In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 5th June, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 383 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the learned Single Judge partly allowed the prayer of the petitioner stating, inter alia, that the re­spondents shall convene a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (here­inafter referred to as "DPC" for short) as early as possible for considering the case of the petitioner and other eligible Section Officers for promotion to the rank of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in Public Works Department in accordance with the Recruitment Rules.

2. Heard Mr. N Mahendra, learned coun­sel for the petitioner as well as Mr. TH Ibohol, learned GA for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. None appears for the remaining respondents.

3. Brief facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The appellant-petitioner was initially ap­pointed as a casual Section Officer in the Public Works Department (PWD), Manipur by order dated 04.03.1983 of the Chief En­gineer, PWD, Manipur. Thereafter, he was again appointed as Workcharged Section Officer Grade-I by order dated 24.03.1984 issued by the Chief Engineer, PWD, Manipur. On 23.05.1985 his services were regularized as Section Officer Civil (Grade-I). Thereaf­ter, on 05.03.1992 he was sent on deputa­tion to the Director General of Security as Assistant Engineer. While the appellant-peti­tioner was on deputation, the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) held a meeting on 04.06.1993 for considering the promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the PWD. On recommendation made by the DPC, the respondent Nos. 5 to 35, in the writ petition were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer. Since the appellant-peti­tioner was not promoted to the post of As­sistant Engineer, he had filed the writ petition being Civil Rule 383 of 1998 (sic. 1995).

4. In the writ petition, the main ground taken by the appellant-petitioner was that he was not considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department but the Section Officers junior to him were considered for promotion and more so, though there were only 12 Nos. of va­cancies, 34 posts were filled up by way of promoting the respondent Nos. 5 to 35 which was not permissible under law.

5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed their respective counter affidavits denying the allegations made by the appellant-petitioner and stated therein mat the case of the petitioner was also considered for promotion along with the other eligible candidates by the DPC which met on 04.06.1993. Upon consideration of the case of the eligible candidates for promo­tion, the DPC recommended 28 candidates on merit cum seniority basis for promotion to the said post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), but did not recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion to the said post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) as he was not found suitable. The respondent State specifically stated in its counter affidavit that at the relevant time of holding the meetings of the DPC, 34 nos. of vacancies of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were available.

6. The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the par­ties disposed of the writ petition with the di­rection as stated supra.

7. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge, the appellant-petitioner has preferred the instant appeal.

8. Mr. Mahendra while assailing the judg­ment of the learned Single Judge would con­tend that though the learned Single Judge partly allowed the writ petition but failed to consider the fact, inter alia, that there were only 12 vacancies and the DPC recom­mended 34 Section Officers (Grade-I) for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil). Thus, the orders of promotion dated 07.06.1993, 19.06.1993, 12.11.1993 and 2112.1994 (Annexure-A13 to A-16 of the writ petition), by which the respondent No. 5 to 35 were promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil), are wholly illegal and w