L.K. Mohapatra, CJ.:-- These two writ appeals have been filed challenging the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.3.2010 in WP(C) No.265 of 2007. The respondents-1 to 3 had filed the writ application questioning the power and competency of the DPC in association with the Manipur Public Service Commission (for short MPSC) in upgrading and down-grading the gradings of the ACRs of the candidates already recorded by the competent authority and also the procedure adopted by the DPC while making selection and recommendation for appointment to MPS Grade-II. The order dated 1.3.2007 promoting 40 officers to MPS Grade-II on the basis of the recommendation made by the DPC was also sought to be quashed in the said writ petition. 2. The brief background of the case is that appointment and promotion to the post of MPS grade-II is governed by the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965 Rules) as amended from time to time. The strength of the service is required to be determined under Rule 4 of the 1965 Rules. Rule 5, 5.A, 5.B and 5.C provide the procedures for consideration of ACRs of the eligible officers by the DPC for promotion to MPS Grade-H. Rule 13 provides for constitution of the Selection Committee and Rule 14 provides for conditions of eligibility and procedure for selection. In terms of Rule 14. officers specified under clause(b) of sub rule (1) of Rule 5, on completion of 2 years of regular service, are eligible for consideration for promotion. The selection is to be on the basis of merit and suitability. In order to consider eligible officers for promotion to MPS Grade-II, a selection committee/DPC was constituted under the 1965 Rules. The said Selection Committee/DPC is to be guided by Office Memorandum dt. 29.4.1999 issued by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Manipur in order to devise its over. methods and procedures for objective assessment of the suitability of the eligible officers for the purpose of selection and recommendation for promotion to MPS Grade-II. 3. Prior to the present dispute on recommendation of a duly constituted DPC in collaboration with MPSC, present respondents 1 to 3 along with 19 others were recommended for being appointed as Inspectors of Police and on the basis of such recommendation by order dated 28.5.1998 they were appointed as such. 3. Prior to the present dispute on recommendation of a duly constituted DPC in collaboration with MPSC, present respondents 1 to 3 along with 19 others were recommended for being appointed as Inspectors of Police and on the basis of such recommendation by order dated 28.5.1998 they were appointed as such. In the seniority list of Inspectors of Police appointed on the recommendation of DPC and MPSC in it-meeting held on 27.3.1998, the present respondent No.1 was placed at SI.No.IS respondent No.2 at SI.No.7 and the respondent No.3 at SI.No.1 respectively Subsequently, the Department of Home, Govt. of Manipur issued a combined seniority. list of Inspectors of Police, Inspector of police (Legal), Subedar Major and Subedars of Police Department vide notification dt. 27.12.06. As per the combined seniority list. present respondent No.1 , 2 and 3 were placed at Serial Nos-78, 68 and 64 respectively 4. In the year 2005-06,2 (two) vacancies occurred in MPS Grade-II and in 2006-07 39 (thirty nine) vacancies occurred in MPS Grade-II. Govt. of Manipur took a decision to fill up the said vacant posts and accordingly a list of 86 eligible officers including present respondents- 1 to 3, was submitted by the Government to the MPSC along with all necessary papers including the recorded ACRs for consideration by the DPC. On the basis of recommendation made by the DPC associated with the MPSC in its meeting held on 12.1.2007,40(forty) officers were recommended for promotion to MPS Grade-II and on the basis of such recommendation, Govt. of Manipur promoted those 40 officers who were respondents in the writ application to MPS Grade-H. The names of the present three respondents 1-3 in these two appeals were not recommended by the DPC for promotion to MPS Grade-II whereas one of the respondents in the writ petition, i.e. respondent No.8 who had been appointed along with the present respondents-1 to 3, was recommended and was placed at the top of the list of selected candidates for the vacancies available in the year, 2006-07. Challenging the recommendation made by the DPC with MPSC dt. Challenging the recommendation made by the DPC with MPSC dt. 12.1.07 and consequential promotion order passed by the State of Manipur on 1.3.2007, the writ application was filed by the present respondents-1 to 3 on the following grounds: (i) Though the present respondents, during their service career, received rewards and medals, no extra mark had been given to them in addition to the grading in ACRs in terms of Rule 5.A and Rule 5.C of the 1965 Rules; (ii) The DPC and MPSC, while considering the eligible officers for promotion to MPS Grade-II, upgraded and down-graded the ACRs already given by the competent authority without assigning any reason; (iii) The DPC and the MPSC recommended eligible officers for promotion to MPS Grade-n in total violation of the guidelines contained in the Office Memorandum dt. 29.4.1999. 5. The State Government filed an affidavit in-opposition on 29.2.2009 stating therein that the provisions contained in Rule 5.A, 5.B and 5.C of the 1965 Rules had already been deleted vide Notification dated 6.1.2006 and therefore the present respondents-1 to 3 could not be given any additional mark for the rewards or medals received by them during their tenure of service. It was also stated by the State that it had no role to play in the matter of recommendation since it was left to the MPSC and the selection committee constituted for the purpose. The promotion orders were based solely on the recommendation made by the said Selection Committee (DPC) and MPSC. 6. During pendency of the writ petition, an additional affidavit was filed by the present respondents 1 to 3 on 12.6.2009 pointing out discrepancies which were claimed to have been discovered while inspecting the ACRs and a chart was given in the said additional affidavit which was referred to by learned single Judge in the impugned judgment as chart-A. As per the said chart given by the present respondents-1 to 3,5(five) persons (3 selected and 2 not selected) secured 'Outstanding' in their ACR grading. 2(two) other selected candidates-1 ST and another General secured only 'Good' in the ACR grading. But the selection committee (DPC)/MPSC changed their grading and selected them for promotion. 7. 2(two) other selected candidates-1 ST and another General secured only 'Good' in the ACR grading. But the selection committee (DPC)/MPSC changed their grading and selected them for promotion. 7. The Government filed an affidavit in-reply to the above affidavit filed by the present respondents-1 to 3 and explained that in respect of two vacancies available for the year 2005-06,2 of the respondents were recommended from among 8 candidates who were considered by the DPC for those two posts. The present respondents-1 to 3 did not come within the zone of consideration. For the 39 vacancies available for the year 2006-07 present respondents-1 to 3 were considered having come within the zone of consideration and one of the respondents namely Shri C. Nehemiah Tangkhul was recommended by the DPC as his ACR was graded as 'Very Good'. Another respondent namely Md. Tombi whose ACR had been found to be recorded as 'Good' was also recommended for promotion but no explanation was given as to how he was recommended for promotion. 8. MPSC also produced a chart indicating the ACRs of the concerned officers which was referred to as chart-C by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment. Faced with two such charts placed before the Court, one by the present respondents- 1 to 3 and the other by the MPSC, the learned single Judge directed the Dy. Registrar (Judl.) to prepare a chart on the basis of the ACR grading of the eligible officers considered for such promotion. The chart prepared by the Dy. Registrar (Judl) was referred to as Chart-B by the learned single Judge. 9. On consideration of the three charts, the learned single Judge came to a finding that the DPC and the MPSC had upgraded and down-graded the ACR recording of some officers at the time of consideration and specifically came to a conclusion in paragraph 27 of the impugned judgment that such procedure adopted by the DPC is arbitrary, unauthorised and illegal. Having come to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the DPC in down-grading and upgrading the ACRs already recorded by the competent authority is illegal and arbitrary, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the promotion of the private respondents in the writ petition and directed for a review DPC. 10. Shri H.S. Paonam and Shri N. Kumarjit, learned sr. 10. Shri H.S. Paonam and Shri N. Kumarjit, learned sr. counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals assailed the impugned Judgment of the learned Single Judge basically on two grounds. The first ground of challenge is that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 29th April, 1999, the DPC was authorised to make it's own assessment on the basis of the entries made in the ACRs and therefore, finding of the learned Single Judge that DPC was bound by the ACRs recorded by the competent authorities and should not have downgraded or upgraded the ACRs is not sustainable. The second ground of challenge is that the learned Single Judge decided the dispute as if it was sitting in appeal over the decision of the DPC in the matter of recommendation of eligible officers for promotion to MPS Grade-H. 11. Shri. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1-3 in W.A. No.39 of 2010 submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 29th April, 1999 does not confer unfettered powers on the D.P.C. or MPSC to make changes in the grading of ACRs of the eligible officers for promotion to MPSC Grade-U and only under certain circumstances, the DPC and MPSC could make their own assessment on the basis of the ACRs already recorded by the Competent Authorities. It was also contended by the learned counsel that the learned Single Judge did not decide the writ petition as if he was sitting in appeal over the decision of the DPC and MPSC but with reference to relevant provisions contained in the Office Memorandum dated 29th April, 1999. Learned Single Judge held that the DPC and MPSC did not have the authority to downgrade or upgrade the ACRs already recorded by the Competent Authorities. The learned counsel also raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of W.A. No.22 of 2015 on the ground that the said appeal was filed long after the impugned judgment was passed and no application had ever been filed for condonation of delay in filing the said writ appeal. 12. Shri. I. Lalitkumar, learned Sr, Counsel appearing for the MPSC and Shri H. Raghumani, learned GA. supported the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 12. Shri. I. Lalitkumar, learned Sr, Counsel appearing for the MPSC and Shri H. Raghumani, learned GA. supported the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Before entering into the question as to whether the impugned judgment is correct or not, it is necessary to refer some judgments cited by the learned counsel appearing for the parties to determine the power of review. Has the Court any jurisdiction in an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the decisions/recommendation made by the D.P.C. and MPSC and as to whether the DPC and MPSC had unfettered power in making their own assessment and consequently, could downgrade or upgrade the ACRs of eligible officers who were considered for promotion to MPS Grade-II. In the case of Union of India & ors. vs. S.P, Nayyar reported in (2014) 14 SCC 370 , the Supreme Court held that High Court under Art. 226 of Constitution cannot sit in appeal over assessment made by DPC. If assessment made by DPC is perverse, or is not based on record, or proper record has not been considered by DPC, it is always open to High Court to remit the matter back to DPC, for recommendation, but High Court cannot assess merit on its own on perusal of service record of employee. In the case of Md. Altab Mir vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and ors. reported in (2011) 11 SCC 82 , the Supreme Court held that in absence of any glaring discrepancy or bias in the decision making process, ordinarily the Court does not normally take upon itself the task of making a subjective assessment of an officer's performance in relation to matters of promotion. However, at the same time, the Court is also entitled to consider materials placed before it in order to arrive at a conclusion as to whether an injustice has been caused to the officer concerned or not. In the case of Union of India & anr. vs. A.K. Narula reported in (2007) 11 SCC 10 , it was held that only when the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness, that the selection calls for interference. If the DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, courts should not interfere. vs. A.K. Narula reported in (2007) 11 SCC 10 , it was held that only when the process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, mala fides or arbitrariness, that the selection calls for interference. If the DPC has proceeded in a fair, impartial and reasonable manner, courts should not interfere. Therefore, the correctness of the impugned judgment has to be considered in the light of above three decisions of the Apex Court. As stated earlier, the learned Single Judge considered three charts, one prepared by the present respondents 1-3 as "Chart A", one submitted by the MPSC as "Chart C" and another chart prepared by Deputy Registrar (Judicial) by order of the Court i.e. "Chart B". All the three charts are reproduced below for convenience:- CHART-A SI. No.Name of the OfficersRes­pon­dent/ PetitionerGrading Possi blegrading 2001-022002-032003-042004-052005-06 3Shri M, Mubi Singh 8(Res) OS OS OSOS & VGOSOS 11Shri Thaimei Gaipuri Kabui 16 (Res)VG OSVG OSOS OS 34Shri Sh. Jugeshore Sharma 39 (Res) OSOS OS OS OS 1Shri Lourembam Deven singh 1 (Pet) VG OSVG=1/ 2 OS=1/ 2OSVGOS 3Shri Th. Nungshi Singh 3 (Pet) OS OS OS VG VG OS 8Shri C, Nehemiah Tangkhul (ST) 13 (Res) VG G VGG PG 16Md, Tombi 21 (Res)VG G G G VG G N.B.: OS(Outstanding), VG (Very Good), G(Good), P(Poor) CHART – B SI. No.Name of the OfficersAssessment Year Possi blegrading 2000-012001-022002-032003-042004-052005-06 3Shri M, Mubi Singh -OS OS OS VGOS & VGOSOS 11Shri Thaimei Gaipuri Kabui -VG OSVGOSOS OS 34Shri Sh. Jugeshore Sharma - No. ACROSOS OS OS OS 41Shri Lourembam Deven singh -VG OSOSOSVGOS 43Shri Th. Nungshi Singh -OS OS OS VG VG OS 8Shri C, Nehemiah Tangkhul (ST) -VG G VGG PG 16Md, Tombi -VG G G G VG G N.B.: OS(Outstanding), VG (Very Good), G(Good), P(Poor) SI. No.Name of the OfficersDate Of Regular appoint merit in the GradeAssessment Years Possi blegrading 2001-022002-032003-042004-052005-06 1.Shri M, Mubi Singh 28.5.98OS OS VGVGOSOS 2.Shri Thaimei Gaipuri Kabui 14.6.95- VGVG /OSVGOS VG 3.Shri Sh. Jugeshore Sharma 25.7.95NAOSVG VG OS VG 4.Shri Lourembam Deven singh 28.5.98VG VGVGOSVGVG 5.Shri Th. Nungshi Singh 28.5.98OS VG VG VG VG VG 6.Shri C, Nehemiah Tangkhul (ST) 14.6.95VG G VGVGGVG 7.Md, Tombi 14.6.95VG VGG G VG VG N B.; OS (Outatanding), VG (Veiy Good), G(Good), P(Poor) From Chart No.3. Jugeshore Sharma 25.7.95NAOSVG VG OS VG 4.Shri Lourembam Deven singh 28.5.98VG VGVGOSVGVG 5.Shri Th. Nungshi Singh 28.5.98OS VG VG VG VG VG 6.Shri C, Nehemiah Tangkhul (ST) 14.6.95VG G VGVGGVG 7.Md, Tombi 14.6.95VG VGG G VG VG N B.; OS (Outatanding), VG (Veiy Good), G(Good), P(Poor) From Chart No.3. prepared by MPSC, we find that ACRs for five years have been considered by the DPC in terms of the O.M. of 1999. In respect of Shri C. Nehemia Tangkhul, it appears that out of 5 (five) years, he got "Very Good" for three years, and "Good" for two year and his grading has been given as "Very Good". So far as the Md. Tombi is concerned he got “ Very Good" for three years and "Good" for two years and ultimate grading has been given as "Very Good". Chart - B was prepared by Deputy Registrar (Judicial). From the said chart, it appears that Shri C. Nehemiah Tangkhul got "Very Good" for two years, "Good" for two years and "Poor" for one year, whereas, Md. Tombi has got "Very Good" for two years, "Good" for three years. In the chart submitted by the Respondents 1-3, it is stated that Shri C. Nehemiah Tankhul got "Very Good" for two years, "Good" for two years and "Poor" for one year and Md. Tombi got "Very Good" for two years and "Good" for three years. There is no difference in respect of these two officers in Chart A and B. Whereas, Chart C submitted by MPSC is completely different so far as these two officers are concerned. Chart A and B show that Shri C. Nehemiah Tangkhul got "Good" for the year 2004-05 it was made "Very Good" by the DPC and MPSC. The same officer though got "Poor" for the year 2005-06, the same has been made "Good" by the DPC and MPSC and consequently, he has been given overall grading of "Very Good". In respect of Md. Tombi, as per Chart A and B, he got "Good" for the year 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 but the DPC and MPSC upgraded the ACR for the year 2002-03 from "Good" to "Very Good" as a result of which the said officer got three "Very Good" out of five. Consequently, the overall grading was given as "Very Good". Tombi, as per Chart A and B, he got "Good" for the year 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2004-05 but the DPC and MPSC upgraded the ACR for the year 2002-03 from "Good" to "Very Good" as a result of which the said officer got three "Very Good" out of five. Consequently, the overall grading was given as "Very Good". We have taken example of these two officers in order to find out as to whether the DPC and MPSC had downgraded or upgraded the Gradings as alleged. In this connection, reference can be made to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & anr. vs. A.K. Narula (Supra). The Supreme Court in the said judgment held that the guidelines which have been summarised in para 4 of the Judgment 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 and may make it's 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. Similarly in the case of UPSC vs. K. Rajaiah and ors. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 15 the Apex Court held that power to classify candidates by assigning gradation "outstanding", "very Good", "Good" or "Unfit" vests with the selection committee though selection committee is normally guided by the classification adopted by the State Govt. But it can for good reasons evolve its own classification different from that of the State Govt. The court further held that though the Selection Committee is not legally required to record reasons for giving a lesser gradation than that given by State Govt. Authorities in ACRs, it is desirable to do so. It is therefore, evident from the above two decisions of the Apex Court that DPC & MPSC could devise their own method and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates considered by them for promotion subject to what has been provided in the 1999 Office memorandum. We therefore, feel necessity of referring to some of the guidelines contained in the said Office Memorandum dated 29th April, 1999. We therefore, feel necessity of referring to some of the guidelines contained in the said Office Memorandum dated 29th April, 1999. Clause 5(1)(2) of the said Office memorandum, authorises the DPC to devise its own method and procedure for objective assessment of the suitability of candidates who are to be considered for promotion. Clause 5.2.1. provides that confidential reports are the basic input on the basis of which assessment is to be made by each DPC and valuation of the ACRs should be fair, just and non-discriminatory. It further provides that DPC is to consider ACRs for five preceding years. Two most relevant provisions contained in the said Office memorandum are quoted below for convenience:- "(e) The DPC should not be guided merely by overall grading, if any, that may be recorded in the CRs but should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the CRs, because it has been noticed that sometime overall grading in a CRs may be inconsistent with the grading under various parameters or attributes. (f) If the Reviewing authority or the Accepting Authority as the case may be, has overruled the Reporting Officer or the Reviewing authority, as the case may be, the remarks of the latter authority should be taken as the final remarks for the purpose of assessment, provided it is apparent from the relevant entries that the higher authority has come to a different assessment consciously after due application of mind. If the remarks of the Reporting Officer, Reviewing authority and Accepting authority are complementary to each other and one does not have the effect of overruling the other, then the remarks should be read together and final assessment made by the DPC." 13. On reading of the above two provisions, it is clear that DPC should not be guided merely by overall grading, if any that may be recorded in the ACRs but it should make its own assessment on the basis of the entries in the ACRs as it is noticed that some times overall grading in ACRs may be in consistent with the Grading under various parameters or attributes. However, such authority given to the DPC is subject to what has been provided in Clause 5.2.1.(f). However, such authority given to the DPC is subject to what has been provided in Clause 5.2.1.(f). The said provision states that if the Reviewing or accepting authority as the case may be, overruled the reporting officer or the Reviewing Authority as the case may be, remarks of the latter authority should be taken as final remarks for the purpose of assessment provided, it is apparent from the relevant entries that the higher authority has come to a different assessment consciously after due application of mind. If the remarks of the Reporting Officer, Reviewing authority and accepting authority are complimentary to each other and one does not have the effect of overruling the other, then the remarks should be read together and final assessment be made by the DPC. Therefore, the authority of the DPC to make its own assessment on the basis of the entries made in ACRs as provided in Clause 5.2. l(e) is subject to the restriction in Clause 5.2.1.(f). In other words, if the grading given by the Reporting Officer, Reviewing Authority and Accepting authority is consistent, overall grading is to be accepted by the DPC. Even in the case, where the Grading given by the Reporting Officer is not accepted by the Reviewing authority or the grading given by the Reviewing authority is not accepted by the Accepting authority and accepting authority gives a different grading, the same cannot be disturbed by the DPC if it comes to a conclusion that the Accepting Authority came to a different assessment consciously after due application of mind. Therefore, the DPC and MPSC could only resort to downgrading or upgrading of ACRs when they find that grading given by Reporting Officer is different than the grading 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. What appears from the grading given in chart "C" in respect of officers who were taken as examples, there was no inconsistency in the grading given for different years or in the overall grading given in Chart A or in chart B. Upgradation of ACRs has been done in respect of these two officers for the years mentioned earlier in order to make overall grading "Very Good". We are therefore of the view that such upgradation by the DPC and MPSC is not permissible because of the provision contained in Clause 5.2. l(f) though we do not agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge that the DPC and MPSC had no authority to downgrade or upgrade the entries in the ACRs. We otherwise find upgradation of ACRs in respect of these two officers is in contravention of Clause 5.2.1.(f) of the O.M. of 1999. Therefore, the ultimate result would be to remit the matter back to the DPC for a Review DPC as has been directed by the learned Single Judge. 14. While concluding, we hold that finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the DPC and MPSC has no authority to upgrade the entries in the ACRs is not correct but such upgradation made by DPC is permissible subject to the provision contained in Clause 5.2.1.(f). We, therefore, do not find any merit in W.A. No. 39 of 2010. So far as the W.A. No. 22 of 2015 is concerned, it was contended by Mr. A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the writ petition that the appeal has been filed after a long delay without filing an application for condonation of delay. It was contended by Shri. N. Kumarjit, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellant in the said appeal that no notice was served either in the writ petition or in the writ appeal No. 39 of 2010 and therefore, the said appeal was filed only after it came to the knowledge of the appellant therein that such a judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge. We need not go into this question considering the fact that in the connected writ appeal No.39 of 2010 we do not find any merit. It is also stated at the Bar that in compliance of the judgment of the learned Single Judge a review DPC was convened and recommendation made by the review DPC is now subjudice in the Court in two writ petitions to be heard by a single bench. For the reasons stated above, both the writ appeals are dismissed.