Smti. Neizonuo Sirie & Ors.

Kohima-797001 Nagaland

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioners who are Postgraduate Teachers (PGT) under the School Education Department, Govt. of Nagaland, who were recommended for appointment by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) by Notification dated 07.10.2010 issued by the Secretary, NPSC and subsequently appointed on a regular basis by notification dated 21.03.2011.

In this writ petition, the Petitioners have prayed for the following:

Quash and set aside the impugned notification No. EDS/HSS-73/2002, dated 12.05.2003, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education (only with regard to the concerned Private Respondents).

Quash and set aside the impugned notification No. EDS/HSS-7114/96 BT, dated 10.07.2003, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education.

Quash and set aside the impugned notification No. EDS/HSS-91/2002 (A), dated 27.08.2002, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education.

Quash and set aside the impugned notification No. EDS/HSS-72/2002 dated 15.07.2002 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education (only with regard to the concerned Private Respondents).

Quash and set aside the impugned notification No. EDS/HSS-178/99 dated 16.02.2001 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education.

Quash and set aside the impugned notification No. EDS/HSS-44/2001 (BT) dated 05.08.2002 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education.

Quash and set aside the impugned notification number EDS/HSS-91/2002, dated 27.08.2002 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education.

Quash and set aside the impugned notification No. EDS/HSS-73/2002, dated 12.05.2003, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education (only with regard to the concerned Private Respondents).

Quash and set aside the impugned notification No. EDS (BER)-26/2002 dated 06.09.2003 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education.

Quash and set aside the impugned notification No. EDN/HSS-114/96 (BT) dated 19.06.2000 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education.

Quash and set aside the impugned notification No. EDS/HSS-29/93 dated 29.08.2003 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Education.

Quash and set aside the impugned notification number EDS/HSS-5/2004 dated 11.02.2011 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, School Education Department (only with regard to the Private Respondents).

Quash and set aside the impugned memorandum No. DSC/HC-08/2012 dated 05.03.2015 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, School Education Department.

The names of the Private Respondents be quashed and set aside and deleted from the memorandum No. EDS/14/HSS/61/94 dated 02.11.2011 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, School Education Department.

The names of the Private Respondents be quashed and set aside and deleted from the Memorandum No. EDS/14/HSS/61/94 dated 08.12.2011 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, School Education Department.

Quash and set aside the decision of the Cabinet as notified by the Cabinet vide No. CAB-2/2009 (BT) dated 20.01.2011, regularizing the Private Respondents as Postgraduate Teachers w.e.f. 18.01.2011.

The names of the Private Respondents be quashed and set aside and deleted from the impugned Tentative Seniority List of Officers of Higher Secondary Education as on 08.07.2016 and impugned Tentative Seniority Lists as on 11.05.2018.

To quash and set aside the impugned condition No. 4 of the criteria/tools used to sort out Tentative Seniority Lists by the Committee for preparation of Tentative Seniority Lists on 24.05.2016 and the impugned Tentative Seniority List as on 11.05.2018.

Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Taka Masa, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Sentilong for the Petitioners. Also heard learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. N. Angami, for the State Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and learned Senior Counsel, Mr. C.T. Jamir, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. I. Imchen, for the Private Respondent Nos. 5 to 27.

The case of the Petitioners herein is that they were recommended for appointment to the post of PGTs under the School Education Department through the NPSC and accordingly appointed on a regular basis by notification dated 21.03.2011. On the other hand, the Private Respondent Nos. 5 to 27 were appointed on contract basis on different dates commencing from 19.06.2002 to 29.08.2003. Subsequently, the Private Respondents were regularized through the Cabinet in violation of the Service Rules with effect from 18.01.2011 by the impugned notification dated 11.02.2011. The Tentative Seniority List dated 02.11.2011 was published wherein the date of regularization of the Private Respondents was shown as 18.01.2011. A Final Seniority List dated 08.12.2011 was also issued where the same date of regularization was shown, i.e., 18.01.2011 in respect of the Private Respondents. Subsequently, the date of regularization of the Private Respondents was changed to 14.05.2007 by a notification dated 23.01.2012. The Petitioners were informed by the Respondent Authorities that in view of the change of the date of regularization of the Private Respondents, the Final Seniority List dated 08.12.2011 had become redundant and a new seniority list would be issued. The notification dated 23.01.2012 changing the date of regularization of the Private Respondents from 18.01.2011 to 14.05.2007 was challenged by the 2008 batch of NPSC recruited PGTs by filing WP(C)/163(K)/2012.

It is also stated by the Petitioners that WP(C)/163(K)/2012 was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 22.04.2014. By the order dated 22.04.2014, the Coordinate Bench directed that the date of regularization of the Private Respondents should be counted from 18.01.2011 and not 14.05.2007. In compliance with the said judgment of this Court, a memorandum dated 05.03.2015 was issued, whereby the original date of regularization of the Private Respondents w.e.f. 18.01.2011 was restored. Thereafter, proposed Tentative Seniority Lists were issued as on 08.07.2016 and 11.05.2018, wherein the names of the Private Respondents were shown above the present Petitioners. It is stated that the State Respondents are yet to issue any final seniority list basing on the proposed Tentative Seniority Lists dated 08.07.2016 and 11.05.2018. However, the Respondent Authorities have acted on the said Tentative Seniority Lists dated 08.07.2016 and 11.05.2018 for the purpose of seniority and promotions.

It is also the case of the Petitioners that basing on the above-mentioned Tentative Seniority Lists, the State Respondents, by holding a Departmental Promotion Committee on 09.04.2026, has recommended Private Respondent Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, and 27 for regular promotion to the post of Vice-Principal w.e.f. 09.04.2026. Thereafter, by the impugned notification dated 01.06.2026, the Private Respondent Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, and 27 were given regular promotion to the post of Vice-Principal. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have come before this Court.

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Taka Masa submits that the Petitioners herein are challenging the illegal regularization of the Private Respondents and their inclusion in the cadre of the Higher Secondary Education Officers, de hors the Service Rules. He submits that the principle of settled position not to be unsettled does not apply in this case, as the initial appointment and regularization of the Private Respondents were in violation of the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2002. Non-adherence to the Rules goes to the very root of the matter, where technical considerations like delay in filing the writ petition should pave way for consideration of the case on merit.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the Department of School Education has a service rule known as the Nagaland School Education Service Revised Rules, 2002, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2002’). The said Rules of 2002 were in operation when the Petitioners were recruited through the NPSC and when the Private Respondents were illegally appointed and regularized. Upon a perusal of the Service Rules of 2002, it can be seen that Rule 6 provides the mode of recruitment, i.e., Direct Recruitment through NPSC, by Special Selection in accordance with Rule 7, and by Promotion in accordance with Rule 7 & 8. Rule 7 provides that Recruitment to various grades shall be regulated as per the terms and conditions stipulated in Schedule II & III. Notwithstanding anything in these rules, if, in the opinion of the Government, the exigencies of the service so require, the Government may, by order after consulting the Commission, if necessary, adopt any mode of recruitment to the service other than those specified in the rules. The Service Rules of 2002 clearly do not provide for any contract appointment nor regularization through the Cabinet.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that all the Private Respondents were appointed as PGT on contract basis. There was no open advertisement for their contract appointment, and it was a clear case of backdoor appointment, in clear violation of the Service Rules and standing executive instructions in the matter.

Learned Senior Counsel also states that on the recommendation of a Screening Committee held on 14.10.2010 and the approval of the Cabinet vide No. CAB-2/2009 (BT), dated 20.01.2011, the Private Respondents were regularized as PGT w.e.f. 18.01.2011, by the impugned notification dated 11.02.2011. In the impugned notification dated 11.02.2011, it was stated that the period of service rendered on contract basis prior to 18.01.2011 will count for all other purposes such as pension, leave, etc., but not for seniority. The aforementioned approval of the Cabinet dated 20.01.2011 and the impugned notification dated 11.02.2011 regularizing the Private Respondents w.e.f. 18.01.2011 was done in clear violation of the Rules of 2002. It is further argued that the approval of the Cabinet dated 20.01.2011 was a clear case of regularization and not special recruitment through departmental exam.

The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Petitioners were recommended by the NPSC for appointment on regular basis as PGT by the notification dated 07.10.2010. At that point of time, the Private Respondents were not even born in the regular cadre of PGT. However, in clear violation of the Service Rules and by giving undue favour, the respondent authorities had regularized the service of the Private Respondents w.e.f. 18.01.2011.

It is stated that by the impugned memorandum dated 02.11.2011, the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of School Education had issued a Tentative Seniority List of officers of the Government Higher Secondary Schools as on 01.11.2011. In this Tentative Seniority List, the names of the Private Respondents were wrongly included and placed above the Petitioners from Sl. No. 151 till 175, whereas the names of the Petitioners appear from Sl. No. 176 onwards below the Private Respondents. It is stated that this impugned Tentative Seniority List dated 02.11.2011 was not circulated for information of all concerned and the Petitioners were not served copies of the same and they were not given the opportunity to submit representations against the Tentative Seniority List dated 02.11.2011.

Thereafter, by the impugned memorandum dated 08.12.2011 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of School Education another Final Seniority List was issued as on 02.09.2011. Even in this Final Seniority List, the names of the Private Respondents were wrongly included from Sl. No. 131 onwards and their dates of regularization are shown as 18.01.2011 whereas the names of the writ Petitioners appear from Sl. No 156 onwards, below the Private Respondents. The learned Senior Counsel submits that even this Final Seniority List as on 02.09.2011 was not circulated for all concerned and the Petitioners were ignorant about the same.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that it is an established principle of law that candidates appointed in contravention of the Rules belong to a different stream and they should not be included in the regular cadre of Officers of the Government Higher Secondary Schools under the School Education Department and they cannot be made senior over all the persons who have been regularly and properly recruited.

The Petitioners also stated that some time in the year 2012, the Petitioners came to know about the impugned Tentative Seniority List dated 02.11.2011 and the Final Seniority List dated 08.12.2011. The Petitioners being aggrieved approached the competent authorities alleging wrong inclusion of the Private Respondents in the Seniority List and their supersession thereof. They were informed that the Seniority Lists of 02.11.2011 and 08.12.2011 with regard to the Petitioners and the Private Respondents had become redundant and not applicable in view of the notification dated 23.01.2012 by which the date of regularization of the Private Respondents was changed and made w.e.f. 14.05.2007 and not 18.01.2011 as shown in the Tentative Seniority List of 02.11.2011 and Final Seniority List of 08.12.2011. The Petitioners were informed by the Competent Authorities that a new Seniority List would be published in due course of time. The new seniority list was never published.

It is the stand of the Petitioners that a representation was submitted by the PGT of 2008 NPSC batch for reviewing the Cabinet decision of 21.12.2011 by which the Cabinet had changed the date of regularization of the Private Respondents from 18.01.2011 to 14.05.2007. Thereafter, notification dated 06.08.2012 was issued by the Respondent Authorities reiterating the effective date of regularization of the Private Respondents w.e.f. 14.05.2007. The said notification dated 06.08.2012 was challenged by the PGT of NPSC 2008 batch in WP(C)/163(K)/2012. Thereafter, the State Government constituted a Committee vide notification dated 21.02.2014 for determining the seniority of the Principals, Vice-Principals and Postgraduate Teachers in accordance with Rule 17 of the Rules of 2002. Finally, by the impugned memorandum dated 05.03.2015, it was decided that the Department notification dated 06.08.2012 will not be applicable. Consequently, the impugned notification dated 11.02.2011 was revived whereby the date of regularization of the Private Respondents was held to be from 18.01.2011.

Subsequently, another meeting was convened by the Joint Director (HSS) and Chairman of the Department of School Education for preparation of Tentative Seniority List for the Higher Secondary Cadre Officers. The meeting was held on 24.05.2016 and the Minutes of the Committee were prepared. The criteria used by the Committee to sort out the Tentative Seniority List is purportedly on the principles governing the fixation of seniority in accordance with the Service Rules, Government notifications, orders and office memorandums from time to time to count the seniority. With regard to the present Private Respondents the Committee decided that in respect of the PGT who were appointed on contractual basis and subsequently regularized on recommendation of the Screening Committee, their relative seniority shall be based on the date of regularization as laid down in Government orders/notifications thereon. The aforesaid criteria adopted by the Committee was in clear violation of the Service Rules of 2002. It is submitted that the Service Rules shall prevail over any other orders/notifications. The Committee had also prepared a Tentative Seniority List as on 25.07.2016. In the proposed impugned Tentative Seniority List, the names of the Private Respondents appeared at Sl. No. 140 to 163, whereas the names of the Petitioners appeared from Sl.No.164 onwards below the Private Respondents. This proposed Tentative Seniority List was also never circulated to all concerned.

Thereafter, another impugned Tentative Seniority List as on 11.05.2018 was prepared by the Committee on the same principle as adopted in the impugned Tentative Seniority List of 25.07.2016. Even in this Seniority List of 11.05.2018, the names of the Private Respondents appear from Sl.No. 134 to 157 and the names of the Petitioners appear from Sl.No. 158 onwards, below the Private Respondents.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that no Final Seniority List has been issued by the competent authority for the Higher Secondary Cadre Officers till date. However, the Respondent Authorities are relying upon the unpublished proposed Tentative Seniority Lists as on 08.07.2016 and 11.05.2018 for the purpose of seniority and promotion.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that in view of the statements made hereinabove, and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, there is no delay in filing the present writ petition. He submits that when persons are illegally appointed in clear violation of the service rules and seniority is assigned to such persons not in accordance with the rules or procedure, such non-adherence to the relevant rules goes to the very root of the matter, and therefore, technical considerations such as delay should pave the way for consideration on merits.

The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners reiterates that according to the Service Rules of 2002 there are only three modes of appointment, i.e., (i) Direct Recruitment, (ii) Special Selection under Rule 7, and (iii) Promotion in accordance with Rule 7 & 8. The Private Respondents were not appointed through any of the above referred prescribed modes of appointment. Regularization of service is, therefore, alien to the rules and illegal. Such mode of appointment through regularization is de hors the Rules and the constitutional scheme.

The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the illegality in relation to the services of the Private Respondents continues from the date of their initial contract appointments which was ex facie illegal to their illegal regularization which is a continuous process and ultra vires the Constitution and the Rules and they should not be promoted to continue enjoying such unjust and illegal gain. The State Respondents must be prevented from acting arbitrarily and illegally against the Petitioners. It is stated that the subject matter of the present petition differs from that of WP(C)/163(K)/2012. In the instant case, the Petitioners are challenging the illegal regularization of the Private Respondents by the impugned notification dated 11.02.2011 as violative of the Service Rules and the constitutional scheme governing public recruitment and the applicable Service Rules. As such, the subject matter of the present writ petition is totally different from the issues raised in WP(C)/163(K)/2012.

The learned Senior Counsel has also brought to the notice of this Court that by the interim order dated 13.11.2025, this Court had stated that any promotion made during the pendency of this writ petition shall abide by the final orders to be passed by this Court. The Petitioners have accordingly filed an additional affidavit annexing the promotion orders of some of the Private Respondents dated 01.06.2026 and also the DPC minutes dated 09.04.2026. He, therefore, prays that in addition to the prayers made in the writ petition, this Court may also quash and set aside the impugned DPC Minutes dated 09.04.2026 with regard to the Respondent Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26 and 27 and also set aside the promotions of the Private Respondent Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26 and 27 vide the impugned notification dated 01.06.2026; and further direct the Respondent Authorities to consider and promote the Petitioners to the higher post of Vice-Principal under the Higher Secondary Cadre of Secondary Education Department, Nagaland strictly in accordance with the Rules. Learned Senior Counsel also states that the Petitioners have filed an additional affidavit on 20.01.2026 bringing on record the covering letter of the Tentative Seniority List as on 11.05.2018 vide memorandum No. EDS/HSS-61/94/423-11 dated 11.05.2018 issued by the Special Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of School Education. By bringing on record the said covering letter, the learned Senior Counsel states that in spite of due diligence the Petitioners were not aware that the impugned Tentative Seniority List as on 11.05.2018 was circulated with the covering letter vide memorandum No. EDS/HSS-61/94/423-11 dated 11.05.2018. It is mentioned in the covering memorandum dated 11.05.2018 that if no representation is received within the stipulated time, this seniority will be treated as final. However, the Petitioners came to know about this covering letter dated 11.05.2018 only when it was pointed out by the counsel for the Private Respondents on 13.11.2025.

The learned Senior Counsel relied on the following judgments in respect of his contentions:

Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1.

ACAUT & Ors. v. State of Nagaland & Ors., WP(C)/145(K)/2017, judgment dated 03.08.2018.

State of Nagaland v. ACAUT, W.A./16(K)/2018, order dated 07.02.2019.

Madan Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal/1996/2024, judgment dated 16.04.2026.

State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436.

UPSC v. Girish Jayantilal Vaghela & Ors., (2006) 2 SCC 482.

National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somveer Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 493.

State of Uttar Pradesh v. Rafiquddin & Others, 1987 Supp SCC 401.

Monia Taipodia & Ors. v. State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors., 2013 (2) GLT 1011 (Division Bench).

The NPSC v. C.N. Moe & 4 Ors., WA/17/2018, judgment and order dated 17.11.2019.

Rupul Sarma v. Simanta Pradip Choudhury, 2023 (3) GLT 786.

Dr. P.P.C. Rawani & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 332.

State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar), (2011) 14 SCC 770.

Rashmi Rekha Majumdar v. Union of India & 23 Ors., Writ Appeal/250/2021, judgment dated 02.02.2024.

Union of India & Others v. Darshan Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648.

Learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. N. Angami appearing for the State Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 submits that the Private Respondents had been appointed by various notifications and orders between 2000 and 2003. They were appointed before the Rules of 2002 came into existence. Due to exigencies of service and non-availability of suitable candidates and severe shortage of subject teachers in various schools at the relevant point of time, the Respondent Authorities had taken a decision to fill up the vacant posts of PGT by appointing the Private Respondents on contractual basis. The Government of Nagaland, through the Department of P&AR, had brought out an office memorandum No. AR-5/ASSO/98 dated 23.08.2007 with regard to the regularization of contract/ad-hoc appointments against sanctioned posts by stating that contract employees who had completed more than three years of continuous service on contract/ad-hoc basis as on 14.05.2007 will be eligible for regularization against sanctioned posts. In the said office memorandum dated 23.08.2007, certain terms and conditions were prescribed for regularization of service and one such condition was that there should be a sanctioned post and the employee shall fulfill all the eligibility criteria for the post, including educational qualifications. On the basis of this office memorandum dated 23.08.2007, the Respondent Authorities conducted a written test and interview for the contract/ad-hoc Postgraduate Teachers who had completed more than three years of continuous service and who fulfilled the eligibility criteria. The Private Respondents appeared in the written test as well as the interview and on being successful the regularization of their service was placed before the Cabinet for necessary approval. The Cabinet by office memorandum dated 20.01.2011 approved the proposal for regularization w.e.f. the date of the Cabinet decision, i.e., 18.01.2011. Pursuant to this Cabinet approval dated 20.01.2011, the School Education Department issued the notification dated 11.02.2011 regularizing the contract services of the Private Respondents with the condition that their contract service will count towards pension, leave, etc. but not for seniority. It is submitted that the regularization of the services of the Private Respondents was made on the basis of the policy decision of the State Government before the Petitioners were even born in the service and as such, the Petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the appointments or the regularization of the services of the Private Respondents nor any of the actions undertaken by the Respondent Authorities in respect of the appointment or regularization of the Private Respondents.

The learned Senior Government Advocate also submits that the Tentative Seniority List dated 01.11.2011 was issued through a memorandum No. EDS/HSS-61/94 dated 02.11.2011 which was circulated and published inviting objections/complaints to be submitted through a representation within 15 (fifteen) days from the date of issue of the memorandum. In spite of such notification no complaints or objections were received by the authorities from the Petitioners. Therefore, the School Education Department by a memorandum No. EDS/HSS-61/94 dated 08.12.2011 issued the Final Seniority List of the Officers of the Government Higher Secondary Schools under the School Education Department as on 02.09.2011. A copy of this memorandum was also served on all the Officers concerned and the Petitioners cannot claim that they were not aware about the contents of the memorandum dated 02.11.2011 wherein the names of the Private Respondents were placed above them. The Petitioners remained silent and did not submit any representations, which goes to show that they were not aggrieved by the placement of the Private Respondents above them and also shows that the Petitioners have accepted the memorandum dated 02.11.2011. Therefore, at this belated stage, after accepting the seniority lists, the Petitioners have no right to challenge the Seniority List of the Officers of the Government Higher Secondary Schools as it has attained finality.

The learned Senior Government Advocate has heavily relied on the order dated 22.04.2014 passed in WP(C)/163(K)/2012 and submits that the order dated 22.04.2014 has not been challenged or set aside by any appellate court and as such, the order dated 22.04.2014 has attained its finality as the Respondent Authorities have complied with the direction of this Court in WP(C)/163(K)/2012 by fixing the date of regularization of the Private Respondents w.e.f. 18.01.2011. Learned Senior Government Advocate also submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C)/163(K)/2012 had allowed the writ petition in view of the Office Memorandum No. AR-13.21.74 dated 08.07.1975, which provides that if ad-hoc service is continuous, followed by regular appointment, the period of ad-hoc service thus rendered will count for increments, leave, pension, and other service benefits. But seniority in that particular cadre should count only from the date of regularization and the Court thereby held that the Private Respondents can claim seniority only from 18.01.2011, which is the date on which their service was regularized and not otherwise. On the basis of the order dated 22.04.2014 passed by this Court in WP(C)/163(K)/2012, the Tentative Seniority List dated 08.07.2016 and the Tentative Seniority List dated 11.5.2018 were prepared.

Learned Senior Government Advocate states that the Seniority List of 11.05.2018 was also accompanied by the covering letter dated 11.05.2018, wherein it was stated that the said Tentative Seniority List is circulated/published for information of all concerned. It was also stated that any objection/complaint against entries in the list should be submitted through a representation, supported by documentary proof, within one month from the date of issue of the memorandum. It was further stated that if no representation is received within the stipulated time, the seniority list will be treated as final. Thus, the contention of the Petitioners that the Respondent Authorities had acted upon the unpublished tentative seniority as on 11.05.2018 is not tenable. It is further submitted that when the Private Respondents were regularized by the State Government, w.e.f. 18.01.2011, the Petitioners were not even appointed and therefore, they were not borne in the cadre of PGT on the date on which the Private Respondents were regularized. Learned Senior Government Advocate, therefore, submits that the Petitioners cannot approach this Court at this belated stage and try to unsettle things which have already been settled and also submits that the date of regularization of the Private Respondents as on 18.01.2011 has been fixed in compliance with the order dated 22.04.2014 passed in WP(C)/163(K)/2012.

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. C.T. Jamir, has also raised preliminary objections pertaining to the maintainability of the instant writ petition on the ground that the Petitioners are not seeking appointment to the posts held by the Private Respondents. Therefore, the Petitioners have no vested right to challenge the appointment orders of the Private Respondents. The learned Senior Counsel also states that vide notification dated 11.02.2011, the services of the Private Respondentswas regularized with effect from 18.01.2011, whereas the Petitioners were appointed only on 21.03.2011. The Petitioners, therefore, do not have the locus to challenge the appointment and regularization of the Private Respondents. Another preliminary objection raised by the learned Senior Counsel is that the impugned Tentative Seniority List dated 11.05.2018 has attained its finality as the Petitioners did not submit any representation within the one month provided from the date of issue of the memorandum, and as such, the present petition suffers from delay and laches.

The other preliminary objection which the learned Senior Counsel has taken is that it has already been decided by this Court in WP(C)/163(K)/2012 and WA/175/2014 that the seniority of the Private Respondents is to be reckoned from 18.01.2011, and as such it is barred by law to adjudicate the matter again when it has already been decided by this Court and by the Division Bench. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability, basing on the above objections.

Addressing the merits of the case, the learned Senior Counsel for the Private Respondents submits that the Private Respondents were initially appointed on ad-hoc/contract basis on exigencies of service as there was acute shortage of teachers following successive upgradation of Government High Schools to Higher Secondary Schools at one point of time. Further, owing to the valuable service rendered by the Private Respondents, the Respondent Authorities had decided to regularize the service of the Private Respondents on the strength of the office memorandum dated 23.08.2007 by conducting a suitability test and to be regularized in service if found to be suitable. Accordingly, they were called for suitability test by order dated 22.02.2010 and having found to be eligible, were regularized in service w.e.f. 18.01.2011 by the impugned notification dated 11.02.2011. The regularization was done on the basis of the office memorandum dated 23.08.2007, which is not challenged in the present petition. And having not challenged the legality of the office memorandum dated 23.08.2007, the regularization of the Private Respondentscannot be questioned at this stage.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the regularization of employees is a policy decision made by the State Government and there is no illegality in such action. He submits that the Petitioners cannot claim that they are equal to the Private Respondents as the regularization of the Private Respondents was given effect to prior to the appointment of the Petitioners. He also submits that the regularization was not a pick and choose policy but it was a measure undertaken by the government for all the contractual/ad-hoc employees within the State of Nagaland.

The learned Senior Counsel also submits that after the appointment of the Petitioners in the year 2011, there have been three instances where Seniority List was published, i.e., in the year 2011, 2016, and 2018, where the present Petitioners were placed below the Private Respondents, but the Petitioners have been sleeping over their rights and having realised at this belated stage that the case of the Petitioners cannot be considered for promotion in view of being placed junior to the Private Respondents, have now approached this Court to unsettle the settled position. It is reiterated that the seniority of the Private Respondents was fixed in terms of the judgment and order dated 22.04.2014 passed in WP(C)/163(K)/2012, which was later upheld by the Division Bench in WA/175/2014, and thereby the same has attained its finality. Further, the impugned Tentative Seniority List dated 08.07.2016 and 11.05.2018 having attained its finality, and the Petitioners having not availed their opportunity to make objections, cannot seek relief by way of this instant writ petition at this belated stage.

Learned Senior Counsel states that the impugned Tentative Seniority List, which was also circulated by way of memorandum dated 11.05.2018, had also given opportunity to the Petitioners to raise their claims and objections within one month from the date of issue of the memorandum, and if any representation is not received within the stipulated time, the seniority will be treated as final. The Petitioners have not availed even this opportunity to raise their dispute and, as such, the seniority cannot be reopened now.

In respect of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel relies on the following judgments.

Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court, (2025) 2 SCC 1;

B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab, (1998) 2 SCC 523;

State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray, (1997) 3 SCC 396;

Shankara Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. M. Prabhakar, (2011) 5 SCC 607;

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Ghanshyam Dass, (2011) 4 SCC 374; and

Shiba Shankar Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, (2010) 12 SCC 471.

I have duly considered the submissions of the learned Senior Counsels and the learned Senior Government Advocate. This Court has also examined the pleadings and the judgments relied upon by the parties.

At the outset, the learned Senior Government Advocate as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the Private Respondentshas raised the issue of maintainability. In National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises & Anr., reported in (2003) 7 SCC 410, the Supreme Court has held that when the maintainability of a writ petition is questioned in a particular case, that matter has to be first answered as it goes to the root of the matter.

In the instant case, the Private Respondents have been appointed on contract basis temporarily between the year 2000 and 2003 much before the Petitioners were appointed. It is also not disputed that the Petitioners were appointed upon recommendation of the NPSC w.e.f. 21.03.2011. It is not disputed that the Private Respondents were appointed against sanctioned posts. Such appointments were termed as irregular appointments as opposed to illegal appointments by the Apex Court in paragraph 53 of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (Supra). The Supreme Court has consistently held that settled seniority should not ordinarily be unsettled after a long lapse of time. The principles of due acquiescence and the need for certainty in service jurisprudence are important considerations. The records show that the initial appointments of the Private Respondents on contract basis were made much before the Uma Devi judgment. They also possessed the requisite qualifications to be appointed as PGT.

In the case of Tej Prakash Pathak (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the recruitment process commences with the issuance of the advertisement calling for applications and information for filling up of vacancies and ends when the notified vacancies are filled. The seniority of the Petitioners, therefore, can only be counted from the date of their appointment, i.e., 21.03.2011, and not from the date of the recommendation by the NPSC.

In the case of B.S. Bajwa (Supra), the Supreme Court held that in service matters, the question of seniority should not be reopened after a lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position, which is not justifiable. In the case of B.S. Bajwa (Supra), the appellants had raised the issue of seniority only in 1984, long after they had entered the department in 1971 to 1972. And during this entire period of more than a decade, they were treated as junior to the respondents, and their rights inter se had crystallized, which ought not to have been reopened after the lapse of such a long period. A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Pyarimohan Samantaray (Supra), where a case of supersession in service was raised in a writ petition only after 11 years. The Supreme Court held that no satisfactory explanation was given for the inordinate delay. The Supreme Court, in fact, held that the High Court should have rejected the petition on the preliminary ground of delay.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (Supra), held as under:

Going by the principles laid down in the above-mentioned case, it is clear that the Petitioners herein have not even shown that they had been making representations before the competent authority. A representation is annexed in the writ petition; however, the same is undated and does not even indicate that it has been received by the State authorities. The Petitioners have also failed to show that they had been seeking relief elsewhere in a manner provided by law.No doubt, whenever there is delay, it is not necessary that the court should always refuse to entertain the petition. It is held in Shankara Coop. Housing Society Ltd. (Supra), that it is a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and each case must be dealt with on its own facts. Similar observations have also been made by the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Supra).

In view of the above judgments of the Supreme Court, the settled legal principle that emerges is that once seniority has been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In fact, in the case of K.R. Mudgal v. R.P. Singh, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 531, it was held that a seniority list which remained in existence for three to four years unchallenged should not be disturbed. It was held that three to four years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority, and in a case where someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he is to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum by furnishing satisfactory explanation.

In the instant case, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that a writ petition, being WP(C)/163(K)/2012 was filed by the 2008 NPSC batch of PGT Teachers assailing the date of regularisation of the Private Respondents and the petition was disposed of by an order dated 22.04.2014, thereby directing the State Respondentsto fix the date of regularization of the Private Respondents with effect from 18.01.2011. The Coordinate Bench of this Court did not find any illegality in the regularization of the Private Respondents. The Court was only concerned with the date on which the seniority of the Private Respondentswould be counted, or in other words, the date from which the regularization of the Private Respondents would take effect. After considering the entire matter and after hearing the parties on the issue of the regularization, basing on the Office Memorandum dated 08.07.1975, as well as the Office Memorandum dated 23.08.2007, the Court arrived at a finding that the date of regularization of the contract and ad-hoc employees would be only from the date of their regularization, that is 18.01.2011. When the order dated 22.04.2014 was passed in WP(C)/163(K)/2012, the Petitioners were already in service as they had been appointed on 21.03.2011. The Petitioners herein and the Petitioners in WP(C)/163(K)/2012being colleagues in the same department, it is difficult to imagine that they could not have known about the disposal of WP(C)/163(K)/2012. Further, the memorandums by which the impugned Tentative Seniority List of 2011 and 2016 were published, clearly reveals that the said Seniority Lists were circulated to all the concerned officers, calling for objections/complaints. Most significantly, in the memorandum dated 11.05.2018 by which the Tentative Seniority List of 11.05.2018 was circulated, it was categorically mentioned that any objection or complaint against entries in the List should be submitted through a representation, supported by documentary proof, within one month from the date of issue of the memorandum. If any representation is not received within the stipulated time, the Seniority List will be treated as final. The Petitioners,being the Officers concerned in the Department of School Education, would have certainly received a copy of the said memorandum dated 11.05.2018. The Petitioners have not been able to show any representation/objection made by them against the Seniority List of 11.05.2018. Also, seven years have lapsed from the date of issue of the said memorandum dated 11.05.2018.

It is therefore clear from the observations made above that the Petitioners have been sleeping over their rights and only now when they realised that the Private Respondents are to be promoted ahead of them, they have approached this Court as an afterthought. Even if it is assumed that the Petitioners did not know about the judgment in WP(C)/163(K)/2012, no explanation is shown as to why they had not submitted any representations or complaints against the Seniority List published in 2011, 2016, or 2018. A person who sleeps over his rights cannot be allowed to disturb a long-settled seniority position. It is the view of this Court that the Seniority List dated 11.05.2018 has now attained its finality and should not be unsettled in the present writ petition where the Petitioners have raised a belated claim in 2025.

As far as the challenge to the appointment orders of the Private Respondentsare concerned, it is seen that the appointments were made way back starting from 2000 to 2003. Delay defeats equity. Sleeping over one’s rights for decades disqualifies a petitioner from obtaining equitable relief. Issuing a writ is entirely discretionary. This discretion cannot be exercised at the instance of the Petitioners who entered service after the Private Respondents were regularised and reopen settled matters that were finalised before their appointment. The Petitioners cannot claim a violation of their fundamental right to seniority under Article 16 based on an administrative action that took place when they were not even part of the service.

In view of the observations and discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Petitioners have failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay in approaching the court. The extraordinary and discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot ordinarily be invoked to revive a stale claim, particularly where the petitioner has remained indolent for a considerable period and no sufficient cause for such delay has been demonstrated. Entertaining the claim at this belated stage would unsettle matters which have attained finality with the passage of time.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ claim, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. There shall be no order as to costs.