JUDGMENT B. Lamare, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, Mr. Imti Longchar and Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and also heard Mr. L.S. Jamir for the State Respondents as well as Mr. Kakheto for the private Respondents 6 to 15. 2. These petitions are taken together as it relates to the same question of law and facts. The Petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers on different dates on ad hoc basis under the Deputy Inspector of Schools (DIS), Kiphire. The services of the Petitioners were extended from time to time. The last extension of the service of the Petitioners were made by order dated 2.3.01 whereby it was provided that the extension of their services will be till the interview result is declared. 3. The DIS, Kiphire Respondent No. 5 issued a notification dated 10.4.01 calling for applications for regularization of ad hoc appointees fresh candidates to the post of Under Graduate Primary Teachers. On the basis of the said notification the Petitioners along with other fresh candidates applied for the post of Primary Teachers. The interview was conducted on 27.4.2000 and 2.5.2000 and on the basis of the written and oral interview, the Board has recommended the names of 31 ad hoc Primary Teachers for regularization. The Board also has recommended 10 fresh candidates in the waiting list. This recommendation was forwarded to the Respondent No. 3, the Director of School Education by the Respondent No. 5 the DIS, Kiphire. The Respondent No. 3 on receipt of the minutes of the recommendation has forwarded the same to the Government for approval. However, while forwarding the list for approval the Respondent No. 3 has made a remark that the fresh candidates for Primary Teachers have shown better performance than the ad hoc appointees. However, the Board has recommended the ad hoc appointees for regularization and kept the 10 fresh candidates in the waiting list. He also made a remark that the Government may give decision to process the recommendation of the Board to select the candidates in order of merit. On the basis of the said remark made by the Respondent No. 3 the Government approved the list of Primary Teachers under the DIS. Kiphire by arranging the candidates in order of merit as a result of which the present Petitioners were not approved for regularization. The Petitioners therefore have approached this Court by this writ petition. On the basis of the said remark made by the Respondent No. 3 the Government approved the list of Primary Teachers under the DIS. Kiphire by arranging the candidates in order of merit as a result of which the present Petitioners were not approved for regularization. The Petitioners therefore have approached this Court by this writ petition. 4. The case of the Petitioners is that according to notification inviting application for recruitment and regularization the ad hoc appointees have better preference than the fresh candidates. They were already in service for many years and that their names were also recommended by the Selection Board for regularization. The State Government have no authority to revise the recommendation made by the Selection Board. The action of the State Respondents in changing the list as approved by the Board is totally arbitrary and against all norms of selection. The case of the Petitioners is also that in case of candidates falling within the establishment of DIS, Zunheboto the Government has approved the list as recommended by the Board and therefore the changing of list and re-arrangement of the names of the candidates in the approval order was made arbitrarily by the State Respondents. The Petitioners also contended that in the case Zunheboto all the 74 ad hoc appointees were regularized. Therefore, the Petitioners also should be regularized along with the other ad hoc appointees as per the recommendation of the Board. 5. The Respondents contested the claim of the Petitioners and filed affidavit in opposition stating that the recommendation of the Board was not made on the basis of merits. The District Selection Board had forwarded and recommended the names of the Petitioners in order of Roll No. and not in order of merit. The Fresh candidates have shown better performance and secured higher marks than the Petitioners and therefore the approval has to be given in order of merit. The notification inviting for application is meant for recruitment both from amongst the ad hoc appointees and fresh candidates. The assessment of their performance has to be made on merit both from amongst the ad hoc appointees and fresh candidates and therefore the Board was wrong in forwarding only the names of the ad hoc appointees for regularization without considering the fact that the fresh candidates have secured higher marks than the Petitioners. The assessment of their performance has to be made on merit both from amongst the ad hoc appointees and fresh candidates and therefore the Board was wrong in forwarding only the names of the ad hoc appointees for regularization without considering the fact that the fresh candidates have secured higher marks than the Petitioners. The Respondents also contended that the said Selection Board for Zunheboto was made in order of merit. Therefore the approval was also given without re-arranging the names of the candidates recommended by the Selection Board. In the instant case of Kiphire District the names had to be re-arranged by the Government in order of merit so as to accommodate the meritorious candidates who secured higher marks than the Petitioners. Therefore, there was no illegality in the action of the Respondents in issuing the approval order by re-arranging the names of the ad hoc appointees and the fresh candidates in order of merit. 6. Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Selection Board is a statutory authority constituted by the Government. After the Selection was made by the District Selection Board the State Government has no authority to change the recommendation made by the Selection Board. Learned Counsel also contended that since their appointment the Petitioners were allowed to continue in service and their services were extended from time to time and the last extension was made till the result of the interview was declared. The result was duly declared whereby the Selection Board has recommended the names of the Petitioners along with other ad hoc appointee and therefore the decision of the District Selection Board has become final and the Government is bound to approve the same. Learned Counsel also submitted that the Director of School Education has no authority to make remark and recommend to the Government while forwarding the recommended list for approval. The learned Counsel also draws attention to the case of Zunheboto whereby the recommendation of the District Selection Board was fully approved by the State Government without any changes. The action of the State Respondents in the case of Kiphire District is therefore totally arbitrary and malafide with a view to deprive the Petitioners of their regularization as per recommendation of the District Selection Board. 7. Mr. Imti Longchar and Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned Counsel for the Petitioners fully endorsed the submission made by Mr. The action of the State Respondents in the case of Kiphire District is therefore totally arbitrary and malafide with a view to deprive the Petitioners of their regularization as per recommendation of the District Selection Board. 7. Mr. Imti Longchar and Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned Counsel for the Petitioners fully endorsed the submission made by Mr. A. Zhimomi and submitted that selection was duly conducted by the District Selection Board and the names of the Petitioner along with ad hoc appointees were recommended for regularization. The same was also submitted by the Director of School Education to the Government for its approval. However, the Government has arbitrarily re-arranged the names by leaving aside the Petitioners and did not approve the names of the Petitioners for regularisation. The learned Counsel also contended that the Petitioners have qualified in the Selection test and their names were duly recommended therefore the Petitioners have every right to be regularized. 8. Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Counsel for the State Respondents submitted that the Selection Board has committed a mistake in recommending only the names of the ad hoc appointees for regularization by leaving aside the fresh candidates who were kept in waiting list. The fresh candidates have secured higher marks than the Petitioners but their names were not shown in the list for recommendation and instead the Board has recommended the Petitioners along with other ad hoc appointees. Learned Counsel also contended that the purpose of making selection both from amongst the ad hoc appointees and the fresh candidates is to secure better performance of the candidates who appeared in the selection. Therefore, the private Respondents having secured better marks ought to have been recommended by the Selection Board by issuing the list in order of merits. The recommendation of the Selection Board only of the ad hoc appointees is not in consonance with the selection process intended to be made by the Selection Board. It is for this reason that the Director of School Education while forwarding the list to the Government has made a remark that the fresh candidates have shown better performance but they were not selected and were kept in the waiting list. Therefore, the State Government while giving approval has re-arranged the list in order of merit and there is nothing wrong with the action of the Government. 9. Mr. Therefore, the State Government while giving approval has re-arranged the list in order of merit and there is nothing wrong with the action of the Government. 9. Mr. Kakheto, learned Counsel for the private Respondents also supporting the contention made by Mr. L.S. Jamir has submitted that the Respondents 6, 14 and 15 as fresh candidates appeared along with the other ad hoc appointees both in written and viva voce along with other fresh candidates for 31 posts of Primary Teacher under the establishment of DIS, Kiphire. On the basis of their performance the Respondents 6, 14 and 15 along with other candidates have shown better performance and secured higher marks in order of merit. The said Respondents ought to have been included in the merit list and should be placed in the first, 13th and 14th positions amongst the 31 list of successful candidates. The Selection Board have committed an error by recommending only the names of the ad hoc appointees and leaving out the fresh candidates and kept them in the waiting list. Therefore, according to the counsel the very purpose of Selection in order of merit has been defeated by the recommendation of the Selection Board. 10. Perusal of the records shows that the notification dated 10.4.2000 is for recruitment and regularization of ad hoc appointees and also for selection of fresh candidates. On the basis of this notification both the ad hoc appointees and fresh candidates submitted their application and faced their written test on 27.4.2000 and the oral interview on 2.5.2000. After completion of the selection process, the DIS, Kiphire submitted the list to the Director of School Education who forwarded the same to the Government for approval. From the list recommended by the Selection Board all 31 ad hoc appointees were recommended for regularization and 10 fresh candidates were shown in the waiting list. The Director of School Education forwarded the list to the Government by his letter dated 5.7.2000 with remark "Fresh candidates for Primary Teachers have shown better performance than the ad hoc appointees. However, the Board recommended only the ad hoc appointees for regular appointment and kept 10 fresh candidates in the waiting list. The Director of School Education forwarded the list to the Government by his letter dated 5.7.2000 with remark "Fresh candidates for Primary Teachers have shown better performance than the ad hoc appointees. However, the Board recommended only the ad hoc appointees for regular appointment and kept 10 fresh candidates in the waiting list. Government may give decision whether the approved recommendation of the Board was to select the candidates in order of merit." After the above remark was made by the Director of School Education the Government examined the matter and issued approval order dated 18.12.2000 showing the candidates in order of merits for the 31 posts of Primary Teacher. As a result of this approval order the Petitioners having secured lesser marks could not come within the list of 31 Primary Teachers required by the advertisement against the vacancies. 11. I have perused the marks as per the recommendation of the Selection Board and found that the marks secured by the private Respondents are higher than the present Petitioners. Therefore, re-arranging of the list as per the approval order was done in order of merit. The file in this regard was also produced by the learned Government Advocate and from the note in the file it is seen that the matter was examined by the Government and the approval was issued after the Government was satisfied with the fresh candidates have secured higher marks than the Petitioners. Therefore, 10 ad hoc appointees were dropped by the Government after rearranging the list in order of merit. 12. The purpose of making selection both from amongst the ad hoc appointees and the fresh candidates as per the notification is to select the best candidates according to their performance. It is incumbent on the Selection Board to conduct the selection and recommend the candidates in order of merit irrespective of the fact that they were ad hoc appointees or fresh candidates. Only on assessing the performance of the candidates on merit the Board is bound to make the recommendation in order of merit. The very purpose of selection shall be defeated if this process is not followed by the Selection Board. 13. Only on assessing the performance of the candidates on merit the Board is bound to make the recommendation in order of merit. The very purpose of selection shall be defeated if this process is not followed by the Selection Board. 13. In the instant case, the Board has recommended all the 31 ad hoc appointees inspite of the fact that the fresh candidates have shown better performance as can be seen from the marks secured by the candidates in the list recommended by the Board. The Petitioners secured much lower marks than the fresh candidates i.e. private Respondents. Therefore, the Petitioners should not have been recommended for regularization by the Board. The Board ought to act fairly and squarely according to merits of the candidates and thereafter submitted its recommendation for regularization but in the instant case the Board has failed to perform its duty by recommending the candidates not according to merits which has defeated the very purpose for which the selection is to be made. The private Respondents having exerted themselves and shown better performance than the Petitioners have every right to be included in the merit list which was not done by the Board in the instant case. The rearranging of the list as per the approval order was in accordance with the marks secured by the candidates both ad hoc appointees and fresh candidates which is in order of merit. There is nothing wrong in the action of the Government in issuing the approval order in order of merits. 14. With regard to the contention of the Petitioners that in the case of Zunheboto the Government has approved the list as per the recommendation of the Board it is noted that by letter dated 20.7.2000 the Additional Director of Education while submitting the list of candidates has made a remark that out of 74 posts of Primary Teacher the Board has recommended 60 in order of merit and 14 fresh candidates were also recommended in order of merit. This shows that the recommendation of the Board was made in order of merit. The list were also sent separately to the Government for approval. This shows that the recommendation of the Board was made in order of merit. The list were also sent separately to the Government for approval. For Zunheboto there were 74 vacancies and the Selection Board has arranged the names of the candidates in order of merit as can be seen from the letter dated 20.7.2000 of the Additional Director of School Education to the Principal Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland, School Education Department. The Government also on receipt of the list in order of merit has issued the approval order dated 18.12.2000 in order of merit. Therefore, the contention of the Petitioners that they were discriminated by re-arranging the list according to merits holds no water. So also the contention of the Petitioners that in the case of DIS, Zunheboto all the ad hoc appointees were regularized is not correct as out of 74 ad hoc Primary Teachers the Selection Board has recommended only 60 in order of merit and in place of 14 ad hoc appointees who could not qualify, 14 fresh candidates were recommended in order of merit. The selection for Zunheboto is not applicable to the case of Petitioners. Therefore, the Petitioners cannot claim for regularization when having failed to qualify in their selection as there were only 31 posts of Primary Teacher under the DIS, Kiphire. 15. For the aforesaid reasons I find no merit in these writ petitions and the petitions are accordingly dismissed. The interim orders passed by this Court stands vacated. Petition dismissed