1. By way of this petition tinder article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of final inter se seniority list dated 28.12.2011 of Sub-Inspector of Police (Unarmed Branch) of Mizoram Police and for a direction to the State respondents to prepare a fresh seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Police (Unarmed Branch) by placing the petitioners above the respondents as was the case earlier. 2. Fifteen petitioners have joined together and have instituted the present proceeding jointly as the grievance of each of the petitioners is identical and the relief sought for by them is also the same. 3. Facts of the case may be briefly noted. 4. Following a selection process, petitioners were directly appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (SI) under the Government of Mizoram vide order dated 7.7.2000. It appears they joined on 13,7.2000. Subsequently, they were confirmed and regularized in the said post of .SI. 5. Respondent Nos. 3 to 17 were serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (ASI) under the Government of Mizoram. They were promoted from ASI to SI on 19.9.2000 following the procedure prescribed as per paragraph 40 of the Assam Police Manual. 6. Recruitment and conditions of service to the post of Inspector and below in the Mizoram Police prior to the year 2006 were as per provisions of the Assam Police Manual. With effect from 1.5.2006, such recruitment and conditions of service came to be governed by the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. 7. Office of the Director General of Police, Mizoram finalized the seniority list of SI (Unarmed Branch) (UB) on 21.3.2001. In the said seniority list, the petitioners were placed from Serial Nos. 152 to 169 whereas respondent Nos. 3 to 17 were placed below the petitioners from Serial Nos. 171 to 188. The said seniority list was followed by subsequent seniority lists dated 13.2.2002, 19.4.2004, 19.7.2006, 3.8.2007 and 20.11.2008. In all the select lists, petitioners were placed above respondents Nos. 3 to 17 (private respondents). 8. Office of the Director General of Police circulated a tentative seniority list of SI dated 31.1.2011 declaring the seniority position of SI (UB) as on 1.1.2011. In this tentative seniority list, the settled seniority position of the petitioners was changed and interspersed with the private respondents. For example, while respondent No. 3 was placed at Serial No. 42, petitioner No. 1 was placed at Serial No. 43. In this tentative seniority list, the settled seniority position of the petitioners was changed and interspersed with the private respondents. For example, while respondent No. 3 was placed at Serial No. 42, petitioner No. 1 was placed at Serial No. 43. Similarly respondent No. 4 was placed at Serial No. 44 whereas petitioner No. 2 was placed at Serial No. 45. 9. Feeling aggrieved by the change in their seniority position, petitioners individually and jointly submitted representations before the authority requesting restoration of their earlier seniority position. This was followed by issuance of another tentative seniority list of SI (UB) dated 24.5.2011. In this tentative seniority list also, petitioner No. 1 was placed at Serial No. 37 below petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Position of other petitioners were also changed similarly. It was stated that seniority of direct recruits and promotees made during the same year/time of vacancy had been arranged as per rule 2.4.2 of Swamy’s Establishment and Administration Rules and also as per rule 362 of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. Against such assignment of seniority, some of the petitioners submitted representations before the authority requesting restoration of earlier seniority position. 10. Respondents issued another tentative seniority list of SI (UB) on 5.8.2011 maintaining the seniority position of the petitioners and private respondents as per tentative seniority lists dated 31.1.2011 and 24.5.2011. 11. The State respondents ultimately issued the final seniority list of SI (UB) on 28.12.2011 by rotating the seniority position of the petitioners (direct recruits) and the private respondents (promotees) by placing a promotee above the direct recruit, such as, placing a promotee at Serial No. 27 and a direct recruit at Serial No. 28. This is repeated in respect of the other petitioners and the remaining private respondents. 12. The next higher post in Mizoram Police above the post of SI is the post of Inspector. Promotion to the rank of Inspector is done as per rules 379 to 384 of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. The entire cadre of Inspector is filled up by way of promotion from the rank of SI. The eligibility criteria for such promotion is that one must have minimum of 5 years of continuous service in the rank of SI. Promotion to the rank of Inspector is done as per rules 379 to 384 of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. The entire cadre of Inspector is filled up by way of promotion from the rank of SI. The eligibility criteria for such promotion is that one must have minimum of 5 years of continuous service in the rank of SI. As per rule 380 of the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, the criteria for promotion to the rank of Inspector are as under : (1) Satisfactory completion of Pre-Promotion Course, and (2) Promotion to the rank of Inspector shall be on the basis of selection. 13. When names of some of the petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos. 7 to 10 and 12 to 15 were not forwarded to attend the pre-promotion course and instead names of respondent Nos. 3 to 10 were forwarded, the said petitioners submitted a representation dated 4.1.2012 seeking inclusion of their names for participation in the pre-promotion course. 14. At that stage, some of the petitioners approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 1 of 2012 seeking restoration of their seniority position as reflected in the final seniority list dated 21.3.2001 and all subsequent seniority lists up to 20.11.2008. This court by order dated 10.1.2012 permitted the said petitioners to participate in the pre-promotion course. Further, respondent No. 1 was directed to dispose of the representations filed by the petitioners for restoration of their seniority position. 15. Following the aforesaid order of this court, the eight petitioners who were excluded from attending the pre-promotion course were allowed by the State respondents to attend the said course. However, by subsequent letter dated 24.1.2012 issued by the respondent No. 1, it was stated that the final seniority list of SI (UB) was made on the basis of rule 2.4.2 of Swamy’s Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration for Central Government Offices by consulting various relevant documents. It was stated that there was no violation of the rules while fixing inter se seniority of the SI (UB) and that the petitioners claim for restoration of their seniority was without any basis. 16. Aggrieved, petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 17. Contention of the petitioners is that paragraph 40 of the Assam Police Manual as per which respondent Nos. 16. Aggrieved, petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 17. Contention of the petitioners is that paragraph 40 of the Assam Police Manual as per which respondent Nos. 3 to 17 were promoted from ASI to SI provided that not more than 50% of the appointment to SI (UB) should be filled up by promotion from the rank of ASI. The Assam Police Manual was replaced by the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 which came into effect from 1.5.2006. As per rule 362 of the Mizoram Police Manual, inter se seniority of SI directly recruited and those promoted from ASI shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion. Thus, rotation of vacancies is provided only in the Mizoram Police Manual which came into effect from 1.5.2006. The Mizoram Police Manual does not have any retrospective effect. The Assam Police Manual as per which petitioners and the private respondents were recruited did not provide for rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees. Rule 2.4.2 of Swamy’s Manual on Establishment and Administration only provides that if adequate number of direct recruits do not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and the promotees. This rule is not at all applicable in the case of the petitioners. It is the further contention of the petitioners that their seniority above private respondents have been settled long back, i.e., right from their entry into service in the year 2000 and remained as such till the year 2011 when the tentative seniority list dated 31.1.2011 was issued. Such a settled seniority position ought not to have been disturbed by the respondents. 18. This court by order dated 30.4.2013 directed as an interim measvire that no promotion to the post of Inspector from the post of SI shall be carried out and the impugned final inter se seniority list dated 28.12.2011 was also directed not to be given effect to. By a subsequent order dated 23.9.2013, the aforesaid interim order dated 30.4.2013 was modified to the extent that respondents were allowed to take steps for promotion to the post of Inspector from the post of SI who were appointed prior to the batch of 2000. 19. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit. By a subsequent order dated 23.9.2013, the aforesaid interim order dated 30.4.2013 was modified to the extent that respondents were allowed to take steps for promotion to the post of Inspector from the post of SI who were appointed prior to the batch of 2000. 19. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed counter affidavit. It is admitted that petitioners were appointed as SI on 13.7.2000 and their names appeared in the seniority list from Serial Nos. 152 to 169 whereas the private respondents were promoted on 19.9.2000 and were placed in the seniority list from Serial Nos. 171 to 188. It is also admitted that seniority lists were issued subsequently up to 20.11.2008 wherein seniority of petitioners over private respondents was maintained. It is, however, stated that a number of complaints/criticism were received by the Mizoram Police Headquarters regarding fixation of seniority since the year 2t)00. There is no provision in the Assam Police Manual to redress the complaints received. Police Department, therefore, felt it necessary to set up Departmental Committee to examine the issue of seniority of direct recruits vis-a-vis promotees and based on the recommendation of the Committee, a tentative seniority list of SI (UB) was issued as per rule 2.4.2 of Swamy’s Complete Manual on Establishment and Administration for Central Government Offices followed by the final seniority list dated 28.12.2011. No complaint was received upto the year 19-99 and, therefore, the aforesaid rule 2.4.2 was not applied to cases prior to the year 2000. Quota rota rule has been applied in the case of the petitioners and private respondents with a view to solve the problem of service seniority. It is, however, stated that as per previous order of this court dated 10.1.2012, call letters were issued to all the petitioners to attend the pre-promotion course. Thus, petitioners are already within the zone of consideration for promotion to the next higher rank of Inspector. Contending that claim of the petitioners for restoration of their seniority at pre-2011 stage is not justified, the State respondents have asserted that fixation of final seniority of SI (UB) dated 28.12.2011 based on quota rota rule is just and proper. The State respondents therefore, seek dismissal of the writ petition. 20. Respondent Nos. 3 to 17 have filed a common affidavit. The State respondents therefore, seek dismissal of the writ petition. 20. Respondent Nos. 3 to 17 have filed a common affidavit. It is stated that the Assam Police Manual did not mention anything about the inapplicability of the quota rota rule in respect of the seniority list of SI (UB). While admitting that in the seniority lists issued on 21.3.2001, 13.2.2002,19.4.2004, 19.7.2006,13.8.2007 and 20.11.2008, the respondents were placed below the petitioners, it is contended that they were not given any chance to agitate their grievance regarding assignment of seniority position below the petitioners. It was only after the seniority list dated 20.11.2008 was issued that the private respondents submitted representations for re-assignment of their seniority position by applying the quota rota rule following which their grievance was remedied. They have asserted that there is no infirmity in the final seniority list of SI. (UB) dated 28.12.2011 and support the stand taken by the State. Since petitioners are also being considered for promotion, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners by issuance of the final seniority list dated 28.12.2011 by applying the quota rota rule. 21. I have heard Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Rokhumy learned AcTdl. ‘Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the State respondents. Also heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 17. 22. I. have also perused the materials on record. 23. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. Therefore, it is considered not necessary to narrate in detail the rival submissions. 24. It has already been noticed that Mizoram Police Manual came into effect from 1.5.2006. Petitioners were directly recruited to the post of SI in the year 2000, to be precise on 13.7.2000. The private respondents were promoted from ASI to SI on 19.9.2000. It is not disputed that upto 1.5.2006 recruitment and conditions of service in the Mizoram Police upto the rank of Inspector were governed by the provisions of the Assam Police Manual. Paragraph 40 of the Assam Police Manual deals with promotion from ASI to SI (UB). It provides that not more than 50% of the appointment to the post of SI may be filled up by promotion from the rank of-ASI. Paragraph 40 of the Assam Police Manual deals with promotion from ASI to SI (UB). It provides that not more than 50% of the appointment to the post of SI may be filled up by promotion from the rank of-ASI. In other words, there is no fixed quota earmarking certain percentage in the post of SI for promotees from the rank of ASI. It could be anywhere between 0% and 50%. Thus, it cannot be said that any fixed quota was reserved exclusively for the promotees. However, on and from 1.5.2006 when the provisions of Mizoram Police Manual came into force, there is a specific rule providing for fixation of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees. Before adverting to that specific rule, which is rule 362, it may be pointed out that rule 358 provides for two modes of appointment to the post of SI, 50% by way of direct recruitment and 50% by way of promotion. While rule 359 lays down the modalities of direct recruitment, rules 363 onwards deal with promotion. Rule 374 in particular deals with promotion to the rank ,of SI. Rule 362 of the Mizoram Police Manual deals with inter se seniority of SI. Sub-rule (2) provides that inter se seniority of SI directly recruited and those promoted from ASI in the same year shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion. 25. It is evident from the above that the quota rota rule is provided in the Mizoram Police Manual effective from 1.5.2006. Seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis the private respondents was fixed vide the seniority list dated 21.3.2001 which continued till 31.1.2011 for almost a decade. As per the said seniority position, all the petitioners were placed above the private respondents. This was rightly done because the petitioners were appointed earlier on 7.7.2000 and joined on 13.7.2000 whereas the private respondents were promoted two months thereafter on 19.9.2000. 26. As per the said seniority position, all the petitioners were placed above the private respondents. This was rightly done because the petitioners were appointed earlier on 7.7.2000 and joined on 13.7.2000 whereas the private respondents were promoted two months thereafter on 19.9.2000. 26. The State-respondents have justified making a-departure from the settled seniority position which held good for almost a decade by first publishing the tentative seniority list dated 31.1.2011, which was followed by the final seniority list dated 28.12.2011, whereby the seniority position between the petitioners and the private respondents was interspersed by first putting a promotee followed by a direct recruit, by placing reliance on what is said to be rule 2.4.2 of Swamy’s Establishment and Administration Manual. A perusal of the same would show that Swamy’s Establishment and Administration Manual is nothing but a collection of various Central Government Rules and Government of India’s instructions in the form of notifications, office memoranda, etc. There is an office memorandum dated 3.7.1986 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India which finds place in Swamy’s Manual. It deals with seniority of direct recruits and promotees. Clause 2.4.1 of the said office memorandum provides that the relative seniority of direct recruits and of promotees shall be determined according to the rotation of vacancies between direct recruits and promotees which shall be based on the quota of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the recruitment rules. As per clause 2.4.2, if adequate number of direct recruits are not available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and promotees. Since considerable reliance has been placed on the aforesaid provision by the State respondents, the same is quoted hereunder in its entirety : “2.4.2. If adequate number of direct recruits do not become available in any particular year, rotation of quotas for the purpose of determining seniority would take place only to the extent of the available direct recruits and the promotees. In other words, to the extent direct recruits are not available, the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list below the last position up to which it is possible to determine seniority, on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who become available. In other words, to the extent direct recruits are not available, the promotees will be bunched together at the bottom of the seniority list below the last position up to which it is possible to determine seniority, on the basis of rotation of quotas with reference to the actual number of direct recruits who become available. The unfilled direct recruitment quota vacancies would, however, be carried forward and added to the corresponding direct recruitment vacancies of the next year (and to subsequent years where necessary) for taking action for direct recruitment for the total number according to the usual practice. Thereafter in that year while seniority will be determined between direct recruits and promotees, to the extent of the number of vacancies for direct recruits and promotees as determined according to the quota for that year, the additional direct recruits selected against the carried forward vacancies of the previous year would be placed en bloc below the last promotee (or direct recruit as the case may be), in the seniority list based on the rotation of vacancies for that year. The same principle holds good for determining seniority in the event of carry forward, if any, of direct recruitment or promotion quota vacancies (as the case may be) in the subsequent year. Illustration. -- Where the recruitment rules provide 50% of the vacancies of a grade to be filled by promotion and the remaining 50% by direct recruitment, and assuming there are ten vacancies in the grade arising in each of the years 1986 and 1987 and that two vacancies intended for direct recruitment remain unfilled during 1986 and they could be filled during 1987, the seniority position of the promotees and direct recruits of these two years will be as under - 1986 1987 1. PI 9.P1 2. Dl 10.D1 3.P2 11.P2 4. D2 12.D2 5. P3 13.P3 6. D3 14.D3 7. P4 15.P4 8.P5 16.D4 17. P5 18. D5 19. D6 20. D7” 27. It is admitted that at the time of recruitment of the petitioners and the respondents by way of direct recruitment and promotion respectively, there were no recruitment rules and recruitment and conditions of service up to the rank of Inspector in the Mizoram Police were governed by the provisions of the Assam Police Manual. D5 19. D6 20. D7” 27. It is admitted that at the time of recruitment of the petitioners and the respondents by way of direct recruitment and promotion respectively, there were no recruitment rules and recruitment and conditions of service up to the rank of Inspector in the Mizoram Police were governed by the provisions of the Assam Police Manual. It is also not disputed that under the Assam Police Manual, no fixed quota was prescribed for direct recruitment and promotion to the rank of SI. That being the position, the quota rota rule as provided in the Government of India office memorandum dated 3.7.1986 would not be applicable to the petitioners and the private respondents. 28. In any case, when the Mizoram Police Manual provides for such a quota rota rule, the same provision will be given effect to from the date when the Mizoram Police Manual came into effect. 29. The explanation given by the State respondents in their affidavit that the quota rota rule was applied from the 2000 batch onwards and not from the prior batches because of complaints and grievances raised cannot be accepted. Just because no complaint or objection was received from anybody prior to the year 2000 and some objections and complaints were received from the batch of 2000 onwards, the quota rota rule as provided in the Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 cannot be applied retrospectively, that too, in a selective manner. 30. In the case of H. Biakchhunga v. State of Mizoram and Others, 2005 (3) GLT 442, this court had examined the challenge made to the final inter se seniority list of Inspector of Statistics in the Economics and Statistics Department, Government of Mizoram. This court held that when any quota is fixed in the recruitment rules for recruitment to any post from two sources, i.e., direct recruitment and promotion, unless the quota rule has broken down due to non-adherence for a long period of time, the rota rule will be automatically applied in fixation of seniority between the promotees and the direct recruits in terms of the quota fixed. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment reads as under ; “17. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment reads as under ; “17. In view of the law laid down by the hon’ble Supreme Court, it is, therefore, clear that when any quota is fixed in the recruitment rules for recruitment to any .post from two sources/unless the quota rule has broken down due to non-adherence for a long period of time, the Rota rule will automatically be terms of the quota fixed, irrespective of whether mere is any specific provision for the purpose of fixation of seniority between them. In the instant case petitioner has not alleged that the quota rule has broken down. Therefore, the Rota rule is automatically applied in fixation of the seniority between the promotee and direct recruit. As per the recruitment rules as 50% of vacancy was reserved for promotee and 50% by direct recruitment, the seniority has to be fixed by rotating the vacancy in the ratio of 1:1.” 31. Admittedly and as already discussed above, there were no recruitment rules a-t the time of direct recruitment of the petitioners and promotion of the private respondents, whose recruitment to the post of SI was governed by the provisions of the Assam Police Manual which did not prescribe any fixed quota for direct recruitment and promotion. 32. It has also been noticed above that seniority of the petitioners vis-avis the private respondents was settled a long time back, i.e., way back in the year 2001 and that position remained settled for a long period of about a decade. The Apex Court in the case of H.S. Vankani and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others, (2010) 4 SCC 301 had held that seniority is a civil right which has an important and vital role to play in the service career of a Government Servant. Seniority once settled should not be unsettled. In the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra and Others v. State of Orissa and Others, (2010) 12 SCC 471 , the Apex Court held that once seniority had been fixed and remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. The Apex Court had made it clear that 3 to 4 years is a reasonable period for challenging seniority.and, therefore, a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. 33. Having regard to the discussions, ma4e above, I am of. The Apex Court had made it clear that 3 to 4 years is a reasonable period for challenging seniority.and, therefore, a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. 33. Having regard to the discussions, ma4e above, I am of. the unhesitant view that the State respondents were not justified and committed a manifest error in making a departure from the settled seniority position of the petitioners vis-a-vis the private respondents. Issuance of final inter se seniority list of SI (UB) dated 28.12.2011 in respect of petitioners and respondents, therefore, cannot be sustained. The same is hereby set aside and quashed. The seniority position between the petitioners and the private respondents as per the final seniority lists which existed prior to 31.1.2011 stands restored. 34. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. 35. No cost.