The court emphasized the importance of the Review DPC's adherence to the court's directions and specific guidelines for grading ACRs, ensuring fair consideration of all eligible candidates.

1. Heard Shri A. Mohendro, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Shri I. Lalitkumar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Th. Rommel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, Shri H.S. Paonam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A. Arunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the two interveners, Shri S. Jhalajit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7, Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 39 and Shri Samarjit Hawaibam, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Respondents. Other private respondents are not represented by any counsel despite notices being served upon them.

2. This is the second round of litigation and by this present writ petition, the petitioners have questioned the validity and correctness of the recommendation of Review DPC and the Government order dated 18-10-2013 issued by the State Government on the basis thereof and have prayed for quashing thereof. One more prayer has been added for issuing direction to the State respondents to convene a fresh DPC for appointment on promotion to the post of MPS Grade–II in accordance with the judgment and order dated 12-03-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge, Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench in W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007.

3.1. According to the petitioners, they were initially appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police with effect from 26-09-1986 and 10-05-1982 respectively. A DPC was convened on 27-03-1998 for appointment of 22 Inspectors of Police, from amongst the eligible Sub-Inspectors, on promotion and on the recommendation of the said DPC, the State Government issued an order dated 28-05-1998 appointing 22 Sub-Inspectors of Police on promotion as Inspectors of Police including the petitioners. During their service career as Inspectors of Police, the petitioners have earned rewards and medals for outstanding and meritorious services rendered by them.

3.2. As many as 41 vacant posts of MPS Grade–II were available for appointment on promotion from amongst the eligible Inspectors of Police, out of which 2 vacancies occurred in the year 2005–2006 and 39 vacancies occurred in the year 2006–2007. A DPC was convened on 12-01-2007 for consideration of eligible Inspectors of Police for appointment on promotion to the post of MPS Grade–II and the said DPC recommended 41 Inspectors of Police against the aforesaid vacancies occurred in the year 2005–2006 and 2006-2007 for appointment on promotion. But the petitioners were not recommended for appointment on promotion by the said DPC. On the recommendation of the said DPC, a Government order dated 01-03-2007 was issued by the Under Secretary (DP), Government of Manipur appointing 40 Inspectors of Police/Subedars/Subedar-Majors as MPS Grade–II.

3.3. Being aggrieved by the said Government order dated 01-03-2007, the petitioners and one more person filed a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 265 of 2007 praying for quashing the said recommendation of the DPC convened on 12-01-2007 and the Government order dated 01-03-2007 issued by the State Government. In other words, the petitioners had questioned the powers and competency of the DPC associated with MPSC to upgrade and downgrade the grading of ACRs of candidates already recorded by the competent authorities in accordance with the procedure prescribed for the same and procedure adopted by the DPC while making selection and recommendation. While the said writ petition was being considered, the learned Single Judge felt the necessity to ascertain the correctness or otherwise of the alleged down-gradation of ACRs by the DPC, the State Government was directed to produce the relevant and original ACRs of the Private Respondents and the petitioners therein in a sealed cover and the MPSC was also directed to produce its DPC proceedings and Assessment Chart. In view of the discrepancies pointed out by the petitioners in their additional affidavit accompanied by an Assessment Chart as against the Assessm