V. Dutta Gyani, J.- This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.95 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.129 (K) of 1994 thereby holding that (1) the post of Vocational Guidance and Counselling Officer, for short VGCO in the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland was not an ex cadre post; (2) appointment order dated 20.12.85 appointing the writ petitioner respondent No.3 to the post of VGCO was a Class I post and that he was senior to the other private respondents and eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher post. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants have preferred this appeal. 2. Heard Mr.Mislira, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Saikia, learned counsel assisted by Mr. J. Chutia and learned Govt. Advocate, Mr.Khataniar for the respondents. Few basic facts now be noted. 3. The writ petitioner respondent Tohoshe Sema working as VGCO, filed writ petition No. 129(K)/94 challenging the seniority list of Class I Gazetted officers as on 1.1.93 published vide order dated 9.7.93, Annexure G to the writ petition. By this seniority list of Class I Gazetted officers of the Education Department of the Govt. of Nagaland was fixed. The writ petitioner also challenged order dated 5.4.94, Annexure H to the petition whereby the respondents Govt. of Nagaland informed him that the post of VGCO was and ex cadre post and the writ petitioner respondent was appointed to the said post out of his cadre of graduate teachers. By the same letter dated 5.4.94 he was further informed that his representation for promotion to the post of Deputy Director, Education cannot be considered in view of the above fact. 4. It was the petitioner's case that he joined in the Education Department as Headmaster of Govt. Middle School on 1.6.78. In February, 1981 he was posted at Zunheboto as a graduate teacher and as claimed by him, he is also entrusted with the additional responsibility of promoting qualitative education for all round development of the students designating him as Education Secretary. Admittedly there was no order to this effect. He joined in the Directorate of Education in 1982 as Education Secretary in the same scale of pay as that of a graduate teacher. Admittedly there was no order to this effect. He joined in the Directorate of Education in 1982 as Education Secretary in the same scale of pay as that of a graduate teacher. It is the petitioner's claim that as Education Secretary it was his duty to co­ordinate the students and the community relations promoting individual character of the students which, necessitated his frequent visit to different educational institutions in the State to impart self discipline and moral values and organise students talent programmes and inter action activities between the teachers and the parents. On his own showing by order dated 20.12.85 he was given officiating promotion to the post of VGCO by redesignating the existing post of Social Officer which was admittedly Class II Gazetted post. By yet another order of even dated (20.12.85) the petitioner was promoted as Social Education Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.900-30-2,080/- per month. The appellants have filed copies of the order dated 20.12.85 as Annexure 1 and 2 respectively. 5. It was the writ petitioner's case that the order appointing him as Social Education Officer was an erroneous one, which was corrected by corrigendum dated 11.11.87 replacing the post of VGCO to be read in place of 'Social Education Officer' in order dated 20.12.85. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the post of VGCO is conspicuously missing from the list of posts either in Class I or Class II of the Nagaland (Administrative) Education Service which definitely states various cadre posts under the Directorate of School Education. The post of Social Education Officer thus figured in Nagaland Education Service Rules, 1977 as Class II post under Rule 4 which also prescribes the qualification and scale of pay. Mr. Saikia, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner-respondent on the other hand maintained that the petitioner was drawing the pay scale of VGCO as per revised ROP Rules, 1984 and the post of VGCO is a Class I Gazetted post equivalent to the post of Assistant Director, Inspector of Schools. Highlighting the petitioner's training and achievements it was pointed out that he had undergo vocational training at NCERT in New Delhi and on successful completion of the same he joined his post as VGCO on 7.5.87. Highlighting the petitioner's training and achievements it was pointed out that he had undergo vocational training at NCERT in New Delhi and on successful completion of the same he joined his post as VGCO on 7.5.87. The petitioner also contended that in the meantime Smti Mayatola and Shri Lukhevi Sema who were junior to the writ petitioner were promoted to the post of Inspector of Schools and Assistant Director, Education vide order dated 20.12.85 and they were further promoted to the post of Deputy Director by two separate orders dated 10.10.91. According to the petitioner the promotion of Smti Mayatola and Sri Lukhevi Sema to the post of Joint Director vide order dated 5.10.93 was in contravention of service rules. According to him their promotion in the grade of Class I Gazetted post was made without considering his claim and case. Several representations dated 12.11.91, 2.4.92 and 30.7.93 filed by him were of no avail. Mr. Mishra pointed out that in the tentative seniority list of Class I Gazetted officer under the Education Directorate as published on 2.10.92, the petitioner's name was not there. He filed a representation praying for inclusion of his name in the seniority list. When the final list was published on 8.7.93 he was shown at SI. No.23. He again sought review of the final seniority list as per his representation dated 23.7.93 filed as Annexure 4 to this appeal and thereafter followed a communication dated 5.4.94 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland informing the petitioner that the post of VGCO was an ex-cadre post and the writ petitioner was appointed out his cadre i.e. graduate teacher as already noted. This order dated 5.4.94 has also been filed by the appellants as Annexure 5. Aggrieved by the Govt. order, the writ petitioner moved this Court by filing the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has allowed it, hence this appeal. 7. Let us now turn to the impugned judgment. The whole question revolves round ex-cadre post of VGCO held by the writ petitioner respondent. Meeting the contention that writ petitioner held an ex-cadre post as advanced by the Govt. 7. Let us now turn to the impugned judgment. The whole question revolves round ex-cadre post of VGCO held by the writ petitioner respondent. Meeting the contention that writ petitioner held an ex-cadre post as advanced by the Govt. Advocate, the learned Judge has held that it was not acceptable for two reasons, (1) ex-cadre post is created for a specific purpose and period, (2) the writ petitioner was holding the post of VGCO since 1985 and the learned Judge has concluded, "It appears, it is not possible to hold that the petitioner does not belong to the regular service of the Education Department" (see para 5 of the impugned judgement). 8. 'Cadre' has a well defined meaning and legal connotation, which should have been considered before arriving at the conclusion that "it was not possible to hold that the petitioner did not belong to regular service. 'Service' and 'Cadre' are not synonymous terms. In service jurisprudence, the term 'cadre' has a definite legal connotation. In the legal sense, the word 'cadre' is not synonymous with 'service'. Fundamental Rule 9 (4) defines the word 'cadre' to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. It is open to the Government to constitute as many cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to the administrative convenience and expediency. 9. Learned Single Judge has held that the writ petitioner was holding the post of VGCO since 1985 (see para 6 of the impugned judgment) without going into the question of qualifications prescribed for the post and other conditions of eligibility. The order dated 20.12.85 appointing the petitioner as Social Education Officer was purely on probation basis for a period of one year. To facilitate ready reference and appreciation the order is reproduced below : "Government of Nagaiand:: Education Department ORDER Dated : Kohima, the 20th Dec. 85 No. EDS(A)-2/82(Vol-I) : In the interest of public service the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to order the posting and transfer of the following officers of the Nagaland Education Administrative Service with immediate effect : 1. Shri PK Chakravarty, Asstt Director (ET) promoted to officiate as Deputy Director is posted against the post of Deputy Director vacated by Shri E. Patten on retirement. 2. Shri PK Chakravarty, Asstt Director (ET) promoted to officiate as Deputy Director is posted against the post of Deputy Director vacated by Shri E. Patten on retirement. 2. Shri Tsuktimeren, Inspector of Schools, Kohima promoted to officiate as Deputy Director is posted against the post of Deputy Director vacated by Shri IP Singh on retirement. 3. Smti Mayatola, Head Mistress promoted to officiate as Inspector of Schools is posted as Inspector of Schools, Mokokchung vice Shri Rongsenmeren transferred to Kohima. 4. Shri Rongsenmeren, Inspector of Schools, Mokokchung is transferred and posted as Inspector of Schools, Kohima. 5. Shri Lukhevi Sema, DIS Wokha promoted to officiate as Asstt. Director is posted against the post of Asstt. Director vacated by Shri PK Chakravarty on promotion. 6. Shri VK Koshy, Asstt. Director (Science Education) is transferred and posted as Inspector of Schools, Zunheboto alongwith the post (under re-deployment) 7. Shri MP Mittal, Asstt. Director is transferred and posted along with the post as Inspector of Schools, Wokha (under re-deployment). 8. Shri AK Aditya, recently posted on transfer as Head Master, Govt. High School, Zunheboto vide order of even number dated 7th December, 1985 is transferred and posted as Deputy Inspector of Schools, Wokha vice Shri Lukhevi promoted. 9. Shri G. Kuriakose, Asstt Head Master, Govt. High School, Kongchem promoted to officiate as Head Master is transferred and posted as Head Master, Govt. High School, Zunheboto. 10. Shri Thpfukezo, Asstt Head Master, Govt. High School. Chumukendima promoted to officiate as Head Master is transferred and posted as Head Master Govt. High School, Chuchuyimlong vice Smti Mayiela promoted, 11. Shri Tohose Sema, a graduate teacher attached to the Directorate of Education as Education Secretary promoted to officiate as Vocational Guidance and Counselling Officer is posted against the post of Social Education Officer, vacated by Shri Nganshi Lotha. Handing and taking over should be completed by 15th Jan' 85. Sd/-L. Toshi Ao, Comm. & Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaiand." 10. Now three facts distinguishably emerges from the above order. That the petitioner was a graduate teacher, he was merely attached to the Directorate as Education Secretary, that too officiate temporarily to the post of Social Education Officer, which is admittedly a Grade II post. It was subject to training in the NCERT. 11. Almost two years after the passing of the order on 20the Dec.' 85, on 11th November, 1987 a corrigendum was issued. It was subject to training in the NCERT. 11. Almost two years after the passing of the order on 20the Dec.' 85, on 11th November, 1987 a corrigendum was issued. This corrigendum is also reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND :: EDUCATION DEPARTMENT CORRIGENDUM Dt. Kohima, the llth Nov. 87. No. EDS (PER)-17/85 Please read "Vocational Guidance and Counselling Officer', instead of 'Social Education Officer' appeared in the first para of this Department order No. EDS (A)-2/82 (Pt.) dated 20.12.1985. Sd/- KN Baruah, Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland." 12. Now comes the question of possessing requisite qualification for the post of VGCO. By merely changing the nomenclature does it result in effacing the bare minimum qualification prescribed for the post. The prescribed qualification for the post of VGCO, which is a Class I post, is holding a Master Degree in Education/Psychology or a Diploma from the NCERT. Admittedly the writ petitioner respondent was not holding a Master Degree nor he obtained a Diploma from the NCERT. Merely undergoing a training as a special case without being conferred the Diploma required is no substitute for possessing the requisite qualification. The writ petitioner, was merely a B A, BEd, as has also been noted by the learned Single Judge. So far as training at NCEJRT is concerned, he was no doubt deputed by the State Govt. to undergo the training but since he did not possess the minimum qualification MA in Education or Psychology, writ petitioner's selection for training itself was objected to by the NCERT and it was for this reason that he was not awarded the Diploma on successful completion of training, all that he was given a certificate of attendance but his certificate of having attended the training course cannot be equated with a Diploma awarded by the institute. The petitioner could not have been legally and validly appointed VGCO. Re-designating him as VGCO by changing the nomenclature from Social Education Officer to VGCO is nothing but circumventing the rules, norms and procedures, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. Learned counsel Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on 1975 ROP Rule 2 but this rule does not help the writ petitioner-respondent. As indeed, the petitioner himself had not relied upon this rule in the writ petition as originally filed by him. 13. Learned counsel Mr. Saikia has placed reliance on 1975 ROP Rule 2 but this rule does not help the writ petitioner-respondent. As indeed, the petitioner himself had not relied upon this rule in the writ petition as originally filed by him. It was only by way of an affidavit-in-reply filed on 22.5.95 to the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the writ petitioner came out with the following averments as contained in paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-reply. "With reference to para 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2,1 submit that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has deliberately misled this Hon'ble Court by alleging that I joined as a graduate teacher and in the absence of senior local graduate teacher I acted as Headmaster (Middle School). On the contrary I was directly-appointed as Headmaster, Govt. Middle School through Selection Board and posted at Lizuke. The initial appointment order is not available now and as such a copy of the petitioner's Service Book, page 5, is appended hereto as Annexure J wherein the petitioner is shown to have been appointed as Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Lizuke on 1.6.78 in the scale of pay of Rs.350/- to 750/- per month which has been attested by the Deputy Inspector of Schools at Column 9......However, it may be pointed out here that the promotion order dated 20.12.85 (Annx. A-A) issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education Department, Nagaland, has also designated this deponent as 'Education Secretary'. Therefore, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 cannot be allowed to shirk their responsibility and controvert their action through their authorised agent in the present manner." 14. The respondent State in its additional affidavit-in-opposition filed on 6.7.95 has explained the position in the following words: "That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-reply, the deponent respectfully submits that no post of Headmaster were ever created/existed separately for Govt. Middle Schools in Nagaland from the very beginning till date. And as there is no post of Headmaster as stated above, any of the senior graduate teacher of that school is entrusted to act as Headmaster In-charge, for which monthly charges allowance are given as fixed by the Government from time to time. Middle Schools in Nagaland from the very beginning till date. And as there is no post of Headmaster as stated above, any of the senior graduate teacher of that school is entrusted to act as Headmaster In-charge, for which monthly charges allowance are given as fixed by the Government from time to time. The scale of pay of all school teachers under the Directorate of School Education in Nagaland are governed by his/her educational qualifications (i.e. Graduate Teachers, Undergraduate Teachers and Matriculate Teachers). As there is no post of Headmaster for Govt. Middle Schools, the question of separate scale of pay for Headmaster does not arise at all. The petitioner when posted to Lizuke Govt.. Middle School, he being the first graduate teacher posted there, he was entrusted to act as Headmaster In-charge of the said school in the same scaie of pay as a graduate teacher. The Nagaland Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1975 which was effective from 1.4.74, ROP Rules, 1983 effective from 1.4.81 and also.ROP Rules, 1985 effective from 1.12.84 attached herewith as Annexure A (1), A (2) and A (3) clearly demonstrate the facts as pointed out above. As stated earlier, any graduate teacher posted in Govt. Middle Schools can be entrusted to act as Headmaster in the same school, particularly when the incumbent Headmaster In-charge is transferred to other school except that he cannot be posted as Headmaster of Govt.. High School as the post of Headmaster of the Govt. High Schools are Class II (Gazetted). As explained earlier, no post of Education Secretary is existed under the establishment of the Directorate of School, Education Nagaland. Earlier, the petitioner was once allowed to work under Nagaland Baptist Church Council (NBCC) for some years in his own capacity as a graduate teacher and the Mission authority might have entrusted/assigned him the work/duties of Education Secretary under the said Council, for which the School Education Deptt has nothing to do. His designation might have been 'Education Secretary' so long as he was working under the NBCC, but what promoted to retain the same designation after his reversion to his parent department i.e. School Education Department as a graduate teacher is known only to him alone as there was and is no such post of 'Education Secretary' under the Directorate of School Education either before or after him till date." 15. In view of the factual position as stated and explained above, let us now turn to the Nagaland (Administrative) Education Services Rules, 1977 as framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 4 thereof deals with classification and scale of pay. Clause (h) of sub-rule (ii) of Rule 4 speaks of Social Education Officer. It is a Class n post, carrying the pay scale of Rs.550-35-745EB-35- 1025-EB-40-1,225/-PM. It would be seen that there exist no post of VGCO in Class I service under the 1977 Rules of Govt. of Nagaland as framed. 16. On writ petitioner's own showing, as per order Annexure I filed by him, he was promoted on probation for a period of one year as Social Education Officer and this post was re-designated as VGCO as per order dated 11.11.87 filed as Annexure III to this appeal. The petitioner continued to receive the same scale of pay as admissible to the Social Education Officer. 17. The writ petitioner heavily banks upon the entry. Item No. 14, against the post of VGCO as shown in ROP, 1984. Now this ROP is revision of pay scale. The petitioner had submitted a representation on 16.1.87 to the Director of School Education claiming higher scale of pay as per ROP, 1984 and the Director recommended his case. The appellants have filed these documents as Annexure 9, 10 and 11 to this appeal. 18. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant contended that this post of VGCO was created vide order dated 23.10.91 as a Class I post at Item No.15 at page 60 of the ROP, 1984. It was not the post under the Directorate of School Education which the petitioner continued to hold after change of nomenclature through Social Education Officer, a Class II post of VGCO. A mere glance at Annexure 15, the extract from the Nagaland Extra ordinary Gazette dated 21st January, 1985 as filed by the appellant would go to show that this post of Vocational Guidance and Counselling Officer was bracketed with officers in the Directorate of Collegiate Education which indisputably the writ petitioner-respondent was not holding. 19. Now, writ petitioner's claim to seniority above the appellants without being the member of the service under the Rules, he could neither be legally promoted nor appointed to Class I post, that too even without facing the Public Service Commission. 19. Now, writ petitioner's claim to seniority above the appellants without being the member of the service under the Rules, he could neither be legally promoted nor appointed to Class I post, that too even without facing the Public Service Commission. It would not be out of place hereto mention that his designation as Education Secretary was at the behest of the Nagaland Baptist Church Council where he worked for some years. If the Church designated him as Secretary that does not ipso facto make him Education Secretary either under the Govt.. of Nagaland or in the Directorate. In fact, there is no such post as Education Secretary under the establishment of the Directorate of Social Education. It was entirely a matter between the Church Council and the writ petitioner which cannot legally bind the Govt. of Nagaland. It was one of the contention of the State Govt., as rightly pointed out by the learned Govt. Advocate that the post of VGCO was an ex cadre post. Therefore, the petitioner could not legally claim seniority in the list of officers to the executive cadre. As already pointed out above, the writ petitioner was not possessing requisite qualification for holding the post of VGCO. Treating him as holder of service in Class I cadre with effect from 20th December, 1985 was a blatant violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order has overlooked the basic pomts. The contention raised by Mr. Saikia, learned senior counsel that subsequent order dated 11.11.87, made operative with retrospective effect from 20th December, 1985 has rightly been given effect to by the learned Single Judge, cannot therefore be accepted. 20. The undisputed position that emerges from the record is that the post of VGCO, an ex cadre post which was created in 1981, which was exclusively meant for the State Council for Research and Training later established its full flefed Directorate, and stood transferred to State Council and Research and Training (SCERT), Nagaland from Nagaland College of Education vide order dated 3.4.86. This post of VGCO is purely academic in nature and does not in any manner fall within the purview of the administrative cadre of School Education Department. 21. This post of VGCO is purely academic in nature and does not in any manner fall within the purview of the administrative cadre of School Education Department. 21. It is abundantly clear that the writ petitioner was in the cadre of graduate teacher, his appointment to the post of Social Education Officer of Class n Gazetted post vide order dated 20th December, 1985 was purely temporary and officiating, As such, in the Directorate of School and Physical Education, Nagaland the order dated 20th December, 1985 itself makes it amply clear that this officiating promotion is purely on probation basis for a period of one year during which the officer will have to undergo regular training in the NCERT, failing which he will be reverted to his original post. It was this post which was re-designated as VGCO. It is also evident that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of holding a Master Degree in Education/Psychology with minimum of 48% marks, he misled the department while submitting his joining report that he had completed the Diploma course in VGCO, whereas the fact remains that he was allowed to undergo training only as an apprentice for which he was awarded a certificate of attendance. In view of this glaring facts established and emerges from record, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. It is liable to be quashed and accordingly quashed. Both these writ appeals, one preferred by the State of Nagaland and the other by the aggrieved officers arising out of the same judgment and order deserve to be allowed, they are accordingly allowed.