JUDGMENT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners presently posted as Junior Scientist at M.P. Pollution Control Board, Jabalpur (M.P.) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:- '(i) Call for the entire material record from the possession of the respondents, for its kind perusal; (ii) Upon holding that the inaction of the respondents in not conducting the year-wise DPC for the post of Scientist as bad in law; command and direct the respondents to hold the DPC for the post of Scientist on the date it is due and after declaring the petitioners successful for the post in question, consequently grant all benefits like pay, perks and status; (iii) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed; (iv) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded." 2. The case of the petitioners is that as per the recruitment rules of M.P. Pollution Control Board Service (First and Second Class Recruitment and Service Condition) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1996) and also the Madhya Pradesh Public Services (Promotion) Rules, 2002 (for short the Promotion Rules, 2002) a DPC is to be conducted every year by assessing the vacancies which are liable to be filled-up in accordance with law, since the petitioners are claiming their promotion on the post of Scientist on the ground that the vacancies are available and their seniority also entitled them for such promotion. 3. A reply to the petition has also been filed by the respondents No. 2 & 3 contending that the case of the petitioners for promotion cannot be entertained at this stage as this Court in W.P. No.1942/2011 has already held that the provision relating to reservation, backlog vacancies, carry forward of backlog vacancies and the operation of roaster, contained in the Promotion Rules 2002 runs contrary to the constitutional provisions contained in Clause (4A) and (4B) of Article 16 and Article 335 of the Constitution of India and since the aforesaid order is in operation till date, the respondents are bound by the said order. 4. Counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3, in rebuttal has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Chaturvedi Vs. 4. Counsel for the respondents No.2 & 3, in rebuttal has also relied upon a decision rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dhirendra Chaturvedi Vs. State of M.P. & Others in W.P. No.13241/2017 in which the petitioner was also claiming his promotion on the post of Additional Director, and this Court, taking note of the DOPT circular and the stay order passed by this Court in the case of R.B. Rai Vs. State of M.P. , has held that the aforesaid orders do not in any way restrain the respondents in promoting the competent employees, who are otherwise found to be eligible. 5. Heard. 6. On due consideration of the submissions and on perusal of the record as also the order passed by this Court in the case of Dhirendra Chaturvedi (supra) this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioners for their promotion have to be decided by respondents No.2 & 3 by following the Rules of 1996 as well as the Promotion Rules, 2002. 7. So far as the objection raised by the respondents No.2 & 3 regarding the applicability of order passed in the case of R.B. Rai (supra) , this Court in the case of Dhirendra Chaturvedi (supra) has held as under:- 'In view of the above, when the petitioner is otherwise found eligible to be promoted to the post of Additional Director and posts fallen vacant during life time of the panel prepared by the DPC and the representation was made by the petitioner asking his promotion qua availability of vacancies, rejection taking shelter of the order of the status quo in the case of R.B. Rai (supra) does not seem to be proper. The order of status quo has been passed by the Apex Court in respect of the fallout of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court whereby the rules were struck down and pursuant to which ineligible employees were likely to be reverted. The status quo order, therefore, can be considered to avoid such a situation and to revert the ineligible employee who have granted promotion by applying the provisions of the Promotion Rules, 2002, that is basically without following the direction of the Apex Court in case of M. Nagraj (supra) as the State Government has not assessed the quantifying data. 11. The status quo order, therefore, can be considered to avoid such a situation and to revert the ineligible employee who have granted promotion by applying the provisions of the Promotion Rules, 2002, that is basically without following the direction of the Apex Court in case of M. Nagraj (supra) as the State Government has not assessed the quantifying data. 11. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he admittedly belongs to General Category, not getting the benefit of provisions of the Promotion Rules, 2002, which is sub judice before the Apex Court, and infact his promotion is otherwise not connected with the direction given by the Apex Court in the case of M. Nagraj (supra) . 12. Accordingly, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, taking note of the law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Company (supra) and also Ram Sawrup Saroj (supra) and further clarification made by the Government of India vide its Office Memorandum dated 15th June, 2018 and further by this High Court in the case of Kushal Singh (supra) , the order impugned is not sustainable and is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to issue the order of promotion in favour of the petitioner considering the-then existing available vacancies as pointed out by the petitioner in his representation of the post of Additional Director. Such exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order. 13. The petition is accordingly, allowed ." 8. Thus, apparent from the above decision, the objections raised by the respondents No.2 & 3 have already been specifically dealt with by this Court in the aforesaid decision which still holds the field. 9. As a result, the petition is allowed and the respondents No.2 & 3 are directed to hold the DPC to consider the case of the petitioners for their promotion to the post of Scientist. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of . Certified copy as per rules.