P. K. Musahary, J.- Heard Mr. Kekriengulle, learned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Ms. Y. longkumar learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate and Mr. C. T. Jamir, learned Se­nior Advocate assisted by Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 7. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Sr. Lec­turer on contract basis for a period of 1 (one) year vide an order dated 30.03.1993 which was extended from time to time till her con­tract service was regularised by an order dated 15.06.2005 pursuant to Memoranda dated 18.02.2004 and 12.05.2004. But regularization was made effective from 16.01.2004. By an order dated 16.11.2006, the Government decided to grant past con­tract service benefits to those employees regularised in accordance with the aforesaid Memoranda dated 18.02.2004 and 12.05.2004 in the ratio of 3:1. The said ben­efit as denied to the petitioner. The petitioner alleged that contract ser­vices of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as Lectur­ers was regularized by an order dated 28.03.2001. The respondent Nos. 3, 6and 7, who were on deputation, were absorbed by an order dated 28.03.2001, with retro­spective effect from 15.01.2001. By an or­der dated 20.09.2002, the respondent No. 3, was given officiating promotion to the post of Sr. Lecturer with retrospective effect from 20.01.2001. By another order dated 02.09.2002, the respondent No.2, who was appointed on deputation to the post of Sr. Lecturer, was absorbed with retrospective effect from 08.04.97. The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 were also given officiating promo­tions to the post of Senior Lecturer with ret­rospective effect from 20.01.2001. By and order dated 20.11.2003 similarly, the respon­dent Nos. 4 and 5 were given officiating pro­motion by an order dated 20.11.2003 with retrospective effect 14.11.2003. However, the promotion of private respondents to the post of Lecturer was made subject to regularization by the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') and till date, except respondent No. 3, officiating promo­tion of other respondents, is yet to be regu­larized. The officiating promotion of respon­dent No.3 to the post of Sr. Lecturer stood regularized with retrospective effect from 20.01.2001 issued under notification dated 10.03.2005. 3. A tenative Seniority list o f the officers of SCERT/D1ET was published on 01.08.2006, in which the petitioner was placed below the respondents in the grade of Sr. Lecturer, despite the fact that the pri­vate respondents are still on officiating pro­motion. 4. Lecturer stood regularized with retrospective effect from 20.01.2001 issued under notification dated 10.03.2005. 3. A tenative Seniority list o f the officers of SCERT/D1ET was published on 01.08.2006, in which the petitioner was placed below the respondents in the grade of Sr. Lecturer, despite the fact that the pri­vate respondents are still on officiating pro­motion. 4. Against the aforesaid tentative Senior­ity list, the petitioner submitted representa­tion but without considering the grievances of the petitioner, the final select list was prepared by an O.M. dated 17.31.06 placing the peti­tioner below private respondents, thereby the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 were again given further officiating promotion to the post of Principal, DIET, without considering the petitioner's case, through she is Senior to the said respondent Nos. 3 and 6 in rank as Sr. Lecturer. In the aforesaid background of the case, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing and setting aside the following orders :- (a) Order dated 20.09.2002 granting initiating promotion to the private respon­dents to the post of Sr. Lecturers with ret­rospective effect from 20.01.2001; (b) Order dated 10.03.2005 regular­izing the services of Respondent No. 3 with retrospective effect from 20.01,2001; (c) Order dated 20.11.03 giving ret­rospective officiating promotion to the post of Sr. Lecturer w.e.f. 20.01.2001 in re­spect of respeondent Nos. 6 and 7; (d) Officiating promotion order dated 22.01.07 in respect of respondent Nos. 3 and 6 to the post of Principal, DIET; (e) Final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 as on 01.07.2006 and re-adjustment in the final seniority list and for consideration of petitioner's promotion to the post of Prin­cipal, DIET and; (f) the benefits of past contract service pursuant to the order dated 16.11.2006. 5. As against the aforesaid grievance of the petitioner, the private respondents by fil­ing affidavit-in opposition, raised the follow­ing preliminary objections (A) The petitioner has no locus-standi to challenge the promotion of private re­spondents inasmuch she was appointed to the post of Sr. Lecturer on 30.03.93on contract basis for a period of 1 year which was extended from time to time and regu­larized consequent upon a Cabinet ap­proval on 16.05,05 and she was born as a regular employee in a department in the cadre of Sr. Lecturer on 30.03.93on contract basis for a period of 1 year which was extended from time to time and regu­larized consequent upon a Cabinet ap­proval on 16.05,05 and she was born as a regular employee in a department in the cadre of Sr. Lecturer only on 15.06.2005 whereas the services of the private respon­dents were regularized in the year 2002-2003; (B) The petitioner has made omnibus prayer in the writ petition and as such, the Court would be slow in moulding relief (s) inasmuch as, the prayer for quashing the final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 and re-adjustment of the final seniority list by granting the petitioner benefits of past con­tract service by applying the ratio 3:1 un­der Notification dated 16.11.2006 is un­der challenge in WP (C) No. 289(K) and the same is pending disposal and as the said notification has been revoked by sub­sequent notification dated 07.03.2008, no claim for benefits can be made by the pe­titioner and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (C) The writ petition is liable to be dis­missed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties inasmuch as, if the im­pugned order dated 10.03.05 (Annexure H/1A) by which as many as 17 officers in different posts were regularized including the respondent No.3, set aside and quashed, it would cause prejudice to them affecting their interest. 6. The other stands taken by the private respondents are:- (i) At the time of initial appointment as Sr. Lecturer on contract basis, the peti­tioner did not possess B. Ed degree and 5 years teaching experience, which are the mandatory requirement for the post of Sr.Lecturer. She obtained B. Ed. degree only when she was serving as Sr. Lecturer in DIET. The initial appointment of peti­tioner as Sr. Lecturer was, therefore, in violation of Rules and it was through backdoor method; (ii) The cut off date of counting of years of service for consideration of regulariza-lion was fixed on 26.02.2001 but subse­quently it was modified and fixed on 16.01.2004. The cut off dates namely, 26.02.2001 and 16.01.2004 had been fixed for counting the years of services of contract/ad hoc employees under 3:1 scheme and therefore, it is not correct for the petitioner to claim that she was born in the cadre from January, 2004. The cut off dates namely, 26.02.2001 and 16.01.2004 had been fixed for counting the years of services of contract/ad hoc employees under 3:1 scheme and therefore, it is not correct for the petitioner to claim that she was born in the cadre from January, 2004. The notification dated 16.11.2006 granting service benefits in the ratio of 3: I has been revoked by the Government by subsequent notification dated 07.03.08 and as such, the representation dated 15.12.06 submitted by the petitioner claim­ing benefits under the scheme and raising her objections to the tentative seniority list published on 17.11.06 is irrelevant and redundant. As per notification dated 07.03.08, the seniority of the petitioner should be counted from the date of regularization i.e. from 15.06.05. Moreover, the writ petition being WP(C) 289 (K)/07 challenging the scheme of granting 3:1 ratio vide notification dated 16.11.06 is still pending; (iii) The initial appointments of private respondents were made through selection process conducted by the Selection Com­mittee constituted by the Government for selection/appointment on contract basis and their services were subsequently regu­larized and absorbed on the recommen­dation of the Selection committee we.f 15.01.01. After being regularized as Lec­turers, the private respondents were ap­pointed as Sr. Lecturers on 20.09.02 w.e.f. 15.01.2001 and as such they have become cadre officers w.e.f. 15.01.01. After being regularized as Lecturers, the private respondents were appointed as Sr. Lecturers on 20.09.02 w.e.f 15.01.01. The respondent No. 3 was regularized on 14.11.03 and the respondent Nos. 4,5,6 and 7 on 20.01.01, whereas the petitioner was regularized w.e.f. 16.01.04. It means that the private respondents became cadre officers in the post of Sr. Lecturers much before the petitioner was encadred as Sr. Lecturer. (iv) The officiating promotion of private respondents to the post of Sr, Lecturers except in case of respondent No. 3, was regularized vide notification dated 08.11 .07 on the basis of recommendation of the D.P.C. held on 04.10.07. The pro­motion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Sr. Lecturer was regularized by a com­mon notification dated 01.03.05 w.e.f 20.01.01 on the basis of the recommen­dation of the D.P.C. held on 17.01.05; (v) In respect of regularization of petitioner's service in the post of Sr. The pro­motion of respondent No. 3 to the post of Sr. Lecturer was regularized by a com­mon notification dated 01.03.05 w.e.f 20.01.01 on the basis of the recommen­dation of the D.P.C. held on 17.01.05; (v) In respect of regularization of petitioner's service in the post of Sr. Lec­turer, it was made effiective from 06.01.04 by notification dated 15.06.05 allegedly on the basis of Cabinet approval dated 16.05.05 but the said Cabinet approved her regularization on 16.05.05 only and there was no recommendation by the D.P.C. Her such regularization was done on the basis of 3:1 scheme recommended by the Personnel & Administrative Re­forms Department (for short, 'P&AR'). It was not accepted/approved by the State Cabinet. Therefore, by no stretch of imagi­nation, the petitioner cannot be treated as senior to the private respondents I the posts of Sr. Lecturer. 7. The said respondents laid their stand on the Government stand by filing an affifavit-in-opposition contending that:- (i) The qualifications required for initial entry in the posts of Lecturer is Master Degree with B.Ed degree which is man­datory for the teaching profession but the petitioner was holding only Master degree and her initial appointment was not made through any selection process unlike the case of the private respondents. She was allowed to acquire B. Ed degree only af­ter entry to the service on contract basis to make her eligible for appointment to the posts of Lecturers; (ii) The petitioner's contract service was regularized w.e.f. 16.01.04 as an one time arrangement in terms of P & A R's Memo­randum dated 12.05.04 subject to con­dition that the services rendered on con­tract basis prior to 16.01.04 would be counted for all other purposes such as pension, gratuity etc. other than seniority. As per norms and procedures with date of such regularization ought to have been from the date of Cabinet decision i.e. from 16.05.05. Normally in such cases, the se­niority should be counted from the date of absorption on the regular basis but in case of petitioner, it was not followed and her regularization was made effective from 16.01.04 which is the cut off date for completion of 10 years service specified by P&AR Department. (iii) The final seniority list of Sr. Lec­turer was published on 17.11.96 but till date the Respondent Department is not aware of the notification dated 16.11.06 purportedly issued by the P&AR Depart­ment providing 3:1 service benefit scheme. (iii) The final seniority list of Sr. Lec­turer was published on 17.11.96 but till date the Respondent Department is not aware of the notification dated 16.11.06 purportedly issued by the P&AR Depart­ment providing 3:1 service benefit scheme. The said notification was received in the Education Department only after issuance of the final Seniority list. 8. The petitioner was born in the regular cadre of Sr. Lecturer only on 16.01.04 and her past services cannot be counted towards her seniority. The petitioner was a contract employee before her encadrement and as such, she cannot be permitted to the higher post until she is regularized. The petitioner might have completed 14 years continuous service on contract basis by the time she filed the writ petition. As per Service Rules, the minimum length of service required for fur­ther promotion to the post of Principal is 5 years as Sr. Lecturer on regular basis and the petitioner would have become eligible for pro-motion to the post of Prinicpal only on 16.01.2009. There is no basis for the peti­tioner to claim further promotion to the post of Principal. 9. At the time of hearing, the learned coun­sel for the petitioner submits that a series of writ petitions namely, WP (C) 24 (K)/08, WP (C) 91(K)/08 and WP (C) 70(K)/08, have been disposed of by a common judgment dated 28.05.09 quashing and setting aside the aforesaid notification dated 16.11.06 giving the past service benefits in the ratio of 3:1 and in view if the said judgment, the afore­said claim of the petitioner in so far as it re­lates to claim of benefits in the ratio of 3:1 under notification dated 16.11.06, except the other prayers, has become infructuous. In this regard, he has filed an affidavit on 08.06.2009. The aforesaid affidavit is found on record. It has been stated at the bar that so far no ap­peal has been preferred against the said judg­ment and order and it has attained its finality. 10. I have heard through the aforesaid judgment and order. The aforesaid dispute mainly between the direct recruitees and the promotees for regularization of their services and also for promotion to next higher posts. The petitioners in the said cases were ap­pointed through regular selection process on recommendation of the State Public Service Commission and in treins of provisions of the relevant Service Rules, their services were confirmed. The aforesaid dispute mainly between the direct recruitees and the promotees for regularization of their services and also for promotion to next higher posts. The petitioners in the said cases were ap­pointed through regular selection process on recommendation of the State Public Service Commission and in treins of provisions of the relevant Service Rules, their services were confirmed. As per the Services Rules, the seniority should be counted in order of merit from the date of their joining in service and thus they have acquired legitimate and vested right to count their seniority from the date of their appointment/oining. On the other hand, the private respondents on those cases, did not fulfill the criteria but their services had been regularized with conditions that their contract appointments would be counted for incre­ments, leave, pension etc. except seniority. However, the State Government took deci­sion to give them benefit of 3:1 ratio under the said notification dated 16.11.05. In this respect, the case of the present petitioner is quite similar to the case of private respon­dents in those writ petitions. In those writ petitions, several issues were framed for con­sideration; one of the issues being whether inter se seniority between the petitioner and the regularized contract employees is to be determined on the basis of date of joining as per Rules 14 of the Nagaland Economics and Statistics Service Rules, 1973 or not and what should be the seniority position between the disputing parties. Referring of various deci­sions of Apex Court as well as this Court it has been held that the petitioners having been appointed by following the procedures pre­scribed by the relevant Service Rules, 1973, the seniority position obtained by the petition­ers on the strength of their regular appoint­ments cannot be superseded/disturbed by way of providing benefit under the impugned notification dated 16.11.06 by which the pri­vate respondents who have been regularized in the cadre are sought to be given retrospec­tive seniority. 11. For coming to a conclusion, this Court is required to examine the nature of appoint­ments and the terms and conditions laid in the appointment letters and the manner in which the regularization has been made. First of all, let me refer to the intial appointments order dated 30.03.93 in respect of the petitioner. It is reproduced below:- "GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NO. First of all, let me refer to the intial appointments order dated 30.03.93 in respect of the petitioner. It is reproduced below:- "GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION NO. EDS (SCERT)-10/90 Dated Kohima, the 30th March/93 ORDER In the interest of public service the Gover­nor of Nagaland is pleaded to appoint Miss Keruupfeu Sorhie as Senior Lecturer in the pay scale of Rs. 1175-50/1775-EB-50-1975-55-2305/-p.m. plus all other allowances as are admissible under the rules in Nagaland from time to time w.e.f. the date of her on duty against the post vacancy caused by Shri T. Sekhose on rever­sion to SCERT. This appointment is for a period of one year or till such time regular appoint­ment is made though Nagaland Public Service Commission whichever is earlier. This appoint­ment is also on contract basis without contract allowance and can be terminated with one month's notice from either side. Sd/- C.K. Sangtam Secretary to the Government of Nagaland." 12. The important condition attached to the said appointment order is that the petitioner's appointment shall continue till regular appointment is made through Public Service Commission. The contract appoint­ment of the petitioner as Sr. Lecturer was extended from time to time till regularization order was issued on 15.06.05 with effect from 16.01.04. Such regularization of petitioner's service was not made through State Public Service Commission. Her regularization was not even made on recommendation of the DPC as mentioned in the aforesaid order dated 15.06.05 but it was done merely on the approval of the Cabinet. It may also be noted that the intitial appointment on con­tract basis in respect of the petitioner was not done on the basis of any regular selection process cither by State Public Service Com­mission or any Selection Committee constituted by the Government. As against such irregular initial appointment of the petitioner, the private respondents were absorbed/regularized as Sr. Lecturers with the approval of the State Cabinet vide order dated 28.03.2001 giving effect from 15,01.2001. The officiating promotion of respondent No. 3 as Sr. Lecturers was regularized as per recommendation of the DPC held on 17.01.05. The Minutes of the DPC Meeting in regard to such recommendation of the DPC in favour of the respondent No. 3 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents. 13. Similarly the officiating promotion of private respondents No. 4 and 5 as Sr. The Minutes of the DPC Meeting in regard to such recommendation of the DPC in favour of the respondent No. 3 has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents. 13. Similarly the officiating promotion of private respondents No. 4 and 5 as Sr. Lec­turers were also regularized by an order dated 20.11.03 giving effect from 14.11.03 as rec­ommended by the DPC held on 28.09.07. The officiating promotion of respondents No. 6 and 7 as Sr. Lecturers was also regularized by an order dated 20.11.03 giving effect from 20.01.01 as recommended by the DPC held on 28.09.07. The copy of the minutes of the DPC meeting held on 28.09.07 has been an­nexed as Annexure-8 to the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents. 14. The aforesaid minutes of the D.P.C. meeting held on 17.01.05 and 28.09.2007 on the basis of which the impugned orders were passed regularizing the services of the private respondents 3 to 7 as Sr. Lecturers have not been challenged by the petitioner in this writ proceeding. The petitioner has chal­lenged the orders which have been issued by the respondent-authorities consequent upon the recommendation of the DPC. If the rec­ommendation of the DPC remains undisturbed as not being quashed, no order can be passed by the Court setting aside or quashing the consequential order of regular-ization of the private respondents. So also the further order of promotion to the post of Prinicipal vide impugned order dated 22.01.07 issued in favour of respondent Nos. 3 and 6. Judicially settled position is that ir­regular appointees cannot claim seniority over regular appointees though appointed earlier and absorbed in cadre and such irregular ap­pointees should be treated as junior to regu­lar appointees in the cadre. Reference in this regard can be made to a decision rendered by the Apex Court in the State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Sukanti Mahapatra, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 486 which has been followed by this Court in Nitoli & Ors. Vs. State of Nagaland& Ors. reported in 2008 (I) GLT 769. In the present case, no doubt, the peti­tioner was appointed directly as Sr. Vs. Sukanti Mahapatra, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 486 which has been followed by this Court in Nitoli & Ors. Vs. State of Nagaland& Ors. reported in 2008 (I) GLT 769. In the present case, no doubt, the peti­tioner was appointed directly as Sr. Lecturer on contract basis on 20.03.93 but her ser­vice as stated in the writ petition was regular­ized w.e.f. 16.01.04 as approved by the State Cabinet decision on 16.05.05 On the other hand, respondents No.3 to 7, who were ini­tially appointed/absorbed as Lecturers, were promoted to the post of Sr. Lecturers and their services were regularized as Sr. Lectur­ers w.e.f. 15.01.01. In respect of respondent Nos. 3,4,5,6 and 7, they were regularized on 14.11.03. It means that the private respon­dents were in the cadre of Sr. Lecturers prior to petitioner who entered in the cadre of Sr. Lecturer much after on 16.01.04. This fac­tual aspect is found to be undisputed inas­much as the petitioner in her averments made in the writ petition as well as in her joiner to the counter affidavit of the respondents, has not rebutted. The petitioner has been claim­ing seniority over the private respondents under the 3:1 scheme granted by the State vide notification dated 16.11.2006. The benefits of past serviced under the ratio of 3:1 as stated earlier, has already been quashed and set aside by this Court vide judgment and or­der dated 28.05.09 as stated earlier and the petitioner admitting this position filed by an affidavit on 08.06.09 stating that her claim in so far it related to benefits under notification dated 16.11.06, has become infructuous ex­cept the other prayers. This Court is no longer burdened with the task of discussion on it but it must be said that by forgoing the scheme under aforesaid notification dated 16.11.06, the petitioner has weakened her claim for se­niority position over the private respondents and her claim for further promotion to the post of Principal before such promotion is given to the private respondents. Considered thus, no challenge can be made by the petitioner to the impugned order dated 22.01.2007 whereby the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have been promoted to the post of Principal. 15. In this case, the actual issue relates to encadrement and regularization in the post of Sr. Lecturer. Considered thus, no challenge can be made by the petitioner to the impugned order dated 22.01.2007 whereby the respondent Nos. 3 to 6 have been promoted to the post of Principal. 15. In this case, the actual issue relates to encadrement and regularization in the post of Sr. Lecturer. It has been discussed and found that the service of the private respondents 3 to 7 were regularized before the service of the petitioner was regularized and they have been encarded earlier to the petitioner in the post of Sr. Lecturers. It may be proper to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the State of U.P. Vs. Roffiquddin reported in AIR 1988 SC162 wherein it has been held that the employees must belong to the same stream before he can claim seniority vis-a-vis others. It was further held that those ap­pointed irregularity who belong to a different stream cannot claim seniority vis-a-vis those, who may have been regularly and properly appointed. In the present case, the petitioner on her own statements and pleadings, admit­ted that she does not belong to the same stream to which the private respondents be­long in the stream of 2002-2003 as Sr. Lec­turers. The petitioner in fact, belongs to the stream of 2005. Thus, the petitioner and the private respondents cannot be regarded as Sr. Lecturers of same stream. The petitioner having been encadred subsequent to the pri­vate respondents, cannot claim seniority. Moreover, the regularization of the petitioner as Sr. Lecturer was done as per the approval of the Cabinet which is dehors the accepted rules and procedures as her case was never placed before the DPC and recommended by the DPC, whereas the regularization of the services of the private respondents as Sr, Lecturers were done as per recommen­dation of the DPC constituted by the Gov­ernment and there was no irregularity in such regularization. The respondent-authorities, therefore, committed no irregularities or mistake in preparing and publishing the im­pugned seniority list showing the inter-se se­niority position of the petitioner and private respondents placing the petitioner as junior to the private respondents in the cadre of Sr. Lecturers. 16. The respondent-authorities, therefore, committed no irregularities or mistake in preparing and publishing the im­pugned seniority list showing the inter-se se­niority position of the petitioner and private respondents placing the petitioner as junior to the private respondents in the cadre of Sr. Lecturers. 16. The obvious conclusion that could be drawn from the aforesaid discussions is that the petitioner has become unsuccessful in making out case for setting aside or quashing the impugned seniority list and the impugned orders of regularization and promotions by interfering with the impugned action of the respondent-authorities. 17. The writ petition naturally stands dis­missed. No order as to costs.