JUDGMENT AND ORDER : L.S. Jamir, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- "(i) Quash and set aside the impugned Notification No. LR/1-29/87 (pt)/509, dated 30/09/2014 (Annexure-D) giving Officiating promotion to private respondent No. 3 as Assistant Director (ii) Direct the State respondent to contemplate on the basis of the given Schedule-II under the Service Rule, 2005 while initiating promotion (iii) Direct the State respondents to give officiating promotion to the petitioner with retrospective effect from 30/09/2014 the date on which the private respondent No. 3 was given officiating promotion to the post of Assistant Director in terms of O.M dated 04/10/2004 (Annexure-L-4) with all consequential benefits and to treat the petitioner as senior to respondent No.3. (iv) Quashed and set aside the noting made in the Circular dated 13/10/2016 (Annexure-N) addressing the respondent No. 3 as Assistant Director-I (A.D-I) which is virtually treated the said respondent as senior to the petitioner." 2. Heard Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Mhabeni, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of Ms. Lucy, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents. None appears for the respondent No. 3 despite service of notice. 3. Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a Pre-University (Science) passed with Maths as one of the subject. The Director of Land Record & Survey, Nagaland, Dimapur made an advertisement dated 19-09-1986 calling for applications for filling up of one post of Supervisor Land Records Grade-I along with other posts. The educational qualification prescribed in the advertisement was P.U (Science) passed with Maths as one of the subject or its equivalent. The petitioner responded to the advertisement and after going through the selection process, he was successful and accordingly by order dated 04-09-1987, the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor Land Records Grade-I. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Instructor (STI) by another order dated 23-01-2009. Further, by Notification dated 20-09-2010, the petitioner was promoted as Land Record and Survey Officer (hereinafter referred to as "LRSO"). Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 3 was temporarily appointed as Surveyor Grade-1 by an order dated 29-03-1990. Further, by Notification dated 20-09-2010, the petitioner was promoted as Land Record and Survey Officer (hereinafter referred to as "LRSO"). Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 3 was temporarily appointed as Surveyor Grade-1 by an order dated 29-03-1990. In the meantime, by Notification dated 26-07-2011 the post of Surveyor Grade-1 was upgraded to that of Survey Officer (Class-II Gazetted) and therefore by Notification dated 27-07-2011, the respondent No.3 along with 14 others were given officiating promotion to the post of Survey Officer (Class-II Gazetted). Thereafter, within a span of few days, the respondent No. 3 was again given officiating promotion to the post of LRSO (Class-II Gazetted) by Notification dated 10-08-2011. By another Notification dated 15-02-2012, the respondent No. 3 was again promoted to the post of LSRO. There was a mistake in the Notification dated 15-02-2012 and therefore, by Corrigendum dated 17-02-2012, the mistake was rectified showing the respondent No. 3 to have been promoted to the post of Senior LRSO in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100/- P.M. Thereafter, by Notification dated 30-09-2014, the respondent No. 3 was again promoted to the post of Assistant Director in the Department. 4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 3 was initially serving under the Department of Nagaland State Transport and he is a Graduate in Arts. Initial appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Surveyor Grade-1 was made without any vacancy shown against his appointment and he was also not eligible for appointment as Surveyor Grade-1 inasmuch as, the respondent No. 3 is a Graduate in Arts whereas, the requirement for the post of Surveyor Grade-1 is P.U (Science) with Maths as one of the subject. Therefore, the respondent No. 3 does not have the eligibility criteria to have been appointed to the post of Surveyor Grade-1. It is also submitted that all along, the petitioner has been senior to the respondent No. 3 however, the State respondents for reason best known to them had allowed the respondent No.3 to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director by Notification dated 30-09-2014 superseding the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner petitioned the Government for restoration of his seniority as well as for promoting him to the post of Assistant Director from the date, the respondent No. 3 was promoted. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner petitioned the Government for restoration of his seniority as well as for promoting him to the post of Assistant Director from the date, the respondent No. 3 was promoted. However, by the Notification dated 24-04-2015, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Director with effect from the date of taking over charge. Therefore, the respondents denied restoration of the seniority of the petitioner inasmuch as, the petitioner has been senior to the respondent No. 3 all along. He also submits that the promotion of the petitioner from the post of Survey Officer to that of LRSO was done within a span of few days which is not permissible in terms of the Nagaland Land Record & Survey Service Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2005") which was published in the Gazetted on 28-12-2007. Further submission has been forwarded by the learned senior counsel that to be promoted to the post of Assistant Director, the incumbent is required to have rendered not less than six years of service as LSRO and he should have passed Cadastral Survey Course in SIT Hyderabad/Survey of India. In the present case, the respondent No.3 was promoted without having the requisite qualification nor has he served six years as LRSO. Therefore, the action of the respondents is biased and the promotion of respondent No. 3 has been made in violation of the Rules of 2005. He, therefore, submits that the promotion of the respondent No. 3 effected by Notification dated 30-09-2014 be set aside and quashed and a direction be given to the respondents to restore the seniority of the petitioner over the respondent No.3 by giving him promotion with effect from the date, the respondent No. 3 was promoted along with all other consequential service benefits. 6. Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has made a representation dated 26-05-2015 and the Government is considering the same for restoring the seniority of the petitioner. She further submits that the Department has already submitted proposal for regularization of the officiating promotion of the officers of the Land Record and Survey Department and restoration of seniority of the petitioner who is senior then the respondent No. 3. She submits that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) would be constituted at the earliest to consider the seniority of the petitioner. She submits that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) would be constituted at the earliest to consider the seniority of the petitioner. Further, learned Government Advocate submits that the officiating promotion was given to the respondent No. 3 due to non-availability of document in respect of the petitioner which was required for his promotion. In that view of the matter, as the Department is contemplating to constitute the DPC, the matter may be remanded back to the DPC for taking appropriate consideration of the matter. 7. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. From the materials available on records, it appears that the petitioner has been senior to the respondent No. 3 till the level of LRSO. Further, the promotion of the respondent No. 3 appears to have been made in violation of the Rules of 2005 inasmuch as, the respondent No. 3 has not completed six years of service as LRSO prior to his promotion to the post of Assistant Director. 9. This Court has also taken into consideration the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Paragraph 12 of the said affidavit-in-opposition is reproduced herein below:- "12. That with regard to the averments made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition the deponent respectfully states that the representation dated 26.05.2015 submitted by the petitioner has been examined by the Government to restore seniority of the petitioner who is senior than the private respondent as prayed for is under consideration. The respondent Department has already submitted the proposal for regularization of officiating promotion of the officers of Land Records & Survey Department and restoration of seniority of the petitioner who is senior than the private respondent. The respondents department shall have the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as early as possible to consider the seniority of the petitioner." A reading of the paragraph 12 of the affidavit-in-opposition would clearly indicate that the respondents have admitted that the petitioner is senior than the respondent No. 3. However, considering that the Department is contemplating to place the case of the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 before the DPC, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would meet the ends of justice, if the matter is remanded back to the DPC for considering the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent No. 3 in the post of Assistant Director. 10. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to constitute a DPC at the earliest for considering the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the respondent No. 3. It is however made clear that the consideration by the DPC should be done and completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order of this Court by the respondent No.1. It is also made clear that the DPC should not be influenced by any observations made by this Court. 11. No costs.