AMITAVA ROY, J.— Competing claims of the parties pertaining to their seniority in service, form the subject matter of the instant appeal. The appellants as the writ petitioners being unsuccessful before the learned Single Judge have carried the challenge in appeal, assailing the judgment and order in Civil Rule No. 20(K) of 1998, rejecting their contentions. 2. We have heard Mr. P.N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. P.K. Khataniar, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Nagaland for the Respondents No. 1,2 and 3 and Mr. BN Sarma, Advocate assisted by Mr. S.S. Goswami, Advocate for the Respondents No. 4, 5, 8,10, 14,15 and 16. 3. A few facts have to be stated. The appellants, in their writ petition, inter alia contended that they are direct recruits to the Nagaland Police Service Class I and Nagaland Police Service Class II (hereinafter referred to as the 'Service') having been recruited through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission'), between 1987 and 1994 and are governed by the Nagaland Police Service (Class I and Class H) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules'). The posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police to which they had been so recruited had been upgraded to Class I by the revision of Pay Rules. Under Rule 18(1) of the Rules, the seniority of the members of Nagaland Police Service Class n is to be determined on the basis of the year of appointment and their position in the merit list of the Police Training College, in case of direct recruits. Persons recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police after their selection through the Commission, have to undergo one year basic training at the North Eastern Police Academy, Barapani, before being appointed on regular basis as the Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Police Department and such training is mandatory. According to the appellants, the North Eastern Police Academy had been established at Barapani, Meghalaya by the North Eastern Council in the year 1978 and the said Academy is the Regional Training college of which the State of Nagaland is a member and has been contributing for its maintenance. In terms of Rule 18(1) of the Rules, the Government of Nagaland had also sent some of the probationers for basic training course to Police training college other than North Eastern Police Academy (hereinafter referred to as the 'NEPA'). In terms of Rule 18(1) of the Rules, the Government of Nagaland had also sent some of the probationers for basic training course to Police training college other than North Eastern Police Academy (hereinafter referred to as the 'NEPA'). The State of Nagaland was yet to start a Police Training college of its own and NEPA which was established in 1978 was being used by the North Eastern States for imparting training to police officers. By Notification No.POL-l/ESTT/12/82(VOL-I) dated 24.6.1982, an amendment was introduced to the Rules and a proviso to Rule 18(1) was inserted to the effect that the provision for fixation of seniority in case of direct recruits in accordance with the position in the merit list of the Police Training college would not be applicable till a Police Training college was established in the State of Nagaland or a Regional Police Training for the North Eastern Region was established, whichever was earlier. The appellants maintained that this amendment was unwarranted and redundant inasmuch as NEPA, of which the State of Nagaland was a member had already been established in the year 1978 and the police officers of the State had been receiving training there since then. However, by Notification No.POL-l/ESTT/12/ 82(VOL-III)(A) dated 6.12.1997 the Government of Nagaland declared NEPA as the Regional Training college of Nagaland police officers for the purpose of applying Rule 18(1) of the Rules. By another memorandum of the same date i.e. 6.12.1997, a tentative seniority list of the Deputy Superintendents of Police as on 1.1.1992 was circulated wherein the inter se seniority was shown to have been computed on the basis of the merit list of the Commission and not in terms of the results of the basic training at NEPA. The grievance of the appellants / writ petitioners as set out in the writ petition vis-a-vis the private respondents is that though they had secured higher marks in the said training at NEPA, they were placed below them (private respondents) in the tentative seniority list, dehors Rule 18(1) of the Rules. In other words, the appellant/writ petitioners maintained that they were superseded by their juniors, batch wise. 4. The appellants" being aggrieved, submitted a series of representations but to no avail. Instead, a final seniority list, which was a replica of the tentative seniority list dated 6.12.97 was published vide Notification No.POL-I/ESTT/12/82 (Vol-III) dated 29.6.98. In other words, the appellant/writ petitioners maintained that they were superseded by their juniors, batch wise. 4. The appellants" being aggrieved, submitted a series of representations but to no avail. Instead, a final seniority list, which was a replica of the tentative seniority list dated 6.12.97 was published vide Notification No.POL-I/ESTT/12/82 (Vol-III) dated 29.6.98. By a communication of the same date, the representations submitted by the appellants were also rejected. Thereafter, by Notification dated 23.9.98 (Annexure-V to the writ petition), the Respondents No.4 and 5 were granted officiating promotion to the post of Deputy Commandant. Situated thus, the appellants/writ petitioners filed the writ petition praying for appropriate writ to set aside and quash the Notification dated 24.6.82 amending the Rules, the tentative seniority list, the final Select list and the Notification dated 23.9.98 whereby the Respondents No.4 and 5 were granted officiating promotion as mentioned hereinabove. 5. The stand of the official Respondents, was can be gathered from their Affidavit-in-opposition is that in view of the amendment of the Rules, inserting a proviso to Rule 18(1) thereof, the seniority of the direct recruits had been computed on the basis of the merit list of the Commission till by Notification dated 6.12.97, NEPA was declared to be the Regional Training college for Nagaland Police officers for the purpose of applying Rule 18(1) of the Rules. In their affidavit, the answering respondents averred, that they had sent different batches of directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police to different Training Institutes for training. Necessary particulars in support of the said statements were also furnished therein. They contended that the Notification dated 24.6.82 amending the rules had been challenged immediately thereafter and the arrangement of sending the direct recruits to the different Institutes continued. They maintained that their action of detailing directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police to different Training Institutes besides NEPA had been in accordance with the amended Rule 18 of the Rules. According to them, it was only by the Notification dated 6.12.1997 that NEPA was declared the Regional Training college for the Nagaland Police officers as contemplated under Rule 18(1) of the Rules and that the seniority would therefore, be computed on the basis of the merit list of the NEPA after that date. 6. According to them, it was only by the Notification dated 6.12.1997 that NEPA was declared the Regional Training college for the Nagaland Police officers as contemplated under Rule 18(1) of the Rules and that the seniority would therefore, be computed on the basis of the merit list of the NEPA after that date. 6. The answering private respondents in their affidavit, while endorsing the stand taken by the official respondents, contended that it was not correct that after being selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police through the Commission, it was mandatory for all directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police to undergo one year basic training at NEPA for being appointed on regular basis as Deputy Superintendents of Police in the department. According to them, though NEPA was set up in 1978, its activities started only in 1979 in the Meghalaya Electricity Board old campus. Their categorical stand is that from 1977 onwards, directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police were not consistently sent to NEPA and they in their affidavit provided year wise particulars relating to the officers and the training Institutes to which they had been sent for training. From the said data, the answering private respondents endeavoured to show that from 1977 till 1982 directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police as mentioned therein, were sent to National Police Academy. Hyderabad and Assam Police Training College, Dergaon for training. In 1983 and 1984,6 direct recruits were sent to NEPA. In 1986, out of 8 direct recruits 4 were went to NEPA and the others to the Assam Police Training college, Dergaon. Though in 1987 9 direct recruits were sent to NEPA for training in 1988, 10 directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of police were sent for the basic training to Police Training college, Madhuban, Haryana. In 1991, 8 direct recruits were, however, detailed for such training to NEPA. The answering respondents contended that when NEPA was at its nascent stage and was not in a position to meet the needs of the North Eastern Region, Rule 18(1) of the Rules in its original form was so found to be unworkable as would be evident from the fact that in 1977, 1979, 1981 and 1982, directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police had to be sent to the National Police Academy, Hyderabad and the Assam Police Training College, Dergaon for the training. It, therefore, dawned on the authorities that as the assessment of merit would not be same as different Institutes had different curricula, syllabi and marking pattern, it would not be practicable for them to apply Rule 18(1) of the Rules uniformly. Under these circumstances, the proviso to Rule 18(1) of the Rules was inserted by amending the same with retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the Rules so that the requirement of merit position in the Police Training College for the purpose of computation of the seniority could be made inapplicable, ab initio. In the affidavit, the answering private respondents furnished necessary particulars to indicate the differences in the syllabi, distribution of marks and pattern of marking in different Training Institutes. They even, furnished relevant particulars to point out that syllabi, curricula, pattern of marking varied even in the same Institute from time to time. They also cited instances to substantiate their contentions in that regard. According to them, with the arrangement of sending the directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police to different Training Institutes, the twin requirements of year of appointment and merit as envisaged by Rule 18(1) of the Rules could not be applied uniformly. Therefore, the official respondents rightly applied the merit list of selected candidates prepared by the Commission at the time of their selection for computing the seniority of the directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police till the Government decided to declare NEPA to be the Regional Training College of Nagaland Police officer for the purpose of Rule 18(1) of the Rules by the impugned Notification dated 6.12.1997. 7. The learned Single Judge, on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record held that the NEPA, though was set up in the year 1978 was not fully established then and it was recognized as the Regional Police Training college for the North Eastern Region only in the month of December 1997. It was further held that before such declaration, in view of the amendment of the Rules by Notification dated 24.6.1982, the proviso to Rule 18(1) was applicable and the seniority position of the writ petitioners and the private respondents were not determined on the basis of the year of appointment and the position of the incumbents in the merit list of the Police Training College and their cases were governed by the Rules as amended in 1982. The learned Single Judge held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping an eye on the Rules as amended, there was no infirmity in the action of the State respondents in fixing inter se seniority on the basis of the merit as assessed by the Commission at the time of their selection for appointment to the service in terms of the Notification dated 9.6.66 in that regard. According to the learned Single Judge, there was no illegality in the decision making process of the State Respondents in issuing the impugned Notification and the final Seniority list. The writ petition, on the said considerations, was thus dismissed. 8. Mr Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants assiduously argued that as NEPA had been established in the year 1978 and the appellants and many others similarly situated like them had been sent for basic training to the said Institute, the action of the State Respondents in fixing the inter se seniority of the appellants and the private respondents on the basis of their merit assessed by the Commission was in contravention to Rule 18(1) of the Rules and, was thus, per se illegal and unconstitutional. Relying on the documents, marked as Annexures 1, 2, 3, 4,5 and 7 of the Memorandum of Appeal, the learned counsel urged that those clearly established that NEPA was a Police Training College as envisaged under Rule 18( 1) of the Rules and therefore, it was not permissible for the State Respondents to ignore the said provision of the Rules and compute the inter se seniority on the basis of assessment of merit by the-Commission at the time of selection of the candidates for direct recruitment to the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the service. According to the learned counsel, keeping in view the clear and unambiguous language used in Rule 18(1) of the Rules, coupled with the fact that NEPA was the Police Training College as contemplated therein for all intents and purposes, it was not permissible for the State Respondents to deny the benefit of the said provision by adopting an interpretation not countenanced in law. He maintained that Rule 18(1) of the Rules cannot be permitted to be interpreted in a manner so as to result in a discriminatory treatment to a group of members of the service who are, otherwise, entitled to the benefit thereof. He maintained that Rule 18(1) of the Rules cannot be permitted to be interpreted in a manner so as to result in a discriminatory treatment to a group of members of the service who are, otherwise, entitled to the benefit thereof. The learned counsel argued that the mandate of Rule 18(1) of the Rules being clear and unequivocal, the official respondents could not have interfered with the same by issuing the impugned Notification dated 6.12.1997 and the same amounts to supplanting Rule 18(1) of the Rules by implication and therefore, the impugned Notification is ex facie illegal and is liable to be set aside and quashed. Mr. Choudhury, further argued that as the principle on the basis of which the inter se seniority of the appellants and the private respondents as reflected in the impugned seniority list has been fixed was patently opposed to the precepts of Rule 18(1) of the Rules, the impugned tentative seniority list and the final seniority list are not tenable in law and on facts and are liable to be declared null and void. He contended that on the basis of Rule 18(1) of the Rules, clearly laying down the principle of fixing the seniority, the appellants who had undergone training at NEPA ,entertained a legitimate expectation that their seniority would be fixed in compliance thereof and as the impugned action of the official respondents is contrary thereto, without any reasonable and acceptable justification, the impugned seniority lists and the Notification granting official promotion to the Respondents No. 4 and 5 being illegal on the face of the records, are liable to be set aside and quashed. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned judgment and order failed to correctly appreciate the facts and the provisions of the Rules, more particularly, Rule 18(1) thereof, and therefore, the impugned judgment and order are liable to be interfered with in appeal. 9. Mr. P.K. Khataniar, learned counsel for the State Respondents while refuting the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, argued that as at the relevant time, the NEPA was not a full fledged Institute to meet the needs of the Nagaland Police service for the training of its direct recruits, amendment to the Rules had to be introduced in the year 1982 by inserting the proviso to Rule 18(1) thereof. Inviting the attention of the court to the documents relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, suggesting that NEPA was the Regional Training college of Nagaland since its establishment in the year 1978, the learned State Counsel contended that none of the documents conveyed the decision of the Government recognizing NEPA to be the Regional Training college for the Nagaland Police Service for the purpose of Rule 18(1) of the Rules. Therefore, the said documents are of no consequence and significance for deciding the issue in hand., he argued. While conceding that till 1977, the directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police had to be sent to different Training Institutes and not to NEPA alone, Mr. Khataniar submitted that having realized that it was not possible to detail all its direct recruits for training to NEPA, the Government decided to amend Rule 18(1) of the Rules, making the requirement of merit assessed by the Police Training college inapplicable for the purpose of computation of seniority, from the very date of the commencement of the Rules. This, the learned State counsel submitted was done to prevent inequitous results and to ensure fair and equal treatment to all the direct recruits. 10. Mr. B.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the private respondents, submitted that though NEPA was established in 1978, it was not fully functional so as to cater to the needs of the Noith Eastern States, as a result whereof, the direct recruits in the Nagaland Police service had to be sent to different Institutes, apart from NEPA for training. The learned counsel invited the attention of the court in details to the Affidavit filed by the private respondents to buttress his argument that the different Training Institutes had different syllabi, curricula and marking pattern for which it was not possible to uniformally assess the merits of all the direct recruits of a particular batch. Rule 18(1) in its original form, thus appeared to be wholly unworkable in the facts and circumstances and therefore in order to prevent injustice and ensure equal treatment to the direct recruits, amendment to Rule 18(1) was introduced with retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the Rules. Rule 18(1) in its original form, thus appeared to be wholly unworkable in the facts and circumstances and therefore in order to prevent injustice and ensure equal treatment to the direct recruits, amendment to Rule 18(1) was introduced with retrospective effect from the date of commencement of the Rules. He argued that admittedly from 1977 to 1997 till by the impugned Notification dated 6.12.1997, by which NEPA was declared to be the Regional Training college of Nagaland Police service officers, seniority of the direct recruits was computed on the basis of merit assessed by the Commission at the time of their selection for appointment to the service. Mr. Sarma also referred to a document being an Extract from the Re-revised scheme of the North Eastern Police Academy, 1986 for underlying his submission that the said Academy was not in a position to accommodate the trainees, of the North East. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the action of the official respondents in computing the seniority of the direct recruits on the basis of their merit assessed by the Commission at the time of their selection was legal and valid. He submitted that with the passage of time, many directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police, whose seniority had been computed on the basis of merit assessed by the Commission had reached the rank of Inspector General of Police in the service and if the impugned seniority lists are set aside and quashed, it would result in unsettling things settled in the past and create a total dislocation and chaos in the department. He contended that the learned Single Judge had correctly considered all aspects of the matter and the findings and conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment and order thus, do not call for any interference in appeal. 11. The rival contentions of the parties, primarily turn on the interpretation of Rule 18(1) of the Rules with the proviso and the Notification dated 6.12.1997. For ready reference we wish to extract herein below, Rule 18 of the Rules as amended by Notification dated 24.6.82. "18. Seniority. (1) The seniority of the members of the Nagaland Police Service Class-H shall be determined on the basis of the year of appointment and his position in the merit list of the Police Training College in case of direct recruits or approved under Rule 18 in the case of others. "18. Seniority. (1) The seniority of the members of the Nagaland Police Service Class-H shall be determined on the basis of the year of appointment and his position in the merit list of the Police Training College in case of direct recruits or approved under Rule 18 in the case of others. Provided that the provision for fixation of seniority in case of direct recruits in accordance with the position in the merit list of the Police Training College shall not be applicable till a Police Training College is established in the State of Nagaland or Regional Police Training College for the North Eastern Region is established whichever is earlier." (2) Members of the service recruited in a year under sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 shall be senior to members recruited in the same year and in the same batch under sub-rule(l) of Rule 5. (3) The relative seniority of direct recruits and of departmental promotees shall be determined according to the ratio of vacancies between direct recruits and promottees which shall be based on the question of vacancies reserved for direct recruitment and promotion respectively in the recruitment rules. (4) If the confirmation of a member of the service is delayed on account of his failure to qualify for such confirmation he shall loose his position in the order of seniority vis-a-vis such of his juniors as may be confirmed earlier than him. His original position shall however, he restored on his confirmation subsequently, but any benefits of promotion etc. shall not occur to him with retrospective effect on such confirmation." On a reading of the above provision of the Rules, it is clear that Rule 18(1) lays down the manner of fixation of seniority of the members of the service mentioned therein, both direct recruits and promotees . In the case of a direct recruits seniority has to be determined on the basis of the year of appointment and his position in the merit list of the Police Training College. Sub-rule (2) and (3) prescribe the manner of fixation of the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. Similarly, sub-rule(4) is also not relevant for the purpose of resolving the controversy in hand. Sub-rule (2) and (3) prescribe the manner of fixation of the inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees with which we are not concerned in the present appeal. Similarly, sub-rule(4) is also not relevant for the purpose of resolving the controversy in hand. Under the proviso to Rule 18(1), which was introduced by the amendment, and is to have effect from the date of commencement of the Rules in 1977, the provision for fixation of seniority of direct recruits in accordance with the position in the merit list of the Police Training college would not be applicable till a Police Training college was established in the State of Nagaland or a Regional Police Training college in the North Eastern Region was established whichever was earlier. A conjoint reading of Rule 18(1) with the proviso would clearly indicate that the Rule making authority had clearly intended to keep in abeyance the requirement of the merit of a direct recruit assessed in a Police Training college for the purpose of computation of his seniority till a Police Training college was established in the State of Nagaland or a Regional Training college in the North Eastern Region was established. 12. It would be significant to notice that at the point of time when the amendment was introduced by Notification dated 24.6.82, NEPA had already been established and was functional. However, the Rule making authority made no reference thereof in the Rule. In our view, had the Rule making authority recognized NEPA to be the Regional Police Training college for the NE Region, it would have clearly mentioned it to be so in the Rules. On records, as on today, there is no Police Training college in the State of Nagaland and it is only by the Notification dated 6.12.1997 that the State of Nagaland had declared NEPA to be the Regional Training college of Nagaland Police Officers for the purpose of application of Rule 18(1) of the Rules. 13. On records, as on today, there is no Police Training college in the State of Nagaland and it is only by the Notification dated 6.12.1997 that the State of Nagaland had declared NEPA to be the Regional Training college of Nagaland Police Officers for the purpose of application of Rule 18(1) of the Rules. 13. Reverting to the facts for a moment, it is noticeable that though NEPA had been established in the 4th year 1978, it could not cater to the needs of the Tiagaland Police service to accommodate all its trainee direct recruits selected for the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police and the materials on record demonstrate that from 1977 onwards, several directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police had to be sent to various Training Institutes for basic training. The documents referred to by the learned counsel for the appellants in support of his argument that NEPA had been the Regional Training College for the Nagaland Police officers since 1977, to start with, do not convey any decision of the State Government in that regard. The said documents are correspondences amongst the authorities pertaining to NEPA, but the same do not contain any concrete material to conclusively hold that NEPA was recognized to be the Regional Training college of the Nagaland Police officers for the purpose of Rule 18(1) of the Rules since 1978. We have carefully perused the said documents, but we are unable to persuade ourselves to uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that even before 6.12.1997 the State Government had recognized NEPA to be the Regional Training College as contemplated under Rule 18(1) of the Rules. 14. On the other hand, the materials furnished on behalf of the private Respondents in their affidavit with supporting documents demonstrate that the syllabi, curricula, distribution of marks, marking pattern etc. in the different Institutes vary substantially. Even in the same Institute, the criteria is not the same every year. It follows that it is thus impossible to uniformly assess the merit of the candidates having training in different Institutes by using the same yardstick in the above premises. 15. in the different Institutes vary substantially. Even in the same Institute, the criteria is not the same every year. It follows that it is thus impossible to uniformly assess the merit of the candidates having training in different Institutes by using the same yardstick in the above premises. 15. The requirements of the year of appointment and "position in the merit list", keeping in view the purpose thereof, as envisaged under Rule 18(1), have to be of uniform application to the candidates similarly placed, lest inequitous and adverse results flow by wrong application of the criteria. In other words, in our view, for reckoning the seniority of the direct recruits of a particular year, the assessment of their merit has to be in the same Police Training Institutes, in the same batch. It is not possible to have an uniform assessment of the merit of such candidates if they are made to undergo training in different Training Institutes with different syllabi, curricula, marking pattern etc. To apply the criteria of merit assessed in different Police Training Institutes being unmindful of the above would amount to acting in clear contravention of the mandate of Rule 18(1). If direct recruits of the same year are sent to two different Institutes and an endeavour is made to ascertain their merit on the basis of their performance in the two different Training Institutes, it would amount to applying different standards for the purpose, which is not permissible under Rule 18(1) of the Rules. Understandably, therefore, to obviate such inconsistencies and incongruous results, the Rule making authority introduced the proviso and that too with the effect from the date of commencement of the Rules. The word 'established' used in the proviso appearing after the words 'Regional Police Training College for the North Eastern Region is' should, therefore be construed to mean in the facts and circumstances of the present case as, "recognized" by the State Government. To provide a meaningful interpretation to the word "established" as noted hereinabove, keeping in view the purpose of Rule 18 and the background in which the proviso had been introduced, we are of the view that NEPA was "established for the purpose of said provision of the Rules with effect from 6.12.1997. To provide a meaningful interpretation to the word "established" as noted hereinabove, keeping in view the purpose of Rule 18 and the background in which the proviso had been introduced, we are of the view that NEPA was "established for the purpose of said provision of the Rules with effect from 6.12.1997. It is significant to notice that the Notification dated 6.12.1997 declaring NEPA to be the Regional Training College of the Nagaland Police Service officers had been issued in pursuance of Rule 18 of the Rules as amended. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that NEPA is to be considered as the Regional Training college as contemplated under Rule 18(1) of the Rules from the date of its commencement, therefore, in our view is untenable. In view of the above, in absence of a Regional Training college within the meaning of Rule 18(1) of the Rules, the action of the State Respondents in computing the inter se seniority of the direct recruits on the basis of their merit position as assessed by the Commission at the time of recommending them for appointment to the service, in terms of the Notification dated 9.6.66, as set out in the impugned judgment and order appears to be unexceptionable. 16. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding legitimate expectation of the appellants has to be mentioned only to be rejected. The facts and circumstances of the case and Rule 18 of the Rules do not make out a case for any legitimate expectation of the appellants. Only because, they had the opportunity of undergoing training at NEPA, they cannot expect a treatment different from the others similarly placed, who for no fault of theirs could not attend the training in the same Institute as the appellants. Any expectation to be legitimate has to be based on sound principles of law and any perception of such legitimate expectation dehors the relevant provisions of law cannot be recognized. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants may now be referred to. Any expectation to be legitimate has to be based on sound principles of law and any perception of such legitimate expectation dehors the relevant provisions of law cannot be recognized. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants may now be referred to. Decisions rendered in (1) AIR 1983 SC 130 (D.S. Nakara and ors, petitioners v. Union of India, Respondents); (2) AIR 1996 SC 1175 (Gurusharan Singh and ors, Appellants v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and others, Respondents)', (3) AIR 1967 SC 1836 (Satwant Singh Sawhney, petitioner v. D. Ramarathanam, Assistant Passport Officer, New Delhi and others, Respondents); (4) AIR 1970 SC 150 (A.K. Kraipak and others, Petitioners v. Union of India and others, Respondents)', were cited by the learned counsel for the appellants to highlight the principle that an administrative authority while discharging its functions has to act in a fair and just manner and every executive action if prejudicial, to any person should have an authority of law to back it. Further, Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on twin tests i.e. the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia, and such basis much have a reasonable nexus with the object(s) sought to be achieved. In Gurusharan Singh (supra), the Apex Court, however, held that if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, the others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of the Supreme Court, so that the same irregularity or illegality be committed by the State or an authority which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. It further held that before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner, that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process, there has been a discrimination. 17. The decision of the Apex Court in AIR 1997 SC 2366 (Jagdish Lal and others, Appellants v. State of Haryana and others, Respondents) relates to interpretation of the equality clause vis-a­vis Article 16(4A) of the Constitution of India, relating to reservation in promotion to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. We do not find this decision to be of any relevance for resolving the present controversy. 18. We do not find this decision to be of any relevance for resolving the present controversy. 18. Similarly, the decision rendered in (2002) 2 SCC 306 (Md. Israils and others, Appellants v . State of W.B. and others, Respondents) which dwells on the issue of approval of adhoc promotion by the West Bengal Public Service Commission and the question, whether the pre approval period of service should be counted for the seniority or not, in our view, is of no assistance to the appellants in the present case. 19. The Apex Court in Union of India and others, Petitioners v. Hindustan Development Corpn. and others, Respondents, reported in AIR 1994 SC 988 , and Food Corporation of India, Appellant v. M/s. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, Respondent, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1601 , while dealing with the doctrine of legitimate expectation held that whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or legitimate is a question of fact in each case and is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception, but in a large public interest wherein other more important considerations may outweigh what otherwise might have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. It held that a bonafide decision of the public' authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non-arbitrarines and withstand judicial scrutiny. The Apex Court went on further to hold that the legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only, if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in the regular and natural sequence. 20. This court in (Bhajan Ch. Debnath, petitioner v. State of Tripura and ors, Respondents) reported in 2001(2) GLT 45: (2001) GLR 29 in the facts and circumstances of that case had held that technical pleas cannot be raised to deny the just and legitimate entitlements of the writ petitioner therein. The relief prayed in that case was for release of arrear salary. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on Anil Kumar Bhattacharyya, Petitioner vs. Union of India and ors, Respondents; reported in 2001(1) GLT 644:2 GLR 346 to underline the principle, that the authorities should be held to be bound by their own executive instructions/circulars. The relief prayed in that case was for release of arrear salary. 21. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on Anil Kumar Bhattacharyya, Petitioner vs. Union of India and ors, Respondents; reported in 2001(1) GLT 644:2 GLR 346 to underline the principle, that the authorities should be held to be bound by their own executive instructions/circulars. This court, however, had added a rider to the finding that if a circular is issued with a promise which is conflict with law or ultra vires to its powers, the same cannot be enforced. 22. On an analysis of the decisions referred to above, we are of the view, that the same, in the present facts and circumstances, as well as considering the Rules involved, advance the case of the respondents rather than that of the appellants. 23. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants proceed on the premise, that since 1978, NEPA has been the Regional Police Training College for the North Eastern Region as envisaged under Rule 18 which, in view of the above discussion, is not so. Had it been the position, all direct recruits to the post of Deputy Superintendents of Police would have been sent there for undergoing the basic training. As it was not possible, having regard to the limited capacity of NEPA, the amendment to the Rules was introduced on 24.6.82 to avoid unequal treatment to the persons, similarly situated. We are of the view that if the official respondents would have acted in terms of the original Rule 18(1) of the Rules, being oblivious of the ground realities, as above, their action would have been ex facie illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the decision of the official respondents to act in terms of the proviso to Rule 18(1), till a Regional Training College as contemplated under the proviso was established and/or recognized by them accords with the principle of fair play in State action. As already referred to above, the expectation of the appellants to have their seniority computed on the basis of their results in the NEPA, has neither any sanction of law, nor is justifiable in the setting of the facts of the present case. The contentions raised in this regard, therefore, do not appeal to us. 24. As already referred to above, the expectation of the appellants to have their seniority computed on the basis of their results in the NEPA, has neither any sanction of law, nor is justifiable in the setting of the facts of the present case. The contentions raised in this regard, therefore, do not appeal to us. 24. The Apex Court in a very recent decision reported in (2002) 7 SCC 273 (Union of India and anr appellants, vs. Hansoli Devi and ors, respondents) while dealing with the principles of construction of a statute has held that the language of a statute if leads to anomalies, injustices and absurdities, then the court may look into the purpose for which the statute has been brought and would try to give a meaning, which would adhere to the purpose of the Statute. 25. Applying the principle enunciated above to Rule 18( 1) of the Rules read with the proviso, we are of the firm view that the Rule making authority did not, before the impugned Notification dated 6.12.1997 was issued, accept that NEPA was the Regional Training college for the North Eastern Region for the purpose of the said Rules. The interpretation sought to be provided by the learned counsel for the appellants, if accepted, would result in discriminatory and unfair treatment to the similarly situated direct recruits like the appellants, who could not be accommodated for training at NEPA for reasons for which they are not responsible. Such an interpretation would frustrate the purpose for which the proviso was introduced i.e. to take care of the possible anomalies, inconsistencies and inequitous results likely to follow by applying the criteria for computation of seniority under Rule 18(1) of the Rules, while not being able to provide one Regional Police Training college for uniform assessment of the merit of the concerned candidates. 26. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. The findings and conclusions recorded in the impugned judgment and order are based on cogent and weighty reasons. We do not find any infirmity warranting interference therewith. We hold that the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants cannot be upheld. The appeal, is thus, without any merit and is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs