JUDGMENT : (M.V. Muralidaran, J.) : This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to consider promoting the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director (Administration and etc.) in Youth Affairs and Sports Department, Government of Manipur by inclusion of the post of Store Officer as feeder to it for promotion and to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2021. 2. Heard Mr. S. Rupachandra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Mr. Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1-3 and Mr. RS Reisang, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4, the MPSC. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he joined the service as Store Keeper on ad-hoc basis on 28.11.1991 in the Directorate of Youth Affairs and Sports (YAS), Government of Manipur and was regularized in the year 1992. He was given promotion to the post of Store Officer vide order dated 5.11.2011. It is stated that contrary to the draft recruitment rules for the post of Deputy Director of Sports and Deputy Director (Planning and Administration) as approved by the MPSC framed recruitment rules for the posts of Deputy Director (Planning/ Monitoring/ Evaluation and Deputy Director (Administration/Establishment) under the YAS Department vide notification dated 10.5.2002. 4. Further case of the petitioner is that an incumbent holding the post of Store Officer like the petitioner challenged said two recruitment rules by filing W.P.(C) N.523 of 2022 and the same was disposed of on 26.4.2004. The petitioner has submitted a series of representations to accommodate the post of Store Keeper as feeder post to recruitment rules of Deputy Director (Administration and etc.). Since no reply forthcoming, on 15.12.2021, the petitioner submitted a fresh representation and the same has not been considered till date. Hence, the writ petition. 5. Resisting the writ petition, respondents 1 to 3 filed counter stating that it would not be proper to re-designate one of the newly created Deputy Director as Deputy Director of Sports and the post of Store Officer is not suitable for the feeder post either for Deputy Director (Administration & Establishment) and Deputy Director (Planning/Monitoring/Evaluation) considering the job responsibilities of these posts. Since the petitioner is enjoying ACP benefits, he cannot be aggrieved for non-availability of promotional avenue. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Since the petitioner is enjoying ACP benefits, he cannot be aggrieved for non-availability of promotional avenue. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The fourth respondent filed counter stating that the YAS Department created 2 posts of Deputy Directors in the year 1999 i.e. 1 post of Deputy Director (Planning/ Monitoring/ Evaluation) vide order dated 21.7.2019. Thereafter, MPSC had received a proposal for notification of recruitment rules. The job requirements of two newly created posts are different from that of the Deputy Director of Sports. It is stated that by the proposal dated 1.9.2001, the MPSC suggested to re-designate one post of newly created post of Deputy Director as Deputy Director of Sports. 7. Mr. S. Rupachandra, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to the recommendation sought for framing of recruitment rules for the post of Deputy Directors (Administration/ Establishment) and (Planning/ Monitoring/ Evaluation) in the Department of YAS, the MPSC expressed its view that the incumbents holding the posts of Assistant Director (Coaching); Senior Youth Officer and Store Officer carrying the same scale have no line of promotion and for giving equal opportunity for promotion to all concerned to the higher posts, the MPSC was of the view that four Deputy Directors, including newly created one shall have common recruitment rules. He would submit that the MPSC requested the Commissioner (DP) to re-designate one post of Deputy Director as Deputy Director (Adm. & Planning) for the purpose along with draft recruitment rules for the post of (i) Deputy Director of Sports and (ii) Deputy Director (Planning & Adm). 8. The learned senior counsel further submitted that contrary to the draft rules for the post of Deputy Director of Sports and Deputy Director (Planning & Amn), the Government of Manipur framed recruitment rules for the posts of (i) Deputy Director (Planning/Monitoring/Evaluation) and (ii) Deputy Director (Administration/Establishment) under the YAS Department vide notification dated 10.5.2002 issued by the Department of P&AR. 9. The learned counsel next submitted that the incumbents holding the post of Store Officer like the petitioner have challenged the said two recruitment rules by filing W.P.(C) No.523 of 2002 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 26.4.2005. 9. The learned counsel next submitted that the incumbents holding the post of Store Officer like the petitioner have challenged the said two recruitment rules by filing W.P.(C) No.523 of 2002 and the said writ petition was disposed of on 26.4.2005. Pursuant to the direction of this Court dated 26.4.2005, the petitioner submitted several representations requesting to accommodate the post of Store Officer as feeder post to the recruitment rules of Deputy Director (Administration/ Establishment and etc.) in YAS Department. Since the representations of the petitioner have not been considered, finally, he has submitted a representation on 15.12.2021. Despite receipt of the said representation, the same has also not been considered till date. Thus, a prayer is made to direct the respondent to consider to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director (Administration and etc.) by inclusion of the post of Store Officer as feeder to it for promotion by considering the representation of petitioner dated 15.12.2021. 10. Mr. Y. Ashang, the learned Government Advocate submitted that it would not be proper to re-designate one of the newly created Deputy Director as Deputy Director of Sports, as the post of Deputy Director (Administration/Establishment) and Deputy Director (Planning/ Monitoring/Coaching & Physical Education) are distinct from each other with different job charts and assignments and that two posts of Deputy Directors were specifically created for Planning and for Administration. As such, the Department had proposed special officers and Assistant Director (Planning) with four years regular service in the grade in the feeder post for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Planning/Monitoring/Establishment) respectively considering their duties and responsibilities. Further, the post of Store Officer is not suitable for the feeder post either for Deputy Director (Administration & Establishment) and Deputy Director (Planning/Monitoring/Evaluation) considering the job responsibility of these posts. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that since the petitioner is enjoying the ACP benefits, he cannot be aggrieved for non-availability of promotional avenue. 11. Mr. RS Reisang, the learned senior counsel for the fourth respondent/MPSC submitted that it is not desirable to club the two posts of Deputy Director (Admn/Estt) and Deputy Director (Plg/ Monitoring/ Evaluation) together and that the Department had proposed Special Officers and Assistant Director (Plg) with four years regular service in the grade in the feeder post of promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Plg/Monitoring and Evaluation) respectively considering their duties and responsibilities. He further submitted that the post of Store Officer is not suitable for the feeder post either for Deputy Director (Admn & Estt) and Deputy Director (Planning, Monitoring & Valuation) considering the job responsibilities the posts. 12. This Court considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials available on record. 13. The grievance of the petitioner is that he should be considered to be promoted to the post of Deputy Director (Administration and etc.) in YAS Department by inclusion of the post of Store Officer as feeder to it for promotion. 14. On the other hand, the plea of the respondents that the Store Officer is not suitable for the feeder post either for Deputy Director (Administration & Establishment) or Deputy Director (Planning/Monitoring/Evaluation) considering the job responsibilities of these posts. 15. It appears that earlier, one Thongbam Brajamani Singh, who is an incumbent holding the post of Store Officer like the petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No.723 of 2002 before the Gauhati High Court alleging that his promotional avenue had been denied by the respondents by not giving promotional avenue to the next higher posts of Deputy Directors 5 in number in the Department of YAS. The said writ petition was transferred to the Manipur High Court on the establishment of Manipur High Court and numbered as W.P.(C) No.523 of 2002. 16. By the order dated 26.4.2005, W.P.(C) No.523 of 2002 has been allowed by this Court. The operative portion of the order reads thus: “8. In the light of the above settled principles of law, this court is not quashing the impugned Recruitment Rules dated 10.5.2022 for the one post of Dy. Director (Planning/ Monitoring/Evaluation) (Annexure-A/4 to the writ petition) and the impugned Recruitment Rules dated 10.5.2022 for the one post of Dy. Director (Admn./Estt.) (Annexure-A/5) to the writ petition). However, it has been well settled by the Apex Court that reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in other wings of public service and in the absence of promotional aspect, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. The employer/state should have created the promotional avenues for the employees having regard to its constitutional obligation adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The employer/state should have created the promotional avenues for the employees having regard to its constitutional obligation adumbrated in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such being the well settled of law, the respondents are directed to make suitable amendment to the relevant Recruitment Rules for one or more post(s) of Deputy Directors out of the 5 (five) posts of Dy. Directors in the Directorate of Youth Affairs and Sports, Govt. of Manipur for creating promotional avenues to the Store Officer (the writ petitioner) or in the manner the Apex Court directed in State of Tripura and Ors. – Vrs – K.K.Roy (Supra) the State Govt. should grant 2 (two) higher grades in the pay scale of the petitioner as Store Officer – one upon expiry of 12 years from the date of his joining service as Store Officer and other upon expiry of 24 years thereof. 9. To the extent above, this writ petition is allowed. The above direction should be carried out as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. No order as to costs.” (emphasis supplied) 17. From the above order, it is clear that this Court directed the respondents to make suitable amendment to the relevant recruitment rules for one or more posts of Deputy Directors out of 5 posts of Deputy Directors in the Directorate of YAS for creating promotional avenues to the Store Officer or in the manner the Hon’ble Apex Court directed in the case of K.K.Roy (supra). 18. Narrating all these things, on 15.12.2021, the petitioner has submitted a representation to respondents 1 and 3. Admittedly, the said representation has not been considered by the respondents 1 and 3 till date. In his representation, the petitioner requested to consider his case for inclusion of the post of Store Officer as feeder line for promotion to the posts of Deputy Director (Administration, Sports etc.) in the light of the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C) No.523 of 2002. 19. The non-suitability for the feeder post either for Deputy Director (Administration & Establishment) and Deputy Director (Planning, Monitoring/Evaluation) pleaded by the respondents are of based on the order dated 21.7.1999 and the letter of the MPSC dated 30.4.2002, whereas the direction of this Court is dated 26.4.2005. 19. The non-suitability for the feeder post either for Deputy Director (Administration & Establishment) and Deputy Director (Planning, Monitoring/Evaluation) pleaded by the respondents are of based on the order dated 21.7.1999 and the letter of the MPSC dated 30.4.2002, whereas the direction of this Court is dated 26.4.2005. Thus, the claim of the petitioner should be considered by the respondent authorities in the light of the order dated 26.4.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No.523 of 2002. As against the said order, no appeal has been preferred by the respondent authorities and allowed the order to attain finality. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the respondents are obliged to comply the direction of this Court. 20. The non-consideration of the representation dated 15.12.2021 submitted to the petitioner within a reasonable time is not appreciable. There is no denial on behalf of the respondents about the non-receipt of the representation dated 15.12.2021 in their counter. Further, no mention has been made qua representations submitted by the petitioner, which is inclusive of the representation dated 15.12.2021. 21. It is for the respondent authorities to consider the re-designation of one of the newly created Deputy Director as Deputy Director of Sports and the suitability of the post of Store Officer as feeder post either for Deputy Director (Administration & Establishment) and Deputy Director (Planning/ Monitoring/ Evaluation) and this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot undertake such exercise. Further, in the earlier round of litigation when this Court issued a direction to the respondent authorities to make suitable amendment to the relevant recruitment rules for one or more posts of Deputy Directors out of 5 posts of Deputy Directors in the Directorate of YAS for creating promotional avenues to the Store Officer, it is the duty of the respondent authorities to comply with the aforesaid direction. 22. Since the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2021 has not been considered by respondent authorities, it would be appropriate to direct them to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2021 in a time bound manner in the light of the order dated 26.4.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No.523 of 2022. 23. 22. Since the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2021 has not been considered by respondent authorities, it would be appropriate to direct them to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2021 in a time bound manner in the light of the order dated 26.4.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No.523 of 2022. 23. In the result, a) the writ petition is allowed, b) the respondent authorities are directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner dated 15.12.2021 in the light of the observation made by this Court in W.P.(C) No.523 of 2002 decided on 26.4.2005, c) The said exercise is directed to be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There will be no orders as costs.