IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the compliance with the Division Bench's directions and the applicable provisions of law in rejecting the petitioner's claim.

JUDGMENT

[1] This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of Certiorari mandamus to set aside the order dated 05.8.2020 passed by the first respondent and to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 21.2.2019 in accordance with law afresh and to hold a fresh review DPC for promotion to the post of Joint Director (G&M) in the Department of Textile, Commerce & Industry, Government of Manipur.

[2] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner; the learned Government Advocate for the first respondent and the learned counsel for the second respondent - Manipur Public Service Commission.

[3] Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that earlier the petitioner questioned the legality and correctness of the proceedings of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting held on 28.12.2013 and also sought quashing of the order dated 01.2.2014 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the State Government and by the order dated 14.2.2017, the said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge and consequently, the proceedings of the DPC meeting held on 28.12.2013 and the order dated 01.2.2014 appointing the private respondent mentioned therein on promotion to the post of Joint Director of Industries (G & M) are quashed. He would submit that aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, the State preferred W.A.No.23 of 2017 and the private respondent Ibotombi Sharma preferred W.A.No.24 of 2017 and by the common judgment dated 18.12.2018, the Division Bench of this Court allowed both the appeals and directed the State Government to communicate the ACR entry of the writ petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and thereafter, the writ petitioner is at liberty to make a representation, if he so chooses, against such entry within one month after the receipt of the ACR copy. In the said judgment it was also directed the State Government to decide the representation of the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the representation. The Hon’ble Division Bench further observed that if the representation is accepted and entry is upgraded, the writ petitioner’s claim will be considered in a review DPC.

[4] The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that pursuant to the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner submitted a representation after receiving the ACR copy on 21.2.2019 requesting the authority to correct the wrong entry made in the ACR for the years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 respectively and upgrade the ACRs for the aforesaid period to the outstanding level and to hold a review DPC to consider his case for promotion to the post of Joint Director (G & M) in the Commerce and Industries Department.

[5] The learned counsel then submitted that despite the direction of the Division Bench of this Court, the first respondent State has failed to consider the case of the petitioner in proper perspective and issued the impugned order dated 5.8.2020, thereby rejecting the claim of the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the representation of the petitioner was rejected without giving any justifiable reasons and without taking into consideration the resolution of the Meeting held on 12.6.2019 and 14.10.2019 respectively.

[6] The learned counsel next submitted that as per the DoPT guidelines the grading for promotion to Class I post bench mark is “very good” and not as “good”. Therefore, the ACRs grading to the petitioner for the period 2007-08 and 2008-09 is an adverse remarks and that the order impugned is illegal and arbitrary. Moreover, a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that no contact of the then reporting, reviewing and accepting officers and instead of making any attempt to contact the aforesaid officials, the first respondent has passed the impugned order saying that it may not be possible to contact the officials. Acco