JUDGMENT Kh. Nobin Singh, J. 1. Heard Shri M. Devananda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate with Shri Shyam Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3, i.e., Manipur Public Service Commission, Shri Roshni Piba, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 4 and 6, Shri M. Hemchandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 10 and 11 and Ms. Monomala, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for quashing/setting aside the entire proceedings of the DPC held on 22-03-2014 and for reviewing the same thereafter. 3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Badminton Coach on ad hoc basis in the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Manipur in the year 1982 and his ad-hoc service was regularized in the year 1986. The State respondents, after considering the objections from all concerned, published a Combined Seniority List of Youth Officers (erstwhile Junior Youth Officers/Superintendent/Coaches) wherein the petitioner's name figures at Sl. No. 9. 3.1 The next promotional post is the post of District Youth Affairs and Sports Officer and at the relevant time, 9 (nine) posts of District Youth Affairs and Sports Officers in the Department of Youth Affairs and Sports, Manipur were vacant and for purpose of holding a DPC for appointment to the post of District Youth Affairs and Sports Officer, a self contained note was prepared along with ACRs of the last 5 (five) years in respect of the eligible candidates who were within the zone of consideration. On the recommendation of a DPC held on 22-03-2014, the Commissioner, Youth Affairs and Sports, Manipur issued an order dated 27-03-2014 appointing 9 (nine) District Youth Affairs and Sports Officers wherein the name of the petitioner did not figure at all. 4. According to the petitioner, on seeing the said promotion order dated 27-03-2014, the petitioner felt suspicious that though there were 3 (three) posts reserved for the ST, promotions had been given to 4 (four) candidates belonging to ST and 1 (one) belonging to SC. Being aggrieved by the said order, one Shri Ch. 4. According to the petitioner, on seeing the said promotion order dated 27-03-2014, the petitioner felt suspicious that though there were 3 (three) posts reserved for the ST, promotions had been given to 4 (four) candidates belonging to ST and 1 (one) belonging to SC. Being aggrieved by the said order, one Shri Ch. Ganeshlal Singh submitted an application dated 03-05-2014 to the Manipur Public Service Commission (MPSC) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for providing information in regard to the proceedings of the said DPC held on 22-03-2014 and the Assessment Chart being considered by the Manipur Public Service Commission. The MPSC, Imphal, Manipur vide its letter dated 10-04-2014 furnished the information as sought for by the applicant. After seeing the proceedings of the DPC held on 22-03-2014, the petitioner felt that the proceedings of the said DPC was irregular as the DPC did not consider the case of the petitioner though he was within the zone of consideration and was very much eligible for appointment as District Youth Affairs and Sports Officer. The act of the State respondents in not properly assessing the Roster Point and the issuance of the said order dated 27-03-2014 based on the said recommendation of the DPC is illegal, arbitrary and mala fide. Accordingly, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner contending inter-alia that though there are three posts reserved for the candidates belonging to ST, the State respondents have given promotions to four ST candidates thereby exceeding the percentage of reservation; that the respondents have violated the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4026 of 1988, UP Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karmachari Kalyan Sangh v. UP State Electricity Board & ors. referred to in SLP (C) No. 14568-69/1995, C.D. Bhatia & ors v. Union of India wherein the Hon'ble Court agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there has to be a separate zone of consideration so far as the SC/ST candidates are concerned; that the principle that when a member belonging to reserved category gets selected on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted against the quota reserved for him but will be treated as open candidate, will apply only in regard to recruitment by open competition and not by promotion effected on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability has not been followed; that the principle that in the case of promotion, the reserved posts be filled up by the candidates belonging to reserved category and unreserved posts be filled up by the general candidates as per roster point and there shall be no encroachment upon each other has not been followed in the present case and that the proceedings of the DPC are not in accordance with the roster for promotion. 5. The writ petition is contested by the respondents by filing their affidavit-in-oppositions. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3, MPSC which is the main respondent because its proceedings is being challenged, it is stated that there is no irregularity on its part and it has followed the principles for promotion as prescribed in the O.M. dated 29-04-1999 wherein there is no provision for separate zone of consideration in respect of the reserved and unreserved candidates. It is further stated that the candidates belonging to reserved category, can compete against the unreserved post and in the event of the candidates belonging to reserved category being appointed on its own merit and seniority, he or she would be treated as unreserved. In their affidavit, the State Government denied the averments made in the writ petition and it has been submitted that since nine posts of District Youth Affairs and Sports Officer felt vacant during the period from 2002 - 2003 to 2007 - 2008, 100 point roster for reservation of seats for SC/ST was applied. It is also submitted that two candidates - one belonging to ST and another belonging to SC, were given appointment as per their own seniority positions. It is also submitted that two candidates - one belonging to ST and another belonging to SC, were given appointment as per their own seniority positions. The respondents No. 4 & 6 have stated in their affidavit that they were promoted to the post of District Youth Affairs and Sports Officer, by virtue of their seniority position in the feeder grade, against the unreserved posts and not against the reserved posts which is permissible in law. The respondent No. 5 has taken a stand similar to that of the respondents No. 4 & 6. 6. From the pleadings in the petition and submissions made by the counsels for the parties, the following issues have emerged for consideration by this Court: "(a) Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the respondents have exceeded the percentage of reservation by giving promotions to four ST candidates and one SC candidates when there are only three posts reserved for the candidates belonging to ST? (b) Whether the respondents have violated the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4026 of 1988, UP Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karmachari Kalyan Sangh v. UP State Electricity Board & ors referred to in SLP (C) No. 14568-69/1995, C.D. Bhatia & ors. v. Union of India wherein the Hon'ble Court agreed with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there has to be a separate zone of consideration so far as the SC/ST candidates are concerned? (c) Whether the principle that when a member belonging to reserved category gets selected on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted against the quota reserved for him but will be treated as open candidate, will apply only in regard to recruitment by open competition and not by promotion effected on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability has been followed or not? (d) Whether the principle that in the case of promotion, the reserved posts be filled up by the candidates belonging to reserved category and unreserved posts be filled up by the general candidates as per roster point and there shall be no encroachment upon each other has been followed or not? (e) Whether the proceedings of the DPC are in accordance with the roster for promotion?" 7. (e) Whether the proceedings of the DPC are in accordance with the roster for promotion?" 7. As regards the issue (a), it is vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though there are nine posts, out of which three posts are reserved for the Scheduled Tribes, five posts have been filled up by the candidates belonging to reserved category and the remaining four by the unreserved category. This is totally against the reservation policy and is in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merit and is not sustainable in law and he has lost sight of the fact that it is well settled principle that the candidates belonging to reserved category can also compete for the non-reserved posts and in the event of their appointment to the said posts, their number cannot be added and taken into consideration for working out the percentage of reservation. The said principle is substantiated by two OM dated 11-07-2002 and 10-08-2010 issued by the Government of India, para 3 of the said OM dated 10-08-2010 which is relevant, is reproduced herein below: "3. The matter has been examined in the light of the above referred judgments and it has been decided to withdraw O.M. No. 36028/17/2001-Estt. (Res.) dated 31-01-2005 referred to above. It is clarified that SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and seniority and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will be adjusted against unreserved points of reservation roster, irrespective of the fact whether the promotion is made by selection method or non-selection method. These orders will take effect from 02-07-1997, the date on which post based reservation was introduced." In the present case and as is evident from the proceedings of the DPC held on 22-03-2014, Shri Kimneichong Shoute and Shri A. Jugol Singh, though they belong to ST and SC respectively, have been recommended and appointed against the unreserved posts and not against the reserved posts on the basis of their own seniority and merit and therefore, the question of exceeding percentage of reservation, on account of their being given promotion, does not arise at all. Hence, the issue (a) is decided against the petitioner. 8. Hence, the issue (a) is decided against the petitioner. 8. As regards issue (b), it is relevant to mention here that a similar issue arose in a case being W.P. (C) No. 808 of 2013 which has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this court on 25-11-2013, a relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: "Learned Counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in support to his contention in the case of UP Rajya Vidyut Parishad SC/ST Karmachari Kalyan Sangh Versus. UP State Electricity Board & ors with W.P. (C) No. 1136 of 1988 & SLP (C) No. 13148 of 1994, the relevant portion of the direction of the Apex Court is reproduced herein below: 'we have concluded the hearing of arguments. We are prima facie in agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that there has to be a separate zone of consideration so far as SC/ST candidates are concerned. Clubbing the Scheduled Caste with the general category in the same zone of consideration would defeat the very purpose of reservation. Mr. B. Sen, learned senior counsel appearing for the Board, states that he would like to place the matter before the Board and, seek further instruction from the Board' As evident from the above direction, the Apex court was prima facie of the view that there has to be a separate zone of consideration so far as SC/ST candidates are concerned and clubbing the Scheduled Caste with the general category in the same zone of consideration would defeat the very purpose of reservation. Office Memorandum dated 29-04-1999, it appears, has taken care of the above observation of the Apex Court. Clause 5.1.1 of the said Office Memorandum clearly prescribes for extending zone of consideration for SC/ST candidates. It is provided therein that if the vacancies are more than 5, the normal zone of consideration shall be twice the vacancies +4, whereas in case of SC/ST candidates zone of consideration shall be five times of the number of vacancies. The normal zone of consideration is not applicable to the SC/ST candidates and reserved category candidates have been provided with extended zone of consideration. The purpose of extending the zone of consideration to 5 times the number of vacancies has been provided for so that adequate number of SC/ST candidates can be considered. The normal zone of consideration is not applicable to the SC/ST candidates and reserved category candidates have been provided with extended zone of consideration. The purpose of extending the zone of consideration to 5 times the number of vacancies has been provided for so that adequate number of SC/ST candidates can be considered. We are of the view that the said Office Memorandum dated 29-04-1999 is in consonance with observation made in the said case and not in contravention thereof." This court is bound by the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court herein above and in view thereof, the issue (b) is decided accordingly against the petitioner. 9. As regards issue (c), it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the principle that when a member belonging to reserved category gets selected on the basis of his own merit, he will not be counted against the quota reserved for him but will be treated as open candidate, will apply only in regard to recruitment by open competition and not to promotion effected on the basis of seniority cum suitability has not been followed. To substantiate his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Manorama v. Union of India reported in (2010) 10 SCC 323 . This decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court will not help the learned counsel for the petitioner, in his contention, keeping in view the words "seniority-cum-suitability" being used in the penultimate line of para 17 of the judgment. As per various O.M. issued by the Government of India, there are two methods of appointment by promotion-one, promotion by selection and two, promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness. In regard to promotion by selection, selection against vacancies reserved for SC/ST will be made only from amongst those SC/ST officers who are within the zone of consideration. Only in respect of promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness, a separate list should be drawn up of the eligible SC/ST candidates/officers, as the case may be, and arranged in order of merit of their inter se seniority in the list. Only in respect of promotion on the basis of seniority subject to fitness, a separate list should be drawn up of the eligible SC/ST candidates/officers, as the case may be, and arranged in order of merit of their inter se seniority in the list. When the select list of officers in the general category and those belonging to SC/ST have been prepared by the DPC, these should be merged into a combined select list arranged in the order of their inter se seniority in the original seniority list which should be followed thereafter for making promotions in vacancies as and when they arise during the year. Admittedly and as per the Recruitment Rules, the promotion to the post of District Youth Affairs and Sports Officer is by selection and therefore, the principle prescribed in the said OM mentioned above will have to be applied for appointment on promotion on the basis of normal zone of consideration. Hence, the issue (c) is decided against the petitioner. 10. As regards issue (d), it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the principle that in the case of promotion, the reserved posts be filled up by the candidates belonging to reserved category and unreserved posts be filled up by the general candidates as per roster point and there shall be no encroachment upon each other has not been followed. It may be noted that this principle has not been violated in the present case at all and it has been strictly followed. All that the counsel for the respondents submitted is that two candidates belonging to the reserved category have been given promotions against the unreserved posts on the basis of their own merit and seniority as is permissible under the various O.M. issued by the Government of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualification will not be adjusted against the reserved points of the reservation roster and they will be adjusted against the unreserved points. Therefore, it will be incorrect to say that in the present case, the promotions have been given to the candidates belonging to reserved category more than what is reserved for them. This issue (d) is also decided against the petitioner. 11. Therefore, it will be incorrect to say that in the present case, the promotions have been given to the candidates belonging to reserved category more than what is reserved for them. This issue (d) is also decided against the petitioner. 11. As regards the last issue, it is not in dispute that as per the reservation policy, a roster is to be prepared both for direct recruitment and promotion where reservation in promotion applies. Pursuant to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a Model Roster has been prepared by the Union of India and in the same line, the State of Manipur has made the rule called Manipur Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Service (For Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Rules, 2011 wherein a Model Roster of 200 points is annexed as Schedule - II. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as per the self note (Annexure - A/3), point Nos. 13, 17 & 20 are reserved for the ST in accordance with 200 point roster but without following these points, the respondents have appointed on promotion four candidates belonging to ST and one to SC. The Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 3 has submitted that what has been applied is not the 200 point roster but 100 point roster wherein the points reserved for the ST are 13, 16 & 19 for the reason that vacancies arose during the period from 2002 - 2003 to 2007 - 2008. The submission of the learned Senior Govt. Advocate does not seem to be correct and hence, can not be upheld because the 100 point roster was not in existence at the time of consideration and it has already been quashed by an order of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench passed, probably, in W.P. (C) No. 198 of 2008. It is not the case of the respondent No. 3 that though the 100 point roster has been superseded by the 200 point roster, the 100 point roster would still continue to apply in respect of the vacancies arose prior to 200 point roster being drawn up. This court is of the view that the 200 point roster ought to apply in the present case and the question is as to what are the point numbers, reserved for the ST, to be considered for promotion. This court is of the view that the 200 point roster ought to apply in the present case and the question is as to what are the point numbers, reserved for the ST, to be considered for promotion. In other words, the question is as to how the 200 point roster is to be operated, for the first time, in the facts and circumstances of the case. The O.M. dated 02-07-1997 issued by the Government of India has prescribed the principles, in the form of explanatory Note, as to how a post-based roster will be made and operated for the first time. The portions relevant for the present case are reproduced herein below: "Initial operation: 1. At the point of initial operation of the roster, it will be necessary to determine the actual representation of the incumbents belonging to different categories in cadre vis-à-vis the points earmarked for each category, viz., SC/ST/OBC and General in the roster. This may be done by plotting the appointments made against each point of roster starting with the earliest appointee. Thus, if the earlier appointee in the cadre happens to be a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes, against point No. 1 of the roster, the remark "utilized by SC" shall be entered. If the next appointee is a general category candidate, the remark "utilized by general category" shall be made against point No. 2 and so on and so forth till all appointments are adjusted in the respective rosters. In making these adjustments, SC/ST/OBC candidates on merit, in direct recruitment, shall be treated as general category candidates. 2. After completing the adjustments as indicated above, a tally should be made to determine the actual percentages of representation of appointees belonging to the different categories in the cadre. If there is an excess representation of any of the reserved categories, or if the total representation of the reserved categories exceeds 50%, it shall be adjusted in the future recruitment. Vacancies arising from retirement, etc., of candidates belonging to such categories shall be filled by appointment of candidates belonging to the categories to which the relevant roster points, against which the excesses occur, belong." By applying the principle mentioned above, the actual representation of the incumbents belonging to different categories in cadre is to be determined and fitted in the point numbers. Thereafter, the vacancies are to be filled up from the remaining points. Thereafter, the vacancies are to be filled up from the remaining points. Fortunately or unfortunately for the parties, at the time of consideration for promotion, there was no incumbent in the cadre and all the nine posts were lying vacant. In the view of the factual situation, this court is of the view that the 200 point roster will have to operate from the beginning i.e., from point number 1. In this regard, the Senior Govt. Advocate has alternatively submitted that even if the 200 point roster is operated from the beginning, it will make no difference so far as the recommendation of the DPC is concerned. There is some force in his alternate submission because according to the stand of the respondent No. 3 and the State Government, only three candidates belonging to ST have been given promotions against the reserved quota meant for them and two other candidates-one being to ST and another to SC, have been given promotion on the basis of their own merit and seniority against the unreserved posts. The counsels appearing for the private respondents have submitted that the respondents No. 4 to 6, 10 & 11 are in any case senior to the petitioner who can have no grievance against them and therefore, they being no necessary party, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, the petitioner can not have any grievance against the respondent No. 8 also because he has been considered and appointed against the reserved quota and the petitioner can not claim his right to be considered against it. Therefore, there is no point of directing the respondent No. 3 to review the proceedings of the DPC held on 22-03-2014 when the result thereof, even if directed, will remain the same and it will lead to nothing but to futile exercise. 12. In view of the above observations, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.