JUDGMENT Both the writ applications have been filed by the same petitioner praying for different reliefs. In WP(C) No. 282 of 2012 the prayer is for a direction to the respondents to review the proceeding of the DPC held on 24.5.2008 in connection with initial appointment and absorption in Grade-II, III & IV of the Manipur Vety. & Animal Husbandry Services strictly in terms of Rule 7 of the Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services Rules, 1994 and also in compliance of an earlier order passed by the Gauhati High Court in W.P(C) No. 1 of 2009 and connected MC(WPC) No.1/2009. 2. In W.P(C) No. 448 of 2012 out of the two prayers is for quashing the recommendation made by the 6th Review DPC in Annexure-A/9 and the consequential reconstitution order in Annexure-A/10, A/11 and A/12 as well as the promotion order in Annexure-A/89(series). The other prayer is same as the prayer made in WP(C) No. 282 of 2012. 3. I have heard Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in both the writ petitions, Mr. RS Reisang, learned Sr. G.A. appearing on behalf of the Manipur Public Service Commission, Mr. S. Nepolean, learned Addl. GA appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents in WP(C) No. 282 of 2012 and also for some of the private respondents in WP(C No.448 of 2012. 4. The dispute relates to constitution of service known as “Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Services.” In the year 1994, the Government of Manipur framed the Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Services Rules, 1994 vide Notification dated 12.10.1994. The said Rules came into force from the date of its publication in the official gazette on 17.10.1994. The above Rules contemplate constitution of the above service and such constitution has to be made consisting of persons to be appointed under Rule 7 of the said Rules. Series of Departmental Promotion Committees were constituted for constitution of the above service in view of the recommendation made by successive Departmental Promotion Committees being set aside or recalled through intervention of the Court or otherwise. After the 5th Review DPC was conducted and recommendations were made (Annexure-A/4 to WP(C)No. 448 of 2012), the matter came up before this Court in W.P(C) No.1 of 2009. After the 5th Review DPC was conducted and recommendations were made (Annexure-A/4 to WP(C)No. 448 of 2012), the matter came up before this Court in W.P(C) No.1 of 2009. In the said writ petition, a Miscellaneous Application was filed bearing No.149 of 2009 and the said Misc. Application was taken up for hearing on 21.8.2009. The said Misc. Application was filed on behalf of the State respondents for permitting them to review the proceedings of the Review Departmental Proceeding Committee meeting held on 24.5.2008 (5th Review DPC) in connection with initial appointment and absorption to Grade-II, III & IV of the Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Services and the consequential Govt. Appointment order dated 27.5.2008 based on the recommendation of the 5th DPC proceeding. The said prayer of the State respondents was accepted and following order was passed by the Court: “In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the State applicant respondent is allowed to review the proceedings of the 5th DPC meeting held on 24.05.2008 in connection with the initial appointment and absorption of the Grade-II, III and IV, of the Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service and all further consequential govt. Orders and proceedings which have been issued based on earlier recommendations of the DPC proceeding held for initial constitution of the Manipur Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Service. With the aforesaid order, the instant CM Application is allowed.” 5. WP(C) No. 282 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner for reviewing the 5th DPC recommendation on the basis of the above order passed by the Court. In the meantime, 6th DPC meeting has already been held and recommendations have been made. Therefore, the order passed by the Court in the above Misc. Case on 21.8.2009 has been complied with and as such this writ application has become infructuous. 6. So far as W.P(C) No. 448 of 2012 is concerned, one of the prayers in the writ petition is also to quash recommendation made by the 6th Review DPC. The recommendation made by the 6th DPC dated 27.11.2010 is the subject matter of Annexure-A/9. 7. Mr. 6. So far as W.P(C) No. 448 of 2012 is concerned, one of the prayers in the writ petition is also to quash recommendation made by the 6th Review DPC. The recommendation made by the 6th DPC dated 27.11.2010 is the subject matter of Annexure-A/9. 7. Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the earlier order quoted above, the Court had directed for review of the 5th DPC whereas the proceeding of the 6th Review DPC is an independent proceeding and is not a review of the 5th review DPC. On perusal of the Annexure A/9, it appears that the proceeding of the 6th Review DPC meeting was held on 18.2.2012 in the office of the Manipur Public Service Commission to review the proceeding of the 5th Review DPC held on 24.5.2008 in connection with initial appointment and absorption by promotion to Grade-II, III and IV of the Manipur Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Service Rules, 1994. Therefore, the above submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not borne out from the record, specifically the proceeding of the 6th Review DPC. 8. Mr. P. Tomcha, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the recommendation made by the 6th Review DPC dt. 27.11.2010 also, submitted that the 1994 Rules only provides for four Grades and question of creation of ‘Unspecified Grade’ is not contemplated under the Rules. With reference to Rule 7 (I) (ii) it was further contended that all those who were Veterinary Assistant Surgeons or equivalent and which have no corresponding grade in the 1994 Rules shall be designated as Veterinary Officer and shall be deemed to be appointed in Grade-IV from the date of notification of the said Rule and according to the Rules. With reference to the above provisions, it was further contended that the petitioner is deemed to be appointed in Grade-IV and therefore his case was to be considered for promotion to Grade-III on the basis of seniority and educational qualifications. It was further contended that 2(two) non-specialist posts were available to be filled up in Grade-III and the petitioner could be recommended for promotion against one of the said two non-specialist posts but he was ignored and the private respondents-13 and 14 were recommended. 9. The above issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner came up for consideration by this Court in WP(C) No.515 of 2012. 9. The above issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner came up for consideration by this Court in WP(C) No.515 of 2012. The Court, after consideration of all the above issues, disposed of the writ application and set aside the recommendation made by the 6th DPC in respect of the petitioner therein vis-a-vis the respondent No.7. The Court, further, directed that rest of the recommendations made by the 6th DPC shall remain intact and shall not be interfered with. 10. In view of the above, the issues raised by the petitioner, in this writ application relating to recommendation made by the 6th Review DPC is covered by the judgment delivered in WP(C ) No. 515 of 2012. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, WP(C) No.282/2012 is dismissed as infructuous and WP(C) No.448 of 2012 is dismissed being devoid of merit.