998 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 910/1998 and O.A. No. 611/1998, as modified by the order dated 20-10-2000 in W.P. No. 1847/1998 and in terms of the order dated 8-2-2008 passed in M.C.C. No. 679/2003, but if the entire proceedings are seen, it would be amply clear that the consideration of the case of the petitioner was not done in appropriate manner, as the criteria, which was not available in the year 1998 and which was made available only when Promotion Rules, 2002 were made, was adopted by the respondents for holding the review DPC, as if they were considering the case of the petitioner in a fresh DPC. If the order was passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal to hold the review DPC or to take into consideration the availability of the vacancy on a particular time when the earlier DPC was convened, it will mean nothing but that the consideration was to be done in terms of the provisions of the rules which were in vogue on the date when the vacancies were indicated or when the proceedings were earlier done for consideration of cases for promotion and not otherwise. From this it is clear that the criteria, which is provided for consideration of cases for promotion in the Promotion Rules, 2002, is not to be made applicable. If that is wrongly done even if there was a direction to adhere to Promotion Rules, 2002 by the Division Bench in some other case, that would not nullify the earlier direction of the Tribunal and the Division Bench of this Court at Indore, more particularly when the proceedings are done in purported compliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal and the Division Bench in respect to the consideration of the case in review DPC. 11. The word ‘review’ has a very important significance. The review means re-assessment of the previous proceedings, which have already been done and it would never mean fresh consideration of the previous act done. 11. The word ‘review’ has a very important significance. The review means re-assessment of the previous proceedings, which have already been done and it would never mean fresh consideration of the previous act done. Therefore, a simple principle would be applicable that whatever provisions were in vogue at the time when the initial proceedings were done and a direction to review such proceedings was issued, the very same provisions were to be adhered to. Whatever norms were adopted by the previous DPC were to be adopted though in appropriate manner as directed by the Division Bench of this Court at Indore and not otherwise. Even if in subsequent proceedings or in some other litigation direction was given by the another Division Bench to make applicable the provisions of Promotion Rules, 2002, the respondents were not authorized to consider the case only under the Promotion Rules, 2002 ignoring the previous directions. Even otherwise the law as laid down by the Apex Court is clear. The Rules or the provisions of the law as available on the date of vacancy have to be looked into. In the cases of N.T. Bevin Katti vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1233 and B.L. Gupta and Another vs. M.C.D. (1998) 9 SCC 223 , the Apex Court has categorically held that the Rules as were available on the date of vacancy have to be applied for making consideration. This will make it clear that the proceedings as were done adopting the norms prescribed in Promotion Rules, 2002, are not the justified proceedings in compliance of the order passed by the Tribunal and by the Division Bench of this Court and, therefore, such proceedings cannot be given a stamp of approval by this Court. 12. The only submission which the State has made that the directions as contained in Division Bench decision in the case of Dr. Amarnath Mittal would hold the field, cannot be sustained as that decision will not overrule the decision already rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 1847/1998. Therefore, such contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents has to be ignored. 13. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 28-7-2011 and the proceedings done on 15-6-2011 by the review DPC are hereby quashed. Therefore, such contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents has to be ignored. 13. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 28-7-2011 and the proceedings done on 15-6-2011 by the review DPC are hereby quashed. Strictly a review DPC be held in terms of the order dated 6-11-1998 passed by the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 611/1998 and O.A. No. 910/1998, as modified by the Division Bench vide order dated 20-10-2000 in W.P. No. 1847/1998, which has been reiterated in M.C.C. No. 679/2003 and as has been categorically directed in W.P. No. 6787/2008, decided on 2-5-2011, within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order and outcome be intimated to the petitioner immediately within the said period. Keeping in view the fact that the respondents deliberately and knowingly have not complied with the previous orders of this Court, strict warning is issued that in case this order is not complied with within the time frame, serious action for committing contempt of this Court would be initiated against the responsible officers. The respondents will pay the cost of this litigation to the petitioner, which is quantified to Rs. 20,000/-. 14. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.