JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Arunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Romen kumar, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 5 and 6 and Mr. S. Samarjeet learned counsel for the respondents no. 7 to 32. 2. In this writ petition, the dispute is as regards the inter se seniority between the present petitioners serving as Inspectors of Police who were already included in the feeder posts for promotion to Manipur Police Service Grade-II, vis-a-vis the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 serving as Inspectors (MT), which post has been incorporated as one of the feeder posts for promotion to the higher post of Manipur Police Service (Grade-II) by an amendment to the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 brought in the year 2009. The dispute concerning seniority between the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have a relation to the prospect for promotion to the MPS Grade-II as provided under Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 and as the petitioners feel that their prospect has been adversely affected by the impugned seniority list published on 12.10.2014, they have challenged it in this writ petition. 3. Rule 5 under Part-III of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 provides the method of recruitment to the Manipur Police Service. Manipur Police Service consists of several grades, of which we are concerned with MPS Grade-II in the present case. Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 as it stood before the amendments provides that 50% of the substantive vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion from amongst those eligible candidates who are included under Rule 5 (1) (b). Rule 5 (1) (b) of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 as it stood before the amendments provides that 50% of the substantive vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion from amongst those eligible candidates who are included under Rule 5 (1) (b). The aforesaid Rule 5 as it stood then, being relevant for decision in this case, is accordingly, reproduced herein below:- “5 Method of Recruitment (1) Save as provided in rule 17, appointment to the service shall be made by the following methods namely:- (a) 50 percent of the substantive vacancies which occur from time to time in the authorised permanent strength of the Service shall be filled by direct recruitment in the manner prescribed in Part IV of these rules, and (b) the remaining 50 percent of such substantive vacancies shall be filled selection in the manner specified in PART V of these rules from amongst the officers, who are substantively borne on the cadre of Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors of Manipur Rifles employed under the State of Manipur. Provided that nothing in this rule shall preclude the Government from holding a vacancy in abeyance, or filing it on an officiating basis in accordance with the provisions in Part VIII of these rules. Provided further that in the case of a person who had been appointed to a post which is subsequently declared as duty post, he shall be deemed to have been appointed to the service from the date of encadrement of the post in the M.P.S. Schedule. (2) If the exigencies of service so require, the Government may, in consultation with a commission, vary the percentage of posts to be filled by each method specified in sub-rule (1). 4. Thus, under Rule 5 (1) (b) as it stood then, it has been provided that 50% of the substantive vacancies shall be filled up by selection from amongst the officers who are substantively borne on the cadre of (i) Inspector of Police, (ii) Inspector of Police (Legal) and (iii) Subedar/Subedar Majors of Manipur Rifles. 5. It may be noted that under the said recruitment rules, as per Rule 5 quoted above, Inspector (MT) was not included as one of the feeder posts. 5. It may be noted that under the said recruitment rules, as per Rule 5 quoted above, Inspector (MT) was not included as one of the feeder posts. However, the State Government by making an amendment to the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 vide notification dated 23.6.2009 published on 30.6.2009 brought in the post of Inspector (MT) as one of the feeder posts which makes an incumbent to be eligible for appointment to the Manipur Police Service Grade-II by way of promotion by making an amendment by way of substitution to Rule 5 (1) (b) referred to hereinafter as the 1st Amendment which reads as follows:- “The existing Rule 5 (1) (b) shall be substituted by the following : (i) 50 percent of the substantive vacancies which occur from time to time in the authorised permanent strength of MPS (Grade-II) shall be filled up by direct recruitment in the manner specified in Part-IV of these rules and (ii) The remaining 50 percent of such substantive vacancies shall be filled up by selection in the manner specified in Part V of these rules from amongst officers, who are substantively borne on the cadre of Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal), Subedar, Subedar Major and Inspector (MT) of Manipur Police employed under the State of Manipur. Provided that, (a) Officers holding the post of Inspector (MT) will become eligible only after undergoing basic training course, applicable to Police Officers of similar rank, for at least one full year followed by performance of duties as Inspector of Police/Subedar while being attached to a Police Station/Armed Police Battalion as the case may be for at least one year. (b) Officers holding the post of Inspector (MT) shall be placed just below the last Inspector of Police/Inspector of Police (Legal)/ Subedar/Subedar Majors in the inter se seniority list of Officers feeder to MPS-II in force at the time of the issue of this notification. (c) Provided that in the case of a person, who had been appointed to a post, which post is subsequently declared as duty post, he shall be deemed to have always been appointed to a duty post from the date on which he was appointed. (c) Provided that in the case of a person, who had been appointed to a post, which post is subsequently declared as duty post, he shall be deemed to have always been appointed to a duty post from the date on which he was appointed. (d) Provided further that nothing in this rule shall preclude the Governor from holding a vacancy in abeyance, or filling it on an officiating basis in accordance with the provisions of Part-VIII of these rules.” 6. Inclusion of the Inspector (MT) as one of the feeder posts, however, is conditional upon fulfilment of two requirements as mentioned in the proviso (a) added in the aforesaid amendment. Provisos (c) and (d) do not have relevance as far as this case is concerned. According to the petitioners, the holder of the post of Inspector (MT) became for the first time, a member of the cadre in the feeder posts for promotion to MPS Grade-II by the 1st amendment made in the year 2009. Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that proviso (b) to sub-clause (ii) of the amended Rule 5, specifically mentions that these Inspectors (MT) who have been included in the feeder grade will be placed below the last Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors in the inter se seniority list of officers feeder to MPS Grade-II in force at the time of issue of this notification. Thus, according to the petitioners, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 who became part of the feeder cadre posts for promotion to MPS Grade-II will be placed below the last Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors at the time of issuance of the 1st Amendment notification in the inter se seniority list. Accordingly, when the inter se seniority list of the Inspectors and other equivalent posts included in the feeder grade posts was published on 30th August, 2013, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were correctly placed below the petitioners and other Inspectors/equivalent posts who were already in the feeder grade before the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were brought in the feeder grade. Thus, in the said final seniority list dated 30.8.2013, the names of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were placed at Sl.No.178 and 179 below the names of the petitioners as well as the private respondents No.3 to 32, who were placed at Sl. Nos. 5 and 6 were brought in the feeder grade. Thus, in the said final seniority list dated 30.8.2013, the names of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were placed at Sl.No.178 and 179 below the names of the petitioners as well as the private respondents No.3 to 32, who were placed at Sl. Nos. 42, 46, 125, 151 etc as they were already included in the feeder grade posts prior to the inclusion of the post of Inspector (MT) as a feeder post. According to the petitioners, this final seniority list was not challenged by the private respondents no. 5 and 6 and hence, this final seniority list having attained finality, must not be disturbed even if subsequent changes have been made in the recruitment rules. Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel submits that all the subsequent amendments made in the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 are prospective in nature and even if, some of these amendments may seem to grant certain benefit of seniority to the Inspectors (MT), these amendments being brought in after issue of the said final seniority list dated 30.08.2013 and being prospective in nature and not retrospective, the benefit granted by these subsequent amendments will not be applicable to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6. Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel submits that when the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 became members of the cadre in the feeder posts of MPS Grade-II, the rules for determining seniority which are applicable to them was incorporated by the same amendment issued on 23.6.2009. He submits that it is this rule of seniority incorporated in the said amendment which will be applicable to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as far as issue of determination of seniority and eligibility is concerned, and not the rule of seniority as contained in the subsequent amendments which were issued after they became part of the feeder posts and inter-seniority fixed. In other words, for the purpose of determination of seniority and eligibility of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the subsequent amendments brought in the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 after they have become members of the feeder post and their seniority fixed, will not be applicable to them. In other words, for the purpose of determination of seniority and eligibility of the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, the subsequent amendments brought in the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 after they have become members of the feeder post and their seniority fixed, will not be applicable to them. Thus, according to Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel, even though the second Amendment was made vide notification issued on 8.7.2014 by making amendment to Rule 5(ii)(b) by which it has been provided that officers holding the post of Inspector (MT) shall be placed just below the last Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors in the inter se seniority list of officers feeder to MPS Grade-II whose year of regular appointment in the grade is the same with that of Inspector (MT), the same will not be applicable to the Respondents no. 5 and 6. It will be applicable only to those Inspectors (MT) who were appointed after the said 2nd Amendment was made. The aforesaid 2nd Amendment vide notification dated 8.7.2014 provides that the seniority will now be determined with reference to the date of regularisation of the Inspectors and equivalent post though Inspector (MT) will be placed below the existing Inspectors with reference to the year of regularisation. It has been also submitted that by this second amendment brought on 8th July, 2014, a change has brought only in respect of proviso (b) to Rule 5(ii) and proviso (a) to Rule 5(ii) remains unchanged. 7. It has been further submitted that subsequent to that, certain changes were again brought to the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 by a third amendment made on 27.10.2015. However, the said 3rd amendment is not relevant for the present issue which relates to a change in the Schedule-I in terms of Rules 4 and 7. The 4th amendment which was affected on 10.12.2014 however, has relevance to the present issue. According to the petitioners, by the 4th amendment made vide notification dated 10.12.2014 to Rule 5(1)(b), the Inspector (MT) has been deleted from being a feeder grade post for promotion to MPS Grade-II. However, by a subsequent corrigendum made on 05.06.2015, the Inspector (MT) was again brought in as one of the feeder posts for promotion to the MPS Grade-II. According to the petitioners, by the 4th amendment made vide notification dated 10.12.2014 to Rule 5(1)(b), the Inspector (MT) has been deleted from being a feeder grade post for promotion to MPS Grade-II. However, by a subsequent corrigendum made on 05.06.2015, the Inspector (MT) was again brought in as one of the feeder posts for promotion to the MPS Grade-II. Another corrigendum was issued on 17.9.2015 with the same effect, clarifying that the said corrigendum dated 17.9.2015 was issued in consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission which was not mentioned in the earlier corrigendum issued on 05.06.2015. It has been submitted by Mr. H.S. Paonam, Ld. Senior Counsel that however, as clearly evident from the aforesaid corrigenda dated 05.06.2015 as well as 17.9.2015, even if the said corrigenda were issued in consultation with the Manipur Public Service Commission, it cannot be deemed to be an amendment of the rules by invoking the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and hence, these are merely executive instructions and not having the statutory force by invoking the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, submits that in any event, these corrigenda would have no binding effect as far as the claims made by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are concerned. Ultimately, the Government issued a notification dated 20.4.2016 which incorporates all the changes brought about in the meantime. The amendment made by issuing notification dated 20.04.2016 is the latest amendment to Rule 5 of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965. However, Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel submits that even this comprehensive amendment will be of no avail to the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for the reasons mentioned above. 8. Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel further submits that at the time of determination of seniority, Rule 5 sub-rule (ii) and the provisos (a) and (b) to the sub-rule have to be read together and these provisos cannot be read in isolation. What proviso (a) to sub-rule (ii) to Rule 5 provides is that the Inspector (MT) to be eligible for promotion to the higher grade of MPS Grade-II must have undergone basic training course for at least one full year and apart from that he must have also performed the duties as Inspector of Police/Subedar for at least one year. What proviso (a) to sub-rule (ii) to Rule 5 provides is that the Inspector (MT) to be eligible for promotion to the higher grade of MPS Grade-II must have undergone basic training course for at least one full year and apart from that he must have also performed the duties as Inspector of Police/Subedar for at least one year. Thus, an Inspector (MT) has to have the training and experience of minimum two years in these areas for being eligible for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II. Mr. H.S.Paonam, further submits that this experience of one year each in these two fields is again subject to what is provided under proviso (b), in terms of the 1st Amendment made vide notification dated 23.06.2009 according to which, the Inspectors (MT) who have been included in the feeder posts, have to be placed enbloc below in seniority to those Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors who were already in service. Mr. Paonam submits that therefore, it goes without saying that even if seniority is determined in terms of the proviso (b), till they fulfil the conditions specified under proviso (a) to Rule 5(ii) of the Rules as mentioned above, the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 cannot be considered at all for promotion to the higher post of MPS Grade-II irrespective of placement in the seniority position. Mr.H.S.Paonam, learned senior counsel reiterated that the second amendment made vide notification dated 8.7.2014 only brought in changes with reference to proviso (b) and kept proviso (a) intact. Therefore, even if there is a change of seniority position in terms of second amendment brought in by notification dated 08.07.2014 unless the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 fulfil the conditions of training and experience mentioned above in proviso (a), they cannot be considered for promotion to the higher post of MPS Grade- II. Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is that whenever the seniority list is prepared, it has to be only of those eligible candidates contemplated under the rules. Therefore, unless respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are eligible for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II, they cannot be included in the seniority list of eligible candidates for promotion to the higher post of MPS Grade-II. Therefore, unless respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are eligible for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II, they cannot be included in the seniority list of eligible candidates for promotion to the higher post of MPS Grade-II. According to Mr.H.S.Paonam, ultimately what is relevant is that the authority has to publish the seniority list by taking into consideration the eligibility criteria and as such, the seniority list should contain only candidates who are eligible for the purpose of consideration to the post of MPS Grade-II which is relevant. Accordingly, in view of the above, it has been submitted that inclusion and upgradation of seniority position of respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from 178 and 179 to 7 and 19 respectively by the impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014 is not sustainable in law and accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 9. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel in support of his contention submits that unless specifically provided for giving retrospective effect, the seniority once already drawn cannot be withdrawn on the basis of an amended service rules, by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prem Kumar Verma and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 457 . Further, relying on the decision in P. Mohan Reddy Vs. E.A.A. Charles, (2001) 4 SCC 433 , it has been submitted that seniority has to be in accordance with the rules in force on the date of appointment and not under amended rules unless the amended rules are retrospective in nature. It has been submitted that in the present case the petitioners were borne in the cadre of the feeder post only in the year 2009 and accordingly, the seniority of these private respondents has to be determined with reference to the existing rules in 2009 i.e., the first amendment made on 23.06.2009 and not with reference to subsequent amendments made from 08.07.2014 onwards to the MPS Rules as these amendments do not have any retrospective effect and hence these subsequent amendments are of no consequence to the respondents 5 and 6. 10. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. 10. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. M. Ravi Varma & Ors., (1972) 1 SCC 379 in which the same principle has been reiterated to the effect that the seniority has to be decided in accordance with the rules prevalent at the time of appointment of the person. 11. Mr. Paonam has also relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in B.S. Yadav & Ors. etc. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., 1980 (Supp) 524 in support of his submission that seniority is to be fixed as per rules applicable on the date of appointment and rules in force at that time and not by any rule which is subsequently made after appointment of the person. 12. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sushma Mutreja Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 428 it has been submitted by Mr. Paonam that if there is change in cadre and if the person joins a new cadre then he must be placed at the lowest position in the new cadre. Such a person cannot be made senior to those who were already borne in the cadre. It has been submitted that in the present case, the respondents No. 5 and 6 joined the new cadre only in 2009 and accordingly, they had to be placed at the lowest placement in the seniority list prepared after joining the new cadre in 2009 and they can never be placed above the petitioners. 13. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Sudhakar Rao & Ors. Vs. U. Govinda Rao & Ors., (2013) 8 SCC 693 , has submitted that the seniority of a person can be given only from the date he enters in the cadre and accordingly, giving seniority from an anterior date prior to his becoming a member of the cadre is not permissible and even if rule provides for any departure it must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it must be based on objective consideration and valid qualifications and must be traceable to the statutory rules. Mr. Mr. Paonam submits that in the present case, there is no such provision in the statutory rules or office instructions issued by the State of Manipur which provides for grant of seniority from an earlier date before a person is borne in the cadre. Further, it has been submitted that the date of substantive appointment is the safest criterion for fixing inter se seniority between one group of officers to the other recruited from different sources, and any departure there from in the statutory rules or otherwise must be consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to Mr. Paonam, the respondents no. 5 and 6 became members of the new cadre consisting of feeder posts only in the year 2009 and hence, their seniority has to be counted from 2009 and not from any prior date. 14. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that in the order passed by this Court on 04.12.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 687 of 2013 (Shri Ch. Bimolchandra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Manipur & Ors.) it has been mentioned that in any event, fixation of seniority has a correlation to the eligibility criteria, in the present case, as provided under proviso (a) to Rule 5(ii) of the MPS Rules. He submits that till the respondents No. 5 and 6 fulfil these criteria as mentioned in proviso (a), they cannot be included in the seniority list. It has been submitted that the aforesaid decision has attained finality as it has not been interfered with by the Supreme Court as the SLP preferred against it has been dismissed on 02.01.2014 in SLP(C) No. 37671/2013. 15. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 623 also submits that an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 623 also submits that an amendment having retrospective operation which has the effect of taking away a benefit already available to the employee under the existing rule is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the present case, it has been submitted that if the respondents No. 5 and 6 are given seniority from an earlier date as has been done in the impugned seniority list dated 12.10.2014, they will be treated to be eligible for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II from such earlier dates even though they were not borne in the cadre. In other words, the respondent No. 5 who has been placed at Sl. No. 7 in the seniority list by showing the date of promotion as Inspector as 06.11.1999, even if considered for promotion as Inspector (MT) in 1999, could not have been done so as he did not possess the eligibility criteria as provided under proviso (a) in the year 1999 and as such he could not have been placed at Sl. No. 7. If the aforesaid placement of the respondent No. 5 is allowed, it would be deemed that he had already become eligible for promotion to the post of MPS Grade II in 1999 which would be contrary to rules, as has been clearly mentioned in Chairman, Railway Board (supra). Thus, by placing the respondent No. 5 at Sl. No. 7, he had been given seniority above the petitioners who otherwise were senior to the respondent No. 5 in 2013. Such accrued right of the petitioners of being senior to him in the seniority list fixed in 2013 cannot be reversed by this placement of the respondent no. 5 above the petitioners in the impugned seniority list. Similar is the case with respondent No. 6. 16. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.C. Arora Vs. State of Haryana, (1984) 3 SCC 281 , it has been submitted by Mr. H.S. Paonam that any Act or rules which prejudicially affects the acquired rights of another person cannot be sustained. 17. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel has also submitted that the inter-se seniority having been settled in 2013 ought not to have been disturbed by framing a fresh seniority list in 2014 as has been done. H.S. Paonam that any Act or rules which prejudicially affects the acquired rights of another person cannot be sustained. 17. Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned senior counsel has also submitted that the inter-se seniority having been settled in 2013 ought not to have been disturbed by framing a fresh seniority list in 2014 as has been done. In this regard, Mr. H.S. Paonam has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in H.S. Vakani & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarati & Ors., (2010) 4 SCC 301 in which it has been held that a settled seniority list ought not be allowed to be unsettled at the instance of the juniors in service. In the present case, it has been submitted by Mr. Paonam that seniority list was already settled by issuing the Notification on 30th August, 2013 on the basis of existing service rules in which the respondents No. 5 and 6 have been placed below the petitioners. The said seniority list was not challenged by the respondents. The impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014 was issued only after the amendment of the service rules made on 08.07.2014, by which the respondents No. 5 and 6 have been placed above the petitioners. This, according to Mr. H.S. Paonam is not permissible in as much as a settled seniority list cannot be unsettled, by invoking a principle which does not have retrospective effect but is only prospective in nature. 18. In response, Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 5 and 6 has submitted that Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 were initially notified by the Central Government on 29.3.1965 when Manipur was an Union Territory, and as per Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965, under Rule 5(b), the posts which have been included in the feeder cadre for promotion to Manipur Police Service were Inspector of Police, Prosecuting Inspectors, Police Prosecutors and Joint Commissioned Officers of Manipur Rifles employed in the Union Territory of Manipur. As per Rule 5(1)(b) as it stood then, the seniority of the incumbents in the feeder cadre posts was determined on the basis of the continuous length of service as the expression used in the rules was that the officers are to be “substantively borne on the cadre.” After the Union Territory of Manipur was granted statehood in 1972, the State Government again notified the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 on 18.12.1974. As per aforesaid MPS Rules, the seniority of the officers in the feeder grade continued to be determined on the basis of the length of continuous service. Subsequently, Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 were amended for the first time on 23.6.2009 by which the post of Inspector (MT) was brought in for the first time as one of the feeder posts for promotion to the higher post of MPS Grade-II by amending Rule 5(1)(b) of the Rules. While doing so, certain provisos were also added to the amended Rule 5 and as per newly added proviso (a), it deals with the eligibility criteria and the proviso (b) incorporates a new rule of seniority. Proviso (b) provided that as far as seniority is concerned of the newly brought in cadre of Inspector (MT), are to be placed below the last Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors, etc. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel submits that though the post of Inspector (MT) has been included as one of the feeder posts, an anomalous situation was also created by the said first amendment effected on 23.6.2009. He submits that though the Inspector (MT) is equal in all respects to the Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors, etc. as they enjoy similar pay scales, similar services benefits and service conditions in terms of recruitment, etc., the Inspectors (MT) though entered service earlier by way of regular appointment, have been placed below the existing feeder posts of Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors, etc. by virtue of proviso (b). In other words, the seniority of the Inspector (MT) would be counted from the date of inclusion in the feeder post on 23.6.2009 below the existing Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors, etc. irrespective of their date of regular appointment. Thus, while the seniority of the Inspectors of Police etc. will be counted from their respective dates of regular appointment, in case of Inspectors (MT) it will be counted from the date of notification of the 1st Amendment. According to Mr. Romen kumar, this unequal treatment of equally situated/equivalent posts is against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the seniority of the Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors, etc. According to Mr. Romen kumar, this unequal treatment of equally situated/equivalent posts is against the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If the seniority of the Inspector of Police, Inspector of Police (Legal) and Subedar/Subedar Majors, etc. is to be counted from the respective dates of their regular appointments, the same benefit ought to be extended to the Inspector (MT) also. Accordingly, in order to rectify this inequitous and unequal position in which the Inspectors (MT) have been placed as regards the position of seniority, the Government effected a second amendment by issuing the notification on 8.7.2014 by which the seniority of the Inspector (MT) is to be counted from the date of regular appointment as Inspector (MT) though he may be placed just below the last Inspector of Police or Inspector of Police (Legal) or Subedar of equivalent who had same year of regular appointment. Thus, by this second amendment effected on 8.7.2014, parity as far as fixation of seniority was brought in. 19. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel submits that the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, had tried to portray the situation in a different light. According to Mr. Romen kumar, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners was that Inspector (MT) cannot be included in the feeder grade for promotion to the higher post of MPS Grade-II unless the Inspector (MT) undergoes basic training course for one year and also further gains experience for another one year as provided under proviso (a) and as such, till the Inspector (MT) fulfils these twin conditions, such Inspector (MT) cannot be part of the cadre in the feeder grade and cannot be also included in the inter-se seniority list. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel submits that if such submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners is to be accepted, it will lead to an anomalous situation. While by virtue of the first amendment to the MPS Rules made on 23.06.2009, the Inspector (MT) has been brought in as a feeder post still, he cannot be considered to be part of the feeder grade till he fulfils the conditions provided under proviso (a). In other words, the Inspector (MT) who has been brought in the feeder post in 2009 cannot be included in the feeder post at all till the year 2011. In other words, the Inspector (MT) who has been brought in the feeder post in 2009 cannot be included in the feeder post at all till the year 2011. In such an event, Inspector (MT) will be left in the lurch for at least two years which situation cannot be contemplated under the Rules. He submits that by the substantive provision under sub-rule (ii) of Rule 5 of Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965, once the post of Inspector (MT) has been brought in as a feeder post, that fact of being included as a feeder post cannot be defeated by invoking a proviso to the main rule. In other words, the proviso (a) cannot be interpreted in a manner which would have the effect of nullifying the effect of the main provision of the Rule 5 (ii). Mr. Romen kumar, therefore, submits that the proper interpretation would be that proviso (a) would be invoked only at the time of consideration for promotion to the higher post of MPS Grade-II. The competent authority or the Selection Committee has to examine whether the particular Inspector (MT) has also fulfilled the requirements as provided under proviso (a) to be eligible for considered for promotion. In other words, this aspect which has to be considered at the time of consideration for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II only and not for purpose of determining whether the post of Inspector (MT) has to be included in the common seniority list of the feeder posts or not. 20. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel submits that the conception of the petitioners that all these feeder posts mentioned in Rule 5(ii) form a common cadre is also not correct. In fact, all these feeder posts mentioned therein form separate cadres of their own. For example, the Inspectors of Police form cadre of their own, Inspectors of Police (Legal) also form cadre of their own, so do the Subedars. Similarly, the Inspectors (MT) also form a cadre of their own. What has been done by this amendment is that all these posts belonging to different cadres are brought together for the purpose of promotion to the higher post of MPS Grade-II. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel further submits that convergence of these posts under different cadres under one umbrella does not mean that a new cadre of feeder posts has been created. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel further submits that convergence of these posts under different cadres under one umbrella does not mean that a new cadre of feeder posts has been created. Therefore, the question of integrating into a new cadre does not arise as has been tried to be portrayed by the petitioners. In that view of the matter, the citations of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners in the cases of P. Sudhakar Rao Vs. U. Govinda Rao, (2013) 8 SCC 693 , State of Uttaranchal Vs. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, 2007 (1) SCC 683 and Union of India Vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty 1994 (5) SCC 450 are not applicable in the present case as these cases dealt with situations where an employee becomes a part of the new or higher cadre. In the present case, the Inspectors (MT) form a cadre of their own and do not become a part of the cadre of Inspector or cadre of Subedars or cadre of Inspector (Legal) or any larger cadre. 21. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel submits that the fact that these feeder posts do not form a single cadre is clearly indicated by the fact that these posts are not interchangeable or transferable and they continue to discharge their respective duties and functions in their respective cadres. For example, Inspectors (MT) would continue to discharge the functions as assigned to them which is related to motor vehicle, and Inspector of Police are assigned duties relating to maintenance of law and order which can not be discharged by Subedar etc. Therefore, these posts are not interchangeable as to form a single cadre which is one of the attributes of belonging to one cadre as the postings in a cadre are normally interchangeable. 22. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel further submits that the Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioners has relied on a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to show that seniority will be counted from the date of integration in the cadre. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel submits that on the contrary, there are a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it has been held that seniority, even after integration will be continued to be determined on the basis of continuous length of service and not from the date of integration. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel submits that on the contrary, there are a number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which it has been held that seniority, even after integration will be continued to be determined on the basis of continuous length of service and not from the date of integration. He submits that if the proposition of the petitioners is to be accepted to the effect that seniority will be counted from the date of integration, it will be deemed that the Inspector (MT) will become a new member of the so-called cadre of feeder posts from the date of integration which, however, cannot be accepted as it will lead to a very unjust situation and amount to unfair treatment to the Inspectors (MT) who had been serving on regular basis for long period before integration. 23. In this regard, Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. & anr. vs. Surendra Nath Misra, (2011) 15 SCC 157 and K.Anjaiah & ors. vs. K.Chandraiah & ors.; (1998) 3 SCC 218 in which it had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that persons coming from different sources and drafted to serve a new service are entitled to count their pre-existing length of service for determining their ranking in the new service cadre and if seniority is to be fixed from the date of entry in the new cadre, it will lead to arbitrariness as it will deprive the services rendered by the persons in the earlier cadre. Further he has placed reliance on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Panchraj Tiwari vs. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board and ors., (2014) 5 SCC 101 , in which it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that if integration to service adversely affects the promotional aspects of the existing employees and caused heart burn, such a situation can be ignored. It has been submitted by Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (1980) 3 SCC 97 that if the rule is valid or otherwise good in law, yet if it leads to changes in the seniority, that would not warrant interference with the rules. 24. Mr. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (1980) 3 SCC 97 that if the rule is valid or otherwise good in law, yet if it leads to changes in the seniority, that would not warrant interference with the rules. 24. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel has accordingly submitted that since the amended Rule 5(ii) proviso (b) is valid and it has neither been challenged nor interfered with by any competent authority and since t he impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014 was prepared on the basis of aforesaid rules, all the parties including the petitioners and the respondents should accept the seniority list based on the valid rules, and even if the rules had resulted in changes in seniority positions of the petitioners as per earlier un-amended rules. It has been further submitted by Mr. Romen kumar by relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.S. Makashi and Others Vs. I.M. Menon and Others, (1982) 1 SCC 379 that if the rule has not been challenged, it shall be deemed that the such rule is valid. Mr.Romen kumar further submits that the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the impugned seniority list has caused hardship and discontentment to them cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohitash Kumar and Ors. vs. Om Prakash Sharma & ors.; (2013) 11 SCC 481 whereby the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows. “23. There may be a statutory provision, which causes great hardship or inconvenience to either the party concerned, or to an individual, but the Court has no choice but to enforce it in full rigor. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that hardship or inconvenience caused, cannot be used as a basis to alter the meaning of the language employed by the legislature, if such meaning is clear upon a bare perusal of the Statute. If the language is plain and hence allows only one meaning, the same has to be given effect to, even if it causes hardship or possible injustice. Vide: Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, West Bengal v. Keshab Chandra Mandal, AIR 1950 SC 265 and D.D. Joshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 420 . 24. In Bengal Immunity Co. Vide: Commissioner of Agricultural Income Tax, West Bengal v. Keshab Chandra Mandal, AIR 1950 SC 265 and D.D. Joshi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 420 . 24. In Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 1955 SC 661 it was observed by a Constitution Bench of this Court that, if there is any hardship, it is for the legislature to amend the law, and that the Court cannot be called upon, to discard the cardinal rule of interpretation for the purpose of mitigating such hardship. If the language of an Act is sufficiently clear, the Court has to give effect to it, however, inequitable or unjust the result may be. The words, ‘dura lex sed lex’ which mean “the law is hard but it is the law.” may be used to sum up the situation. Therefore, even if a statutory provision causes hardship to some people, it is not for the Court to amend the law. A legal enactment must be interpreted in its plain and literal sense, as that is the first principle of interpretation. 25. In Mysore State Electricity Board v. Bangalore Woolen, Cotton & Silk Mills Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1963 SC 1128 a Constitution Bench of this Court held that, “inconvenience is not” a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute. In Martin Burn Ltd. v. The Corporation of Calcutta, AIR 1966 SC 529 this Court, while dealing with the same issue observed as under:– “A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. A statute must of course be given effect to whether a Court likes the result or not.” (See also: The Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal I, Calcutta v. M/s Vegetables Products Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 927 ; and Tata Power Company Ltd. v. Reliance Energy Limited & Ors., (2009) 16 SCC 659 . 26. Therefore, it is evident that the hardship caused to an individual, cannot be a ground for not giving effective and grammatical meaning to every word of the provision, if the language used therein, is unequivocal.” 25. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel further relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prafulla Kumar Das Vs. 26. Therefore, it is evident that the hardship caused to an individual, cannot be a ground for not giving effective and grammatical meaning to every word of the provision, if the language used therein, is unequivocal.” 25. Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel further relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prafulla Kumar Das Vs. State of Orissa, (2003) 11 SCC 614 and S.S. Bola Vs. B.D. Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522 , State of Sikkim and Others, 2014(2) SCALE 373 , para 24 and para 25 has opposed the contentions of the petitioners that the accrued right of the petitioners in the seniority list dated 30.08.2010 has been adversely affected by the impugned seniority list. Mr. Romen kumar submits that nobody has any accrued right in the seniority list as the placement in seniority list is subject to changes as per the applicable rules. He submits that in the present case, the impugned seniority list was on the basis of the amended MPS Rules effected on 08.07.2014 and hence, the consequential changes in the seniority list of the petitioners as well as the respondents is by virtue of the change in the rules and as such, it cannot be said that any accrued right of the petitioners has been affected. Accordingly, it has been submitted by Mr. Romen kumar that all the decisions cited by learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners that the vested right cannot be taken away by any subsequent amended rules are not applicable in the present case as there was no vested right of the petitioners in the seniority list of 30.08.2010. 26. Mr. Romen kumar further submits that in fact, there has been no change in the seniority list in respect of the petitioners. He submits that the seniority positions of the petitioners as per the earlier seniority list dated 30.08.2013 at Annexure-A/4 have been retained in the subsequent seniority list issued on 10.12.2014. Accordingly, it has been submitted that there has not been any change in the seniority position as far as the petitioners are concerned. Therefore, even if the seniority list of the present respondents are changed it does not affect the seniority list of the petitioners. 27. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 1 . Mr. Therefore, even if the seniority list of the present respondents are changed it does not affect the seniority list of the petitioners. 27. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 1 . Mr. Romen kumar has submitted that amendment brought on 18.07.2014 would have retrospective effect in view of the fact that the said amendment was by way of substitution and was clarificatory in nature and to rectify certain palpable error. Therefore, as the second amendment/change was brought by way of substitution of the provision to rectify an error which was already in existence on 23.06.2009, it will be deemed to be effective from 23.06.2009. 28. Further, relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SEBI Vs. Ajay Agarwal, (2010) 3 SCC 765 , T. Kaliamurthi Vs. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf, (2008) 9 SCC 306 . Mr. Romen kumar has submitted that amendments to the rules framed under proviso to Art.309 are procedural in nature and therefore, even if the expression retrospective effect is not used in the said amendment which is procedural in nature, such amendment will have retrospective effect. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Institute of Technology Vs. Pannalal Choudhurry, (2015) 11 SCC 669. Mr. Romen kumar submits that rectification of any mistake will go back to the period when the mistake was committed. Therefore, in the present case, since the second amendment was made to correct a mistake which had occurred in the first amendment in 2009 this rectification i.e. the amendment of 2014 will have effect from 2009. 29. Mr. Romen kumar further submits merely because there is another promotional avenue of Inspector (MT) to the post of DSP (MT), it cannot be a reason for denying the right of the Inspector (MT) to count their seniority from the date of regular appointment, as contended by the petitioners. 30. Mr. Romen kumar submits that it can be seen from the MPS Rules that the feeder posts mentioned under Rule 5(ii) are not included in Schedule I of the MPS Rules which would clearly indicate that these feeder posts do not form any particular cadre as sought to be made out by the petitioners. 31. Mr. R.S.Reisang, learned Sr. Govt. Mr. Romen kumar submits that it can be seen from the MPS Rules that the feeder posts mentioned under Rule 5(ii) are not included in Schedule I of the MPS Rules which would clearly indicate that these feeder posts do not form any particular cadre as sought to be made out by the petitioners. 31. Mr. R.S.Reisang, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State submits that all the points which the Government intended to raise have been covered by the submission already made on behalf of the private respondents no. 5 and 6 and as such it may not be necessary for him to address this Court any further. 32. Mr. S. Samarjeet, learned counsel for the respondents No. 7 to 32 submits that they were borne in the same cadre as the present petitioners and thus being similarly situated as the petitioners, would endorse the stand taken by the petitioners. He also reiterates the contention that the private respondents No. 5 and 6 were born in the feeder cadre only in 2009 and as such granting seniority to them prior to the coming into existence of the feeder cadre in 2009 does not arise. Further, in order to be included in the feeder grade, the private respondents must fulfil the conditions laid down in proviso (a) to Rule 5(ii) without which they cannot be treated to be included in the feeder grade. It has been also reiterated that since the respondents 5 and 6 had not challenged the first amendment by which it was provided that they would be placed in seniority list below the existing Inspectors and other equivalent posts, on the basis of which the final seniority list was published on 30.08.2013, which was also not challenged by these respondents no. 5 and 6 and hence this seniority list dated 30.08.2013 should prevail as far as the parties are concerned and not the impugned seniority list. 33. Mr. A. Modhuchandra, learned G.A. appearing for the MPSC submits that since the dispute pertains to fixation of seniority of the parties, with which the MPSC has no role to play, he has nothing to submit. 34. Mr. H.S. Paonam, Learned Sr. 33. Mr. A. Modhuchandra, learned G.A. appearing for the MPSC submits that since the dispute pertains to fixation of seniority of the parties, with which the MPSC has no role to play, he has nothing to submit. 34. Mr. H.S. Paonam, Learned Sr. Counsel in reply submits that the second amendment will be applicable to those persons who have been included in the common cadre of feeder posts after coming into force of the said second amendment and will not apply to those who were already included in the common cadre prior to the second amendment which came into force in 2014. He submits that since the seniority list dated 30.08.2013 was drawn in accordance with the existing rules prior to the second amendment of the rules, it correctly reflected the seniority position of the parties and to that extent, the impugned seniority list dated 12.10.2014 which is inconsistent will be bad in law. He submits that since the post of Inspector (MT) had been included in the common cadre only in the year 2009 and since Rule 5 has been framed for the purpose of recruitment to the MPS Grade II, such persons who are included for the first time in 2009 cannot be placed in a position higher than the already existing members in the common cadre to their disadvantage. Mr. Paonam further submits that inclusion of the post of Inspector (MT) to the common cadre in the year 2009 will become effective for the purpose of promotion only when the conditions mentioned in the proviso (a) are fulfilled, and till such conditions are fulfilled they have no right to be considered for promotion. He also submits that the respondents no. 5 and 6 made certain objections only when the final seniority list was published vide their representation submitted on 11.03.2014 as mentioned in para 14 of the affidavit-in-opposition. Further, referring to the document at Annexure-R/6 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents no. 5 and 6 in which the private respondents have been shown at Sl. No. 6 and 18 by showing their dates of promotion to the Inspectors (MT) as 6.11.1999 and 02.07.2002, Mr. Paonam submits that the same is not permissible as they were not, at that time, viz., 1999 and 2002 included in the common cadre, which clearly indicates the illegality of the seniority list dated 10.12.2014. No. 6 and 18 by showing their dates of promotion to the Inspectors (MT) as 6.11.1999 and 02.07.2002, Mr. Paonam submits that the same is not permissible as they were not, at that time, viz., 1999 and 2002 included in the common cadre, which clearly indicates the illegality of the seniority list dated 10.12.2014. He further submits that the seniority list dated 30.08.2013 which had attained finality and not being challenged cannot be reopened now at the instance of the respondents no. 5 and 6. 35. Mr. Romen kumar however, has clarified that the change in the rules of seniority list may result in the change in seniority and future promotions should be based on the seniority list prepared on the basis of the latest rules. Relying on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wing Commander J. Kumar Vs. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 116 and Mr. Ramakotiah Vs. Union of India, (2007) 14 SCC 405, (para 31), Mr. Romen kumar submits that once the new seniority list is framed, the earlier seniority list does not have any more effect. 36. As evident from above, the petitioners as well as the respondents have touched upon many issues relating to the Manipur Police Service Rules, the various amendments made in the Manipur Police Service Rules as well as the effects and other co-related issues concerning fixation of seniority. However, the core issue involved in this case, in the opinion of this Court, is the effect of the two amendments made to the Manipur Police Service Rules in fixing inter-se seniority, by the first amendment made in terms of the Notification dated 23rd June, 2009 and the second amendment brought in through the notification dated 08.07.2014. Therefore, this Court would first confine to these two amendments and their effect on the fixation of seniority. 37. As mentioned above, the first amendment to the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 was effected vide notification dated 23rd June, 2009 by which Rule 5(1)(b) as stood earlier was substituted by making provisions for including the post of Inspector (MT) of Manipur Police as one of the feeder posts for consideration for promotion to the post of Manipur Police Service Grade-II and determination of the inter-se seniority. While including the post of Inspector (MT) as a feeder post certain conditions were also incorporated as mentioned in the provisos (a) and (b) which are relevant for the present case. Proviso (a) provides that an Inspector (MT) will become eligible for promotion to the post of MPS Grade-II only after undergoing basic training for at least one year which is to be followed by performance of duties as Inspectors of Police/Subedar in the manner mentioned therein for at least one year. Thus, even if the post of Inspector (MT) has been included as one of the feeder posts, the incumbent will become eligible only after undergoing the basic training course and gaining experience, which taken together has to have at least 2 (two) years of training/experience. Proviso (b) prescribes the manner in which the inter-se seniority list of the officers in the feeder grade to MPS Grade-II has to be prepared. It provides that officers holding the post of Inspector (MT) shall be placed just below the last Inspector of Police/Inspector of Police (Legal)/Subedar/Subedar Major in the inter-se seniority list of Officers feeder to MPS-II in force at the time of the issue of the amendment notification. Thus, these Inspectors (MT) who have been included in the feeder post will be placed below all the other Inspectors and equivalent posts in the seniority list existing at the time of issue of the Notification on 23rd June, 2009. Therefore, at the time of preparation of inter-se seniority list of all the officers in the feeder posts mentioned in the amended Rule 5 of the MPS Rules, the Inspectors (MT) have to be placed below the existing incumbents to the post of Inspector of Police and other equivalent posts. Accordingly, when the combined seniority list of incumbents in the feeder posts were prepared on 30.08.2013, after the 1st Amendment, the inter-se seniority list of the petitioners vis-a-vis respondents no. 5 and 6 and other respondents were correctly shown. 38. However, subsequently, certain changes were made in the MPS Rules which had the potential of affecting the seniority list which had been already published vide notification dated 30.08.2013. The second amendment to the MPS Rules was brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014. The said amendment was made specifically in respect of proviso (b) which deals with fixation to inter-se seniority list. The second amendment to the MPS Rules was brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014. The said amendment was made specifically in respect of proviso (b) which deals with fixation to inter-se seniority list. By this second amendment made to proviso (b), a different criteria for fixation of seniority has been introduced. By this new amendment it has been provided that officers holding the posts of Inspector (MT) shall be placed just below the last Inspector of Police/equivalent posts in the seniority list whose year of regular appointment in the grade is the same as that of the Inspector (MT). In other words, at the time of fixation of inter-se seniority the reference for reckoning seniority will be the year of regular appointment in the respective grade. The difference between the earlier proviso (b) brought in by the first amendment and the proviso (b) amended by the second amendment, is that while the basis for determining the seniority of the newly included Inspectors (MT) was the date of inclusion as a feeder post as per the 1st Amendment, it is the date of regular appointment by virtue of the second amendment. Therefore, the second amendment brought in a fundamental change in the criteria for determining inter-se seniority. By the second amendment, the principle of counting the continuous service rendered on regular in one’s own cadre at the time of determining the inter-se seniority has been made applicable to the Inspectors (MT) also as in the case of others in the feeder grade, which was not earlier afforded to the Inspector (MT) when the post was brought in as feeder post for the first time by the first amendment made in 2009. 39. It is a fact that the post of Inspector (MT) which the respondents no. 5 and 6 were holding, came to be included as a feeder post for being considered for promotion to MPS Grade-II for the first time in 2009 provided they fulfilled other conditions mentioned under the rules. If any combined inter-se-seniority list was to be prepared at the time when the post of Inspector (MT) was included in 2009, the inter se seniority was to be determined based on the rules existing at that time i.e., the rules as existing upon implementation of the 1st Amendment made in 2009. The second amendment was brought in subsequently after about 5 (five) years in 2014. The second amendment was brought in subsequently after about 5 (five) years in 2014. Obviously, till the 2nd amendment was made, the rules of seniority as prescribed under the 1st amendment would hold the field. The issue as to the applicability of rules for determining inter se seniority had come up for discussion before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Mohan Reddy Vs. E.A.A. Charles and Ors., (2001) 4 SCC 433 in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court after discussing a number of decisions had emphatically held that seniority is to be determined in accordance with the Rules which remained in force at the time when a person is borne in the cadre. The Supreme Court further held that the question of re-determination of the seniority in the cadre on the basis of any amended criteria or rules would arise only when the amendment in question is given a retrospective effect as held in para 17 thereof, which is reproduced herein below : “17. A conspectus of the aforesaid decisions of this Court would indicate that even though an employee cannot claim to have a vested right to have a particular position in any grade, but all the same he has the right of his seniority being determined in accordance with the Rules which remained in force at the time when he was borne in the cadre. The question of re-determination of the seniority in the cadre on the basis of any amended criteria or Rules would arise only when the amendment in question is given a retrospective effect. If the retrospectivity of the Rule is assailed by any person then the Court would be entitled to examine the same and decide the matter in accordance with the law. If the retrospectivity of the Rule is ultimately struck down, necessarily the question of re-drawing of the seniority list under the amended provisions would not arise, but if however, the retrospectivity is up held by a Court then the seniority could be re-drawn up in accordance with the amended provisions of the employees who are still in the cadre and not those who have already got promotion to some other cadre by that date. Further a particular Rule of seniority having been considered by Court and some directions in relation thereto having been given, that direction has to be followed in the matter of drawing up of the seniority list until and unless a valid Rule by the Rule Making Authority comes into existence and requires otherwise, as was done in Bola case (1997) 8 SCC 522 . It may be further stated that if any Rule or Administrative Instruction mandate drawing up of seniority list or determination of inter se seniority within any specified period then the same must be adhered to unless any valid reason is indicated for noncompliance of the same.” In view of the above principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the seniority list of the petitioners vis-a-vis the respondents and other eligible officers has to be decided on the basis of the rules which remained in force. Thus, when the seniority list was prepared on 30.08.2013 it was based on the existing rules i.e. the rules has amended vide first amendment made vide notification dated 23rd June, 2009. At that time, the second amendment brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014 had not yet come into existence. Therefore, to that extent, the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that final seniority prepared on 30.08.2013 based on the existing rules is valid, cannot be doubted. 40. In that view of the matter any subsequent seniority list prepared, ought to reflect the seniority position already determined by the seniority list dated 30.08.2013. Whenever the seniority list is revised, the earlier position assigned to the officers will remain unchanged except for adding new entrants or deleting retired or promoted officers or who had ceased to be in the cadre. In the present case, the problem has arisen because of the change of the seniority positions of the parties effected in the impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014 which was made in terms of the second amendment which was brought into effect vide notification dated 08.07.2014. The case of the petitioners is that this second impugned seniority list prepared cannot make any changes to the seniority position already determined on 30.08.2013. On the other hand, the respondents no. The case of the petitioners is that this second impugned seniority list prepared cannot make any changes to the seniority position already determined on 30.08.2013. On the other hand, the respondents no. 5 and 6 have contended that because of the change in the rule for fixation of seniority brought in by the second amendment, the seniority positions of the respondents 5 and 6 vis-a-vis the petitioners are also liable to be changed in terms of the new amendment made in 2014. Viewed from another perspective, the contention of the petitioners is that the changes in the rule of seniority brought in by the second amendment will have prospective effect and it cannot have the effect of changing the seniority positions already determined in terms of the earlier rule notified under the seniority list dated 30.08.2013. Whereas, the contention of the private respondents no. 5 and 6 is that the aforesaid change in seniority rule brought in by the second amendment will have retrospective effect thus enabling reopening of the earlier determination for seniority and the seniority can be re-fixed by on the basis of the new changed rule of seniority brought in by the second amendment. 41. Keeping in mind similar rival contentions of applicability of rules of seniority, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case of P. Mohan Reddy (supra) as quoted above, has made it clear that the question of re-determination of the seniority in the cadre on the basis of any amended criteria or rules would arise only when the amendment in question is given a retrospective effect. 42. Therefore, the moot issue to be decided in this case is whether second amendment brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014 has retrospective effect or not. If the aforesaid second amendment has retrospective effect as contended by the respondents no. 5 and 6, certainly, their seniority can be re-fixed in terms of the new rule of seniority brought in by the second amendment. On the other hand, if the contention of the petitioners that the aforesaid second amendment does not have retrospective effect is accepted, the seniority positions of the petitioners as well as the respondents no. 5 and 6 and other respondents already determined vide seniority list dated 30.8.2013 in terms of the earlier rules existing prior to the second amendment has to be retained. 5 and 6 and other respondents already determined vide seniority list dated 30.8.2013 in terms of the earlier rules existing prior to the second amendment has to be retained. In other words, the seniority already determined vide seniority list dated 30.08.2013 cannot be disturbed at the time of preparing the second seniority list in 2014 except for revision by way of addition of new entrants or deletion of those who are no more in service or cadre. 43. In order to decide this issue as to whether the second amendment has retrospective effect or not, it is to be noted that when the second amendment was brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014 the rule making authorities used the word “substituted” and not “amendment”. Rule 2 of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2014 reads as follows : “2. The existing Rule 2 (ii) (b) of Manipur Police Service Rule, 1965 (1st Amendment, 2009) of Rule 5(i)(b) shall be substituted by the following: “(b) Officers holding the post of Inspector (MT) shall be placed just below the last Inspector of Police/Inspector of Police (Legal)/Subedar/Subedar Major in the inter-se seniority list of Officers feeder to MPS-II whose year of regular appointment in the grade is the same with that of Inspector (MT).” It is thus been clearly mentioned in the aforesaid amended rules that the existing Rule 5 (1)(b) shall be “substituted”. It is also to be noted that the said second amendment does not specifically mention that this amendment will have retrospective effect or not. Therefore, this Court has to examine whether the aforesaid second amendment brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014 will have retrospective effect or not as claimed by the respondents no. 5 and 6. 44. The issue regarding retrospective effect of an amendment has been dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 1 . 5 and 6. 44. The issue regarding retrospective effect of an amendment has been dealt by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana and Others, (2004) 8 SCC 1 . In the aforesaid case of Zile Singh(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enumerated a number of principles as follows : (i) It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statue is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation; (ii) However, it is not necessary that an express provision be made to make a statute retrospective and the presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of the community as a whole; (iii) The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes; (iv) Though retrospectivity is not to be presumed and rather there is presumption against retrospectivity, it is open for the legislature to enact laws having retrospective operation; (v) This retrospectivity can be achieved by express enactment or by necessary implication from the language employed; (vi) If it is a necessary implication from the language employed that the legislature intended a particular section to have a retrospective operation, the Courts will give it such an operation; (vii) While giving such effect the Courts are to consider 4 (four) factors as relevant, namely: (1) general scope and purview of the statute; (2) the remedy sought to be applied; (3) the former state of the law; and (4) what it was the legislature contemplated, as mentioned in paras 13, 14 and 15 thereof which are reproduced herein below : “13. It is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retrospective operation. But the rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only - 'nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis' __ a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only - 'nova constitutio futuris formam imponere debet non praeteritis' __ a new law ought to regulate what is to follow, not the past. (See : Principles of Statutory Interpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, Ninth Edition, 2004 at p.438). It is not necessary that an express provision be made to make a statute retrospective and the presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is made to cure an acknowledged evil for the benefit of the community as a whole. (ibid, p.440) 14. The presumption against retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes......In determining, therefore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is 'to explain' an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospective. An explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. It is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retrospective operation is generally intended.....An amending Act may be purely declaratory to clear a meaning of a provision of the principal Act which was already implicit. A clarificatory amendment of this nature will have retrospective effect. (ibid, pp.468-469). 15. Though retrospectivity is not to be presumed and rather there is presumption against retrospectivity, according to Craies (Statute Law, Seventh Edition), it is open for the legislature to enact laws having retrospective operation. This can be achieved by express enactment or by necessary implication from the language employed. If it is a necessary implication from the language employed that the legislature intended a particular section to have a retrospective operation, the Courts will give it such an operation. In the absence of a retrospective operation having been expressly given, the Courts may be called upon to construe the provisions and answer the question whether the legislature had sufficiently expressed that intention giving the Statute retrospectivity. Four factors are suggested as relevant: (i) general scope and purview of the statute; (ii) the remedy sought to be applied; (iii) the former state of the law; and (iv) what it was the legislature contemplated (p.388). Four factors are suggested as relevant: (i) general scope and purview of the statute; (ii) the remedy sought to be applied; (iii) the former state of the law; and (iv) what it was the legislature contemplated (p.388). The rule against retrospectivity does not extend to protect from the effect of a repeal, a privilege which did not amount to accrued right (p.392). 16. Where a Statute is passed for the purpose of supplying an obvious omission in a former statute or to 'explain' a former statute, the subsequent statute has relation back to the time when the prior Act was passed. The rule against retrospectivity is inapplicable to such legislations as are explanatory and declaratory in nature. The classic illustration is the case of Att. Gen. Vs. Pougett ([1816] 2 Price 381, 392). By a Customs Act of 1873 (53 Geo. 3, c. 33) a duty was imposed upon hides of 9s. 4d., but the Act omitted to state that it was to be 9s. 4d. per cwt., and to remedy this omission another Customs Act (53 Geo. 3, c. 105) was passed later in the same year. Between the passing of these two Acts some hides were exported, and it was contended that they were not liable to pay the duty of 9s. 4d. per cwt., but Thomson C.B., in giving judgment for the Attorney-General, said: "The duty in this instance was in fact imposed by the first Act, but the gross mistake of the omission of the weight for which the sum expressed was to have been payable occasioned the amendment made by the subsequent Act, but that had reference to the former statute as soon as it passed, and they must be taken together as if they were one and the same Act." (Price at p.392).” 44. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Zile Singh (supra) further explained the meaning and scope of the expression “substituted” used in amendments. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed referring to the decision in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that substitution of a provision results in repeal of the earlier provision and its replacement by the new provision. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed referring to the decision in West U.P. Sugar Mills Assn. Vs. State of UP, (2002) 2 SCC 645 , that the State Government by substituting the new rule in place of the old one may not intended to keep alive an old rule and the substitution had the effect of just deleting the old rule and making the new rule operative. Further referring to the earlier decision in State of Rajasthan vs. Mangilal Pindwal, (1996) 5 SCC 60 the Hon’ble Supreme Court also upheld the legislative practice of an amendment by substitution being incorporated in the text of a statute which had ceased to exist and held that the substitution would have the effect of amending the operation of law during the period in which it was in force. Thus by substituting a new rules, the rule making authorities intended that the old rule should not remain in the statute. Thus, after considering all these principles, the Supreme Court in Zile Singh (supra) held that the amendment of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 brought in by the Haryana Municipal (Second Amendment) Act, 1994 using the expression “substituted” was to have retrospective effect as the purpose of bringing the Second Amendment Act to the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 in 1994 was to cure a defect which had occurred in an earlier amendment to the said Act. 45. In the present case, by applying the principles discussed in Zile Singh (supra), this Court will examine as to the factors to be taken into consideration by the Court in examining whether the amendment will have retrospective effect or not. 46. In the present case, as evident from above, the amendment to the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 was made for the first time in 2009 to bring in the post of Inspector (MT) as one of the feeder posts and also incorporated the principle for fixing inter-se seniority of this newly included post of Inspector (MT) with the existing feeder posts. As per the scheme of the Manipur Police Service Rules, 1965 fixation of inter-se seniority list, before the post of Inspector (MT) was included, was based on continuous service rendered in the respective grades i.e., with reference to the date of regular appointment. In the original unamended Rule 5 of the Manipur Police Service Rules, promotion to the MPS Grade-II was to be made by selection made from amongst the officers in the cadre of Inspector of Police/Inspector of Police (Legal)/Subedar/Subedar Major in the Manipur Rifles who were substantially borne on the cadre of these posts. Thus, at the time of preparation of the inter-se seniority list of the feeder posts the guiding principle would be the date when the officers holding this feeder posts came to be substantially borne in the cadre. The criteria for determining inter-se seniority thus, would be based on the dates of regular appointments in the respective cadres. Therefore, the continuous length of service on regular basis was the criteria for determining inter-se seniority list. This principle, however, was not applied in respect of the Inspectors (MT) when they were brought in as one of the feeders posts by the first amendment made in 2009. By the first amendment, the Inspectors (MT) were sought to be placed enbloc below the last Inspector of Police/equivalent posts who were already included when the first amendment was made. By the 1st Amendment, the benefit of continuous length of services rendered by the Inspectors (MT) in their own cadre was denied at the time of determination of inter-se seniority list. This anomaly was sought to be rectified by the second amendment made vide notification dated 08.07.2014 by which parity was restored to the Inspectors (MT) by providing that at the time of fixation of inter-se seniority list, the date of regular appointment in the cadre of Inspector (MT) would be the date of reckoning seniority, though the Inspectors (MT) would continue to be placed just below the last Inspector/equivalent posts whose year of regular appointment in the grade is the same as that of the Inspector (MT). Therefore, if the second amendment brought in by notification dated 08.07.2014 was to rectify the apparent anomaly as contended by the private respondents no. Therefore, if the second amendment brought in by notification dated 08.07.2014 was to rectify the apparent anomaly as contended by the private respondents no. 5 and 6 and also by the State respondents, which this Court also finds to be main reason, though not specifically stated in the amendment Act, this Court by following the principles discussed in Zile Singh (supra), would have no hesitation to hold that the second amendment brought in would have retrospective effect as it sought to rectify certain anomaly. 46A. While arriving at this conclusion, this Court has also taken note of the decision in National Institute of Technology (supra) in which the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that law of rectification relates to the date of the defective act which is subsequently rectified. Thus the rectifying act will have retrospective effect. Further, this Court also agrees with the submission made by Sri Romen kumar, based on the decision of the Supreme Court in Zile Singh (supra) that the 2nd Amendment was clarificatory in nature, i.e., to clarify that the Inspector (MT) would have the same right to count their seniority on the basis of continuous length of service as had been conferred to other officers holding other feeder posts. 47. In this regard, this Court would also like to observe that reckoning of seniority on the basis of continuous length of service on regular basis is a well accepted principle for determining seniority. It may not be necessary to advert to any judicial decision in support of this principle as the same had been put forth sufficiently by Mr. A. Romen kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 as discussed above by referring to decisions in Niranjan Prasad Sinha Vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 2269 , Union of India Vs. Ansu Sekhar Guin, AIR 1989 SC 377 etc. Therefore, denying this right to the Inspectors (MT) while granting the same to others in the feeder posts would be blatantly discriminatory and thus violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. The 2nd amendment merely seeks to obliterate this incongruity. This amendment therefore, can be meaningful and worthwhile only when it is made retrospective in effect. Thus the presumption of retrospectivity of the 2nd Amendment can be drawn because of this reason. 46B. Once it is held that the 2nd Amendment will have retrospective effect, the respondents no. The 2nd amendment merely seeks to obliterate this incongruity. This amendment therefore, can be meaningful and worthwhile only when it is made retrospective in effect. Thus the presumption of retrospectivity of the 2nd Amendment can be drawn because of this reason. 46B. Once it is held that the 2nd Amendment will have retrospective effect, the respondents no. 5 and 6 will have right to count their seniority from the date of initial appointment as Inspector (MT). 48. Further, this Court also holds that the principle laid down in Chairman, Railway Board and Others Vs. C. Rangadhamaiah and Others, (1997) 6 SCC 623 , relied upon by the petitioners’ Ld. Senior counsel, to the effect that retrospective amendment affecting vested or accrued rights of Government employees is not applicable in the present case, for the following reasons. Firstly, as contended by Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6, to have a particular position in the seniority list within a cadre can neither be said to be an accrued or vested right of a government servant and losing some places in the seniority list within the cadre does not amount to reduction in rank, even though the future chances of promotion may get delayed vide S.S. Bola Vs. B.D. Sardana, (1997) 8 SCC 522 . Secondly, as held in P. Mohan Reddy (supra), re-determination of seniority in the cadre on the basis of any amended criteria or rules is permissible when the amendment in question is given a retrospective effect. This Court has already held that the second amendment which restores and make it applicable to all in the feeder grade, the well settled principle of counting continuous regular service in the cadre towards seniority from the date of regular appointment, has retrospective effect. Hence, the respondents no. 5 and 6 will be entitled to seniority from the date when they were regularly appointed as Inspectors (MT) as has been done in respect of other persons in the feeder posts. 49. This Court also finds force in the submission made by Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 that the denial of seniority to the post of Inspector (MT) by counting the service rendered in the cadre on regular basis, after the Inspector (MT) was brought as one of the feeder posts, by the first amendment was quite arbitrary. Romen kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 that the denial of seniority to the post of Inspector (MT) by counting the service rendered in the cadre on regular basis, after the Inspector (MT) was brought as one of the feeder posts, by the first amendment was quite arbitrary. This Court also upholds the contentions of the respondents no. 5 and 6 that by including the post of Inspector (MT) as one of the feeder posts for promotion to the post of MPS-II, it has not become merged with any new cadre so as to apply the principle laid down in Sushma Mutreja Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 428 , P. Sudhakar Rao and Others Vs. U. Govinda Rao & Others, (2013) 8 SCC 693 that upon merger or becoming a new member of another cadre, seniority is to be determined from the date of encadrement, as contended by the Ld. Senior counsel for the petitioners. 50. A careful reading of the MPS Rules, 1965 would show that the rules do not contemplate formation of a single unified cadre for the purpose of consideration for promotion to MPS-II. The Schedule to the MPS Rules provides the specific posts under the Manipur Police Service. These specific posts would form part of the cadre of the Manipur Police Service under different grades and in the Schedule there is no mention of these feeder posts of Inspector of Police/Inspector of Police (Legal)/Subedar/Subedar Major/Inspector (MT). Cadre has been defined under the Fundamental Rules to mean the strength of service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. The employee is empowered to create such cadre/cadres. But in the present case, the rule making authorities or the competent authorities have not deemed it fit to constitute any such single unit to form a separate cadre, as otherwise, it would have found reflection in the MPS Rules,1965. Constitution of a cadre would envisage that the appointment to such cadre would be through unified and common mode of recruitment and also permit interchangeability of posting etc. 51. However, in the present case, the situation is not so as there is no common cadre or single unit formed by these various posts as sought to be portrayed by the petitioners. Had it been so, it would been specifically mentioned in the MPS Rules, 1965. 51. However, in the present case, the situation is not so as there is no common cadre or single unit formed by these various posts as sought to be portrayed by the petitioners. Had it been so, it would been specifically mentioned in the MPS Rules, 1965. When the word “cadre” is used in Rule 5 (ii) it is meant to the different cadres of each of these posts and not to any common cadre or unified cadre consisting of these posts. These feeder posts form separate cadres of their own and not a separate single cadre. These posts are merely mentioned as conglomeration of feeder posts without forming a separate unit with certain common attributes, which form the pool from which recruitment is to be made to the Manipur Police Service. These feeder posts continue to discharge different and non-inter-changeable duties and hence not inter-transferable also. Therefore, it cannot be said as contended by the petitioners that when the respondents no. 5 and 6 were included in the feeder posts, they joined the common cadre for promotion to MPS-II as there is no such common cadre created or maintained under the MPS Rules. Therefore, the decisions relied on by the petitioners to the effect that the seniority will be counted from the date of encadrement will not be applicable in the present case. In that event, denying the Inspectors (MT) of the benefit of the past service rendered by them in their respective cadre of Inspector (MT) at the time of determination of common inter-se seniority list under the MPS Rules will be plainly arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Therefore, this Court holds that the second amendment was made to rectify a patently discriminatory criteria brought in by the first amendment to the MPS Rules. This Court accordingly, has held that the second amendment brought in vide notification dated 08.07.2014 would have retrospective effect. In that event, the seniority is to be re-determined on the basis of the principle laid down for fixation of seniority list brought in by the second amendment which has been done in the impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014. This Court finds force with the contention of Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no. In that event, the seniority is to be re-determined on the basis of the principle laid down for fixation of seniority list brought in by the second amendment which has been done in the impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014. This Court finds force with the contention of Mr. Romen kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 that the petitioners had no vested right to seniority and the same is subject to the amended rules which have retrospective effect. Accordingly, the seniority position already determined on 30.8.2013 would be liable to be altered by applying the new principles of seniority brought in by the second amendment. 52. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the re-fixation of seniority as has been done by impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014. 53. While holding so, this Court would also like to deal with the contention raised by the petitioners that till the Inspectors (MT) had undergone the basic training course and gained the experience as mentioned in the newly added proviso (a) they are not entitled to be included in the seniority list of the Inspectors. As regards this issue, this Court would clarify that fixation of seniority list of the feeder posts is one thing and determining and preparing a list of eligible candidates for the purpose of consideration as to whether such person can be included within the zone of consideration for promotion to MPS Grade-II is different, which is to be decided by the concerned recommending authority or selection committee. Of course, it is correct, as submitted by Mr. Paonam, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that unless an Inspector (MT) has undergone the basic training course of one year and also had gained practical experience of performing duties as Inspector of Police/Subedar for another year as mentioned in proviso (a), even though the post of Inspector (MT) has been included as a feeder post for promotion to MPS Grade-II, he cannot be considered for promotion till he undertakes the aforesaid training course and gains experience which would extend up to two years. In other words, even if the Inspector (MT) is placed high in the seniority list in the combined seniority list of these feeder posts, he cannot be considered for promotion to the post of MPS-II till he fulfils the conditions mentioned in proviso (a). In other words, even if the Inspector (MT) is placed high in the seniority list in the combined seniority list of these feeder posts, he cannot be considered for promotion to the post of MPS-II till he fulfils the conditions mentioned in proviso (a). Obviously, it would mean that at the time of drawing up of list of eligible candidates for being included in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of MPS-II, those Inspectors (MT) unless had undergone the basic training course for one year and also had performed the duty of Inspector/Subedar while being attached to the police station/armed police battalion as the case may be for atleast one year cannot be included in the list of eligible candidates for promotion. In the present case, respondents no. 5 and 6 claim that they fulfil the aforesaid requirements stipulated under proviso (a). This Court, however, is not deciding this issue as to whether these respondents fulfil these criteria or not as it is for the competent authority/Selection Committee to decide. If they do fulfil these conditions as claimed by them, they will be also eligible for consideration for promotion to the MPS Grade-II. 54. This Court would like to observe that the 5th Amendment was made vide Corrigendum dated 05.06.2015 in order to rectify a mistake which had occurred while issuing the 4th Amendment vide notification dated 10.12.2014 as the post of Inspector (MT) was inadvertently omitted from the list of feeder posts mentioned under Rule 5 of the MPS Rules, 1965. Since proviso (b) which provides the principle for determination of seniority remains unchanged, these 4th and 5th Amendments will have no effect on the seniority list published on 12.10.2014. It is to be noted that the authorities made the last amendment on 20.04.2016 which incorporates all the changes made in the Rules including proviso (b). 55. In view of the aforesaid findings arrived at, this Court holds that the second amendment effected vide notification dated 08.07.2014 will have retrospective effect and as such the impugned seniority list dated 10.12.2014 prepared on the basis of the second amendment does not suffer from any illegality. Since, this core issue raised in this petition has been thus decided and resolved, this Court does not consider it necessary to deal with various other co-related issues raised by the respective contending parties. 56. Since, this core issue raised in this petition has been thus decided and resolved, this Court does not consider it necessary to deal with various other co-related issues raised by the respective contending parties. 56. For the reasons discussed above, petition is dismissed, however, without any cost.