B.K. Sharma, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/07/2008 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 75/2007, by which the promotion of the appellants to the rank of Sub-Inspector (Armed Branch) affected vide order dated 21/09/2007 has been set aside. While doing so, direction was also issued to fill up the vacancies as per the provisions of the Rules providing opportunity to all those who were within the zone of consideration. It is submitted by Mr. Ricky Gurung, learned counsel for the appellants that pursuant to the aforesaid directions contained in the aforesaid judgment, entire exercise for promotion was redone and by various orders, namely, orders dated 26/09/2008, 19/08/2010, 19/08/2011, 25/10/2011 and 10/09/2013, all the incumbents barring two of the writ petitioners have been promoted. He submits that in case the earlier promotion of the appellants affected vide the order dated 21/09/2007 is restored, it will only be a question of determination of seniority between the appellants who were the private respondents in the writ petition, vis-a-vis the writ petitioners.

2. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel representing the newly impleaded respondents supporting the case of the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law, firstly because the writ petitioners duly participated in the selection process impugned in the writ petition and thereby took a chance for favourable consideration and thus they were estopped from turning around the same so as to question the validity of the very selection in which they had participated. Secondly, the particular selection procedure having been adopted by the State respondents in the peculiar facts and circumstances as a measure of policy decision and by relaxing the rules and the said policy decision and the order of relaxation of rules having not been challenged in the writ petition, the consequential action by means of holding the selection could not have been challenged.

3. None has appeared for the writ petitions who are the respondents in this appeal in spite of service of notice. We have also heard Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned AAG, Mizoram. We have also perused the entire materials on record.

4. The matter pertains to promotion of Havilders to the rank of Sub-Inspector (Armed Branch). The selection for the purpose was conducted as per the provisions of the Assam Police Manual. As per the laid down procedure, the promotions were to be affected on the basis of the assessment to be made in respect of the performance of the Havilders on following points :-

"1.	Personal turn out	15
2.	Proficiency in drill	15
3.	Command and Control	15
4.	Handling and Practical Knowledge of weapon	15
5.	Field Craft	15
6.	General Knowledge (Written)	25
	Total	100"

5. In addition to the above, the following service records of the last five years were also required to be considered in the scale indicated therein :-

"1.	Rewards -	1 (one) mark for each Reward. Maximum 5 marks.
2.	Punishment -	One mark to be Deducted for each minor punishment. Maximum 5 marks.
3.	Bonus Marks Will Be Given For The Following :-
	a) Police Medal :-
	i) P.G.M./PPM -	5 marks
	ii) GM/PM -	4 marks
	iii) Any Governor's Medal -	2 marks
	b) GS Marks -	2 (two) marks each. Maximum of 6 marks.
	c) Specialised Course -	2 (two) marks more than 3 (three) months.""

6. The selection was conducted during the period from 07/02/2006 to 11/02/2006 and the results of the said test was published in which while the writ petitioners were placed at Sl. No. 53, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 68, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 91, 94 and 117 respectively while respondents No. 4 -14 were placed at Sl. No. 49, 38, 47, 41, 43, 34, 51,