JUDGMENT 1. Heard Shri A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Th. Rommel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A. Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the two interveners, Shri S. Jhalajit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7, Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 39 and Shri Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Respondents. Other private respondents are not represented by any counsel despite notices being served upon them. 2. This is the second round of litigation and by this present writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the validity and correctness of the recommendation of Review DPC and the Government order dated 18-10-2013 issued by the State Government on the basis thereof and have prayed for quashing thereof. One more prayer has been added for issuing direction to the State respondents to convene a fresh DPC for appointment on promotion to the post of MPS Grade–II in accordance with the judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007. 3.1. According to the petitioners, they were initially appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police with effect from 26-09-1986 and 10-05-1982 respectively. A DPC was convened on 27-03-1998 for appointment of 22 Inspectors of Police, from amongst the eligible Sub-Inspectors, on promotion and on the recommendation of the said DPC, the State Government issued an order dated 28-05-1998 appointing 22 Sub-Inspectors of Police on promotion as Inspectors of Police including the petitioners. During their service career as Inspectors of Police, the petitioners have earned rewards and medals for outstanding and meritorious services rendered by them. 3.2. As many as 41 vacant posts of MPS Grade–II were available for appointment on promotion from amongst the eligible Inspectors of Police, out of which 2 vacancies occurred in the year 2005–2006 and 39 vacancies occurred in the year 2006–2007. A DPC was convened on 12-01-2007 for consideration of eligible Inspectors of Police for appointment on promotion to the post of MPS Grade–II and the said DPC recommended 41 Inspectors of Police against the aforesaid vacancies occurred in the year 2005–2006 and 2006-2007 for appointment on promotion. But the petitioners were not recommended for appointment on promotion by the said DPC. But the petitioners were not recommended for appointment on promotion by the said DPC. On the recommendation of the said DPC, a Government order dated 01-03-2007 was issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur appointing 40 Inspectors of Police/Subedars/Subedar-Majors as MPS Grade–II. 3.3. Being aggrieved by the said Government order dated 01-03-2007, the petitioners and one more person filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 praying for quashing the said recommendation of the DPC convened on 12-01-2007 and the Government order dated 01-03-2007 issued by the State Government. In other words, the petitioners had questioned the powers and competency of the DPC associated with MPSC to upgrade and downgrade the grading of ACRs of candidates already recorded by the competent authorities in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the same and procedure adopted by the DPC while making selection and recommendation. While the said writ petition was being considered, the learned Single Judge felt the necessity to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the alleged down-gradation of ACRs by the DPC, the State Government was directed to produce the relevant and original ACRs of the Private Respondents and the petitioners therein in a sealed cover and the MPSC was also directed to produce its DPC proceedings and Assessment Chart. In view of the discrepancies pointed out by the petitioners in their additional affidavit accompanied by an Assessment Chart as against the Assessment Chart prepared by the DPC, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), High Court was directed to examine and compare the grading of the candidates recorded in the Assessment Chart with that of the original ACRs and submit a report thereof. Accordingly, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) prepared a chart showing the actual recording of the ACRs of the candidates which had remained undisputed/uncontroverted by any of the parties despite opportunities being given to them to raise their objection, if any. After having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the learned Single Judge, Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition on 12-03-2010 with the following direction:– “The respondents are directed to hold a Review DPC within 3 (three) months from today, keeping in view the observation and finding recorded above by the Court. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is made clear that the private respondent Nos. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is made clear that the private respondent Nos. 8 to 45 shall continue under the present arrangement till the Review DPC, as ordered, is held within the time stipulated above.” 3.4. According to the petitioners, against the said judgment and order dated 12-03-2010, a writ appeal being W.A. No. 174 of 2012 was preferred by some of the private respondents which was dismissed by the Division Bench, Hon’ble Gauhati High Court on 13-09-2012. Another writ appeal preferred by the State Government was, later on, withdrawn. It may be relevant to mention here that the said W.A. No. 174 of 2012 which was initially registered as W.A. No. 39 of 2010 at Imphal Bench, Hon’ble Gauhati High Court came to be finally decided by the Division Bench of this High Court on 02-06-2015. A contempt petition being C.C. (C) No. 62 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners which was disposed of on 02-05-2013 with the following order:– “6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsels for the respondents, Mr. H. Samarjit Singh, on advance which I am inclined to dispose of this contempt petition by extending the period fixed in the order dated 12-03-2010 for its implementation by a further period of 4 (four) months from today, as an outer limit if no appeal is filed by the respondents and no stay is obtained by the appellants of the order impugned. In other words, if no appeal is filed by the respondents and if filed and yet no stay is obtained, then order dated 12-03-2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 shall be complied with in letter and spirit by the respondents within four months from the date of this order. In case if the order is not complied with even within the extended period fixed by the Court subject to what is discussed above, the respondents shall be held guilty for committing contempt of this Court order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts’ Act would be accordingly passed against them.” 3.5. In case if the order is not complied with even within the extended period fixed by the Court subject to what is discussed above, the respondents shall be held guilty for committing contempt of this Court order and appropriate order(s) imposing punishment as provided under the Contempt of Courts’ Act would be accordingly passed against them.” 3.5. In a purported compliance of the order dated 02-05-2013, a Review DPC was convened on 01-07-2013 which recommended the private and proforma respondents for appointment on promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II but to the shock and dismay, the petitioners were not recommended again for appointment on promotion. On the recommendation of the Review DPC, the State Government issued a Government order dated 18-10-2013 appointing the private and proforma respondents as MPS Grade-II. Being aggrieved by the said recommendation of the Review DPC and the Government order dated 18-10-2013, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. 4. Shri A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the Review DPC had violated the judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 by which the State respondents therein had been directed to convene a Review DPC keeping in view the observations and findings recorded therein. The Review DPC had violated the provisions of the OM dated 29-04-1999 by exceeding its jurisdiction conferred thereunder when it downgraded the ACRs of the petitioners. In other words, the method adopted by the Review DPC was totally illegal. It is further submitted that the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 who were not aggrieved by the Government order dated 01-03-2007 and were not parties in W.P. (C) No. 267 of 2007, had been considered by the Review DPC when the benefits of the said judgment and order could not be extended to them. On the other hand, Shri Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Government Advocate, relying upon the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 submitted that the Review DPC was convened pursuant to the judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 of the learned Single Judge and on its recommendation, the State Government issued the impugned order. While holding its meeting, the Review DPC associated with MPSC had properly assessed the ACRs of the eligible candidates and had considered the merit of the candidates on the basis of their ACRs recorded by the competent authorities. While holding its meeting, the Review DPC associated with MPSC had properly assessed the ACRs of the eligible candidates and had considered the merit of the candidates on the basis of their ACRs recorded by the competent authorities. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the earlier writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 did not direct that the review DPC be convened only in respect of the parties therein. The State respondents had no authority to exclude the eligible candidates who were within the zone of consideration. Supporting the contentions of the State respondents, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, MPSC submitted that the Review DPC was convened pursuant to the judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 and since the Review DPC assessed the overall grading of the eligible candidates within the zone of consideration very carefully as per grading recorded in the ACRs, the question of down-gradation of ACR of the petitioners did not arise. It is further submitted that the ACRs of the petitioner No. 1 for the period 2001-2002, 2002-2003, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 were VG, OS, OS & VG and in so far as the ACR for the period 2003-2004 was concerned, there were two parts and ACR in respect of longer period was VG and therefore, the overall grading of ACRs came to be VG. There were about five persons including Shri M. Mubi Singh whose overall ACRs gradings were OS. Moreover, the said judgment and order of the learned Single Judge did not mention the names of candidates to be considered by the Review DPC. The contention of Shri Jhalajit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 was more or less the same as that of the learned counsels appearing for the State respondents and MPSC. Shri Kh. Tarunkumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 39 submitted that the Review DPC had failed to consider the ACRs earned by him for the reason that respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 who were not recommended by the earlier DPC, had been recommended by the Review DPC placing them above him by upgrading their ACRs. It is also submitted that since the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 were not aggrieved by the proceedings of the earlier DPC and had not challenged it, they were not required to be considered by the Review DPC. It is also submitted that since the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 were not aggrieved by the proceedings of the earlier DPC and had not challenged it, they were not required to be considered by the Review DPC. Shri H.S. Paonam learned Senior counsel appearing for the interveners submitted that there are two types of Review DPC- one, a review DPC convened in accordance with the provisions of the OM dated 29-04-1999 and the second, a review DPC convened in terms of an order passed by the Court. So far as the second review DPC is concerned, it will be confined to the candidates who were parties in the case. 5. On the basis of the rival contentions of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the following issues arise for consideration by this court: a) Whether the review DPC, while assessing the ACRs and considering the cases of the eligible candidates, had taken into account the observations and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in its judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007? b) The Review DPC, while assessing the ACRs of the eligible candidates, had exceeded its jurisdiction conferred under the provisions of the OM dated 29-04-1999 in the light of the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge holding that the DPC has no power and authority to re-assess or re-write the ACRs recorded by the concerned authorities except in accordance with law made specially for it? c) Whether, in the absence of a specific direction, the judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 of the learned Single Judge directing for a review DPC can be construed to mean a Review DPC only in respect of the parties before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007? 6. As regards the first issue (a) and in order to decide it, it has become inevitable for this court to examine and understand as to what are the observations and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in its judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007. 6. As regards the first issue (a) and in order to decide it, it has become inevitable for this court to examine and understand as to what are the observations and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in its judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007. On perusal of the said judgment and order, it is noticed that after having considered as many as five issues therein, the learned Single Judge recorded the following observations and findings:- a) The ACRs of Shri L. Deben Singh, the petitioner No. 1 herein and Shri Th. Nungshi Singh whose grading as “Outstanding” have been downgraded as “Very Good” whereas the ACRs of Shri C. Neheminh Tkl. (ST) and Md. Tombi whose grading as “Good” have been upgraded as “Very Good” as a result Shri L. Deben Singh, the petitioner No. 1 herein and Shri Th. Nungshi Singh had been denied promotion and Shri C. Neheminh Tkl. (ST) and Md. Tombi had been appointed as MPS Grade-II Officers; b) In order to ascertain the truth and correct position of the matter, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) was directed to examine and compare the ACR grading of the candidates recorded in the Assessment Chart with that of the originals and accordingly, the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) prepared a chart showing the actual recording of the ACRs. But none of the parties filed any affidavit, disputing/controverting the factual finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) despite copies thereof being given to them so as to enable them to dispute/controvert it; c) After examining various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, the learned Single Judge held that the DPC could not clothe itself with any power and authority to re-assess and re-write the entry in the ACRs of a candidate, more so, in absence of any expressed authorisation by law in force. The learned Single Judge also found that nothing was recorded in the proceedings of the DPC to show as to how the outstanding entries in the ACRs of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 3 therein were downgraded to “Very Good” nor was there any reason recorded for upgrading the entries from “Good” to “Very Good” in respect of the respondent Nos. 13 to 21 herein. 1 & 3 therein were downgraded to “Very Good” nor was there any reason recorded for upgrading the entries from “Good” to “Very Good” in respect of the respondent Nos. 13 to 21 herein. The learned Single Judge further held that the procedure adopted by DPC was arbitrary, unauthorised and illegal; d) In view of its finding on issue Nos. 1 & 2 therein and on consideration of the matter in its entirety, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the procedure adopted by the DPC in association with MPSC and its recommendation for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II and the consequential impugned order were liable to be quashed. However, the appointment of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 therein was directed to remain undisturbed for the reason that they were appointed against the vacancy occurred in the year 2005-2006 for which the petitioners therein were not within the zone of consideration. The selection process in respect of respondent Nos. 8 to 45 therein against the vacancies occurred in the year 2006-2007 and the recommendation thereto for promotion to MPS Grade-II were quashed. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the Review DPC has not failed to keep in view the observations and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while considering the cases of the petitioners and the private and proforma respondents. On the other hand, relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 5, MPSC, the learned counsel appearing for it has denied the said contention, although there is no specific averment in its affidavit that the Review DPC has taken into account the said observations and findings. To find out whether the said observations and findings have really been kept in view by the Review DPC, there are no materials on record except the proceedings and the Assessment Chart of the Review DPC which had been placed on record in sealed envelopes for perusal by this court. The said sealed envelopes had already been opened while the W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 was being considered by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. The said sealed envelopes had already been opened while the W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 was being considered by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench. On perusal of the proceedings of the Review DPC in its meeting held on 01-07-2013, it is noticed that the Review DPC has recorded therein that it has noted the observations and findings of the learned Single Judge relating to power and functions of the DPC in matters of assessment of ACRs of the candidates vis-à-vis the procedure adopted by the earlier DPC held on 12-01-2007. It has further recorded that the Review DPC by taking into account all relevant factors has re-examined ACRs of the officers in the zone of consideration and assessed overall grading by applying the criteria - (i) for Outstanding Grade, the officer should have minimum 3 (three) “Outstanding” and 2 (two) “Very Good” out of ACRs of five years; (ii) Whenever there is more than 1 (one) part ACR in a single year, the grading of that part of ACR for the longer period would be taken; and (iii) in case an ACR is not available for the relevant period, the ACRs of the previous years would be considered. But from the perusal of the Assessment Chart of ACRs prepared by the Review DPC, it is clear that it has not kept in view the observations and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge for the reason that it has again downgraded the ACRs of the petitioners while it has upgraded the ACRs of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7. So far as the ACRs of the petitioners are concerned, it may be noted that the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) had prepared a chart showing the actual recording of the ACRs including that of the petitioners which had remained undisputed/uncontroverted by any of the parties in that writ petition and had attained finality, as the same not being disturbed/interfered by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, the Review DPC ought to have considered the cases of the petitioners on that basis only in so far as their ACRs are concerned. In this regard, the stand of the respondent No. 5, MPSC appears to be that as regards the ACR of the petitioner No. 1 for the year 2003-2004, there are two parts and in respect of longer period, the ACR recorded is “Very Good” and therefore, the overall grading is to be “Very Good”. But the learned Single Judge, recording the statement of its counsel that in case where there are two recordings of ACR in a particular year, the best recorded grading shall be counted, has observed that the chart prepared by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) is not disputed/controverted by any of the parties therein including the respondent No. 5 meaning thereby it is final. Moreover, since the respondent No. 5, MPSC has not referred to any provision of law in support of its stand except the averment made in the affidavit-inopposition and the statement of its counsel recorded in the said judgment and order has remained un-expunged, its such stand is no longer available with it. Thus, the Review DPC has failed to consider the cases of the petitioners on the basis of the chart prepared by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) and on the contrary, it has upgraded the ACRs of the respondent Nos. 6 & 7. The grading of ACR of the respondent No. 6, as assessed by the DPC in the year 2007, was “Very Good” for the year 2003-2004 and 2005-2006 but the same had been upgraded by the Review DPC in the year 2013 as “Outstanding” for the said year 2003-2004 and 2005-2006. Similarly, the grading of ACR of the respondent No. 7, as assessed by the DPC in the year 2007, was “Very Good” for the year 2001-2002 and 2004-2005 but the same had been upgraded by the Review DPC in the year 2013 as “Outstanding” for the said year 2001-2002 and 2004-2005. It may be because of this up-gradation that the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 who could not be recommended by the DPC in the year 2007, have been recommended by the Review DPC in the year 2013 placing them very high up in the select list. It may be because of this up-gradation that the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 who could not be recommended by the DPC in the year 2007, have been recommended by the Review DPC in the year 2013 placing them very high up in the select list. The said downgrading/upgrading was totally against the observations and findings of the learned Single Judge that the DPC had no authority and competency to down-grade or alter the ACRs which held the field till the Division Bench of this court deciding that the DPC has got the power to assess the ACRs under Clause 5.2.1(e) but subject to the provisions under Clause 5.2.1(f) of the OM dated 29-04-1999. Since the observations and findings of the learned Single Judge not having been kept in view, the proceedings of the Review DPC are bad in law and are liable to be quashed and consequently, the Government order dated 18-10-2013 is also liable to be quashed. 7. With regard to issue (b), the stances of the State respondents and the MPSC had been that the DPC enjoyed discretion to devise its own methods and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates and that in terms of Clause 5.2.1 (e) of the OM dated 29-04-1999, the DPC was competent to make its own assessment on the basis of the CRs because overall grading in a CRs might be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes. However, vide its judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 the learned Single Judge held that the DPC could not clothe itself with any power and authority to re-assess and re-write the entry in the ACRs of a candidate, more so, in absence of any expressed authorisation by law in force. In a writ appeal being W.A. No. 39 of 2010 preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench of this court has held that the finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the DPC has no authority to upgrade the entries in the ACRs is not correct but such up-gradation made by the DPC is permissible subject to the provisions contained in Clause 5.2.1.(f) of the said OM dated 29-04-1999. The Division Bench has also held that the DPC and MPSC could only resort to downgrading of ACRs when they find that grading given by Reporting Officer is different than the grading given by the Reviewing authority or that grading given by the Reviewing authority is different than the grading given by the Higher authority and such grading given by Accepting authority has not been done after due application of mind. As has been stated above, before the said writ appeal being decided by the Division Bench of this court, what the learned Single Judge had observed in the said writ petition held the field. But completely ignoring the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, the Review DPC had assessed the ACRs as if they continued to have the said power of downgrading/upgrading them under the provisions of the OM dated 29-04-1999 and accordingly, had exceeded its power conferred thereunder thereby downgrading the ACRs of the petitioners. 8. As regards the issue (c), the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that in terms of the direction contained in the judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 of the learned Single Judge, the Review DPC ought to have considered only the cases of candidates who were parties before the High Court in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 but on the contrary, the Review DPC had considered the cases of respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 also who were not aggrieved by the proceedings of the earlier DPC convened on 12-01-2007 and were not parties before the High Court which is not permissible at all. His contention is supported by the learned counsels appearing for the respondent No. 36 and the interveners. In support of his contention, he has relied upon various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In UP Jal Nigam & anr. Vs. His contention is supported by the learned counsels appearing for the respondent No. 36 and the interveners. In support of his contention, he has relied upon various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In UP Jal Nigam & anr. Vs. Jaswant Singh & anr., reported in (2006) 11 SCC 464 wherein the question that arose was whether the employee who did not wake up to challenge their retirement and accepted the same and had collected their postretirement, could be given relief in the light of the subsequent decision delivered in Harwindra Kumar, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when a person is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, his writ petition cannot be heard after a couple of years on the ground that the same relief should be granted to him as was granted to a person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. Referring the above decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Steel Re-Rolling Mills Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala & ors, reported in (2007) 2 SCC 725 , held as under:- “40. The benefit of a judgment is not extended to a case automatically. While granting relief in a writ petition, the High Court is entitled to consider the fact situation obtaining in each case including the conduct of the petitioner. In doing so, the Court is entitled to take into consideration the fact as to whether the writ petitioner had chosen to sit over the matter and then wake up after the decision of this Court. If it is found that the appellant approached the Court after a long delay, the same may disentitle him to obtain a discretionary relief.” Similarly in the case of Sulochana Chandrakant Galande Vs. Pune Municipal Transport & ors, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 467 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “30. If some person has taken a relief from the court by filing a writ petition immediately after the cause of action had arisen, the petitioners cannot take the benefit thereof resorting to legal proceedings belatedly. They cannot take any benefit thereof at such a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person. They cannot take any benefit thereof at such a belated stage for the reason that they cannot be permitted to take the impetus of the order passed at the behest of some diligent person. In State of Karnataka v. S.M. Kotrayya, this Court rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches, on the ground that the petitioner therein filed the petition just after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case, as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. The Court observed that such a plea is wholly unjustified and cannot furnish any ground for ignoring delay and laches.” But his contention is opposed tooth and nail by the learned counsels appearing for the State respondents, MPSC and the respondent No. 7 on the ground that the direction did not specifically mention that only the candidates who were parties in the said writ petition be considered by the Review DPC and in such situation, the Review DPC was bound to consider all eligible candidates. Reliance has been placed in the case of Union of India & anr. Vs. A.K. Narula, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 10 wherein the scope of interference by the court arose when the discretion was given to DPC to make its own assessment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the guidelines give a certain amount of play in the joints to DPC by providing that it need not be guided by the overall grading recorded in CRs, but may make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in CRs. DPC is required to make an overall assessment of the performance of each candidate separately, but by adopting the same standards, yardsticks and norms. It is only when the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, malafide or arbitrariness, that the selection calls for interference. When the DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, by applying the same yardstick and norms to all candidates and there is no arbitrariness in the process of assessment by DPC, the court will not interfere. Further reliance has been placed in the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. When the DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, by applying the same yardstick and norms to all candidates and there is no arbitrariness in the process of assessment by DPC, the court will not interfere. Further reliance has been placed in the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & other, reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 wherein the appointment of the appellant on the recommendation of an Expert Committee came to be challenged, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:- “38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.” This court has perused the above decisions relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and although there can be no any doubt about the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court therein, the same are not relevant as regards the present issue involved herein. In the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has denied relief to persons who slept over their rights for a long time and approached the court later praying for similar relief as had been granted to a similarly situated person whereas in the decisions relied by the learned counsel appearing for the MPSC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the court will not interfere with the process of assessment or selection by the DPC or Expert Committee in the absence of arbitrariness or malafide action on their part. In the present case, the issue is as to what is the intention or its scope when the learned Single Judge directed for convening a Review DPC. In the present case, the issue is as to what is the intention or its scope when the learned Single Judge directed for convening a Review DPC. In fact, relying upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the Review DPC could not be confined to the parties before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 only but since none of the decisions cited by him was relevant as regards the present issue, the same were not referred to herein. It is indubitably true that the direction of the learned Single Judge did not mention anything about the scope of Review DPC being confined to the candidates who were parties in the said writ petition. As has been submitted by Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the interveners, it may also be true that there are two types of Review DPC - one, a review DPC convened by the State respondents on their own under the provisions of the OM dated 29-04-1999 and two, a review DPC convened pursuant to the direction of the Hon’ble Court. The present case falls in the second category but in the absence of any specific direction about the scope of Review DPC being confined to candidates who were parties before the Hon’ble High court, it may not be appropriate for this court to presume anything contrary thereto. The purpose of convening a Review DPC is to re-examine what has been done by the DPC and to rectify the errors crept in the proceedings of the DPC and therefore, the scope of the Review DPC shall remain the same as that of the DPC. It may be noted that in the proceedings of the DPC in its meeting held on 12-01-2007, it is clearly stated that the DPC has considered the cases of all eligible candidates, numbering 82 who are within the zone of consideration, including the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 and therefore, having regard to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India which mandates for equal opportunity in matters of employment, the Review DPC is required to consider all those who have been considered by the DPC. 6, 7 & 8 and therefore, having regard to the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India which mandates for equal opportunity in matters of employment, the Review DPC is required to consider all those who have been considered by the DPC. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and considering the facts of the present case, this court is of the view that there is nothing wrong in considering the cases of all who became eligible in the year 2007 including the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 also by the Review DPC. But the only thing to be noted by the Review DPC is that since the grading of ACRs in respect of the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 and others who were not parties before the Hon’ble High Court, has not been examined and finalised by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial), the same shall be done on the basis of the original ACRs, as were available with the State respondents in the year 2007, in the light of the judgment and order dated 02-06-2015 passed by the Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 39 of 2010. In other words, while grading the ACRs of the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 and others who were not parties before the Hon’ble High Court, the Review DPC shall not downgrade or upgrade their ACRs except in accordance with what has been held by the Division Bench of this court as aforesaid. 9. There is one more point which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners emphasised during the course of hearing that the original ACRs in respect of the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 had been destroyed and new ACRs have been prepared on the basis of which the Assessment Chart was prepared by the Review DPC and that is the reason why the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8, though they not being recommended by the DPC in its meeting held on 12-01-2007, had been recommended by the Review DPC placing them high up in the select list. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that both the original and the new ACRs in respect of the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 be examined by this court to find out if there had been any alteration in the original ACRs. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that both the original and the new ACRs in respect of the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 be examined by this court to find out if there had been any alteration in the original ACRs. The allegation appears to be sound but in the absence of materials on record and since the original and the new ACRs are not in the custody of this court as per report submitted by this registry, it is not possible for this court to countenance the submission of the counsels appearing for the petitioners and the interveners. It may be noted that pursuant to and in compliance with the order dated 08-10-2015 passed by this court, the State Government has not furnished the information in writing as to whether the original ACRs are still in their possession or not. Moreover, since this court is the view that a Review DPC is required to be convened again to examine the cases of all eligible candidates in terms of the observations and findings recorded by the learned Single Judge as well as the judgment and order dated 02-06-2015 passed by the Division Bench of this court, no order is necessary to be passed in respect of this issue. 10. 10. With the above observations and for the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and consequently, the proceedings of the Review DPC in its meeting held on 01-07-2013 and the Government order dated 18-10-2013 are quashed and set aside with the following directions: a) The official respondents and in particular, the respondent No. 5, MPSC shall convene/ hold a Review DPC to consider the cases of all eligible candidates who were within the zone of consideration as on 12-01-2007 for appointment on promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II in accordance with the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 and submit its recommendation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order; b) All incumbents as on date including the petitioners, private and proforma respondents shall be allowed to continue in service in their respective positions till the recommendation being submitted by a Review DPC and appointment orders being issued by the State Government based on its recommendation; c) While considering the ACRs of the eligible candidates as one of the factors of determining merit, the overall grading of ACRs as per the Assessment Chart prepared by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) which has remained undisputed/uncontroverted by any one and has attained finality, shall be the only basis so far as the petitioners and the respondents who were parties before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007, are concerned and in other words, it is made clear that no down-gradation or up-gradation of ACRs is permissible in respect of these persons; d) In so far as the respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8 and others who were not parties before the Hon’ble High Court in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 are concerned, the overall grading of their ACRs shall be made strictly on the basis of their original ACRs recorded by the competent authorities, as were available with the State respondents as on 12-01-2007, under the provisions of OM dated 29-04-1999 as interpreted/held by the Division Bench of this Court on 02-06-2015 in W.A. No. 39 of 2010 and in other words, it is made clear that no down-gradation or upgradation of their ACRs is permissible except in accordance with what has been held by the Division Bench of this court in the said writ appeal; e) There shall be no order as to costs.