1. By this application under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioners, two in number, have prayed for quashing of the appointment orders dated 30.6.2011 issued in favour of the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 (Annexure HI to Annexure H10) and for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion under 25% reserved quota for departmental promotion as provided under the Service Rules. 2. The case, as set out in the writ petition is that, the service conditions of the petitioners, who are Upper Division Assistants ('UDA'), in the Department of Industries and Commerce, is governed by the Nagaland Industries Service Rules, 1986 ('the Rules'). The post of UDA comes under the ministerial staff and 75% of the posts of Inspector/Extension Officer is to be filled up by direct recruitment and 25% by departmental promotion by selection from amongst the senior most confirmed staff of the lower grade having knowledge in the line with 8 years experience (minimum) in any trade. It is also stated that 25% of posts meant for promotional quota is to be filled up from the eligible ministerial staff amongst the UDAs and Lower Division Assistants OLD As'), as and when 25% promotional vacancy arises. Preference is given to the senior most eligible UDAs and if the UDAs refuse such promotion, preference used to be given to the LDAs. It was a normal practice all along to promote LDAs and UDAs, subject to their having requisite qualifications, to the post of Inspector. 3. After the implementation of the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (2nd Amendment) Act, 2009 ('the Act of 2009'), vacancies in the rank of Inspector arose and by letter dated 28.2.2011, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, intimated the Director of Industries and Commerce for reservation of 25% vacancies of the post of Inspector, numbering two posts for in-service senior most Directorate UDAs. It is also stated in the petition that there are seniors to the petitioners in the rank of UDAs, but the petitioners are entitled to be considered in respect of the aforesaid two posts as their seniors having the requisite qualification had refused promotion to the post of Inspector earlier. It is also stated in the petition that there are seniors to the petitioners in the rank of UDAs, but the petitioners are entitled to be considered in respect of the aforesaid two posts as their seniors having the requisite qualification had refused promotion to the post of Inspector earlier. While they were expecting that their cases for promotion in the 25% promotional quota would be considered, the respondent No. 2 issued appointment orders dated 30.6.2011 to the private respondent Nos. 3 to 12 in the post of Inspector of Industries on contract basis for a period of 1 year or till the posts are filled up by Nagaland Public Service Commissioner ('NPSC'X Such appointment orders have been issued without calling for any advertisement and also encroaching upon 25% promotional quota. 4. The State respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition raising also the question of maintainability of the writ petition. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed, it has been pleaded that the post of UDA and LDA are not the feeder posts for the post of Inspector under the provisions of the Rules. The LDAs and UDAs belong to the ministerial staff and form a separate cadre after the coming into force of the Nagaland Directorate Ministerial Service Rules, 2006 ('the Rules of 2006'). The ministerial staff is governed by the said Rules of 2006 and the promotional avenues of UDAs and LDAs are specified there under and as such, the present petitioners have no locus standi to question appointments made in respect of respondent Nos. 3 to 12. Not only that, it has also been stated that even otherwise, according to the own admission of the writ petitioners, there are seniors to them in the cadre and as such, at any rate, the petitioners are not eligible to be considered for such promotion in the promotional quota. 5. After the implementation of the Act of 2009, the Directorate had received 84 applications praying for appointment in the said vacant posts of Inspector. A notice was issued on 13.6.2011 to conduct suitability test to make appointments on contract basis for a limited period of 1 year or till the posts are filled up on regular basis through NPSC, and to conduct the test, Screening Committee had been constituted on 8.6.2011. A notice was issued on 13.6.2011 to conduct suitability test to make appointments on contract basis for a limited period of 1 year or till the posts are filled up on regular basis through NPSC, and to conduct the test, Screening Committee had been constituted on 8.6.2011. Altogether 38 candidates responded to the said notice and screening test/interview was held on 21.6.2011 and after preparation of a merit list of 15 persons, the same was sent for approval of the Government and the Government approved the candidates whose names appeared at serial Nos. 1 to 10 of the said merit list. In the said affidavit, the respondents stated that on earlier occasions, on erroneous interpretation of the Rules, promotions were offered and given to ministerial staff to the post of Inspector and the mistake committed in the past is sought to be rectified by adhering to the provisions of the Rules. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 to 12, wherein it is stated that claim of the petitioners for promotion to the 25% promotional quota is misconceived as they are not eligible to be considered for such promotion in view of the provisions of Rules. It is also stated that the previous practice of filling up of the posts of Inspector in respect of 25% promotional quota through the UDAs and LDAs was due to wrong interpretation of the Rules and the petitioners cannot compel the authorities to continue to commit the same illegality. It is also stated that they had appeared in the screening test and having regard to the performance in the screening test, they had been appointed by orders dated 30.6.2011 on contract basis. The respondent Nos. 3 to 12 also questioned the maintainability of the petition on the ground that writ petitioners belong to Directorate ministerial staff and are in no way connected with the appointment of the private respondents. 7. The writ petitioners had responded to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing an affidavit-in-reply enclosing letters dated 4.5.2011 as Annexures "X" and "f and stating that the private respondents had tempered the documents and records pertaining to the case. 7. The writ petitioners had responded to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by filing an affidavit-in-reply enclosing letters dated 4.5.2011 as Annexures "X" and "f and stating that the private respondents had tempered the documents and records pertaining to the case. In reiteration of the stand taken in the writ petition, it is stated that the respondents have ignored the past precedent only to cover up their illegal action in appointing the private respondents who had been appointed on contract basis, although the Rules do not visualise contract appointment. 8. An additional affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seeking to explain under what circumstances Annexures ‘X’ and ‘Y’ to the affidavit-in-reply of the writ petitioners came to issued. 9. I have heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. R. Iralu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 12. I have also heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents. I have also considered the pleadings of the parties and the materials on record. 10. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had been appointed as LDA on 21.12.2000 and subsequently they were promoted in the Directorate as UDA by an order dated 19.7.2010. It has been submitted by him that for last 25 years or so, promotion to the post of Inspector of Industries has been made from amongst the LDAs/UDAs who have a Graduate degree. In terms of the Rules, 25% of the post of Inspector of Industries has to be filled up by departmental promotion. Making a reference to the 'Lower grade' appearing in column 6 of Schedule II(b) of the Rules, he submits that Lower Grade in Nagaland Industries Subordinate Service Grade-I are the posts of Instructor/Designer/Demonstrator, for which qualification prescribed in some cases is as low as Matriculation. The qualification for the post of Inspector is Graduate and, therefore, it is inconceivable that the post of Inspector can be filled up from amongst the lower grade. 11. The qualification for the post of Inspector is Graduate and, therefore, it is inconceivable that the post of Inspector can be filled up from amongst the lower grade. 11. Drawing attention to the minutes of the meeting of Officers of the Directorate of Industries and Commerce held on 1.7.2004, he has submitted that a decision was taken to fill up 25% of the departmental quota from amongst the lower cadres and that offer letters would be given to all the Directorate LDAs and UDAs having minimum requisite academic qualifications. He has also pointed out that the meeting was attended, amongst others, by one K. Kire, who incidentally is the present Director. The Departmental Screening Committee meeting held on 13.5.2009 had considered the cases of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Inspector and though they were found to be eligible, they could not be promoted due to lack of vacancy and the senior most LDA was promoted to the post of Inspector. The said meeting also decided that 25% quota for promotees are also to be made available to the LDAs and UDAs working in the District establishments and the modalities of granting such promotion were also laid down in the said meeting. In the said meeting it was decided that the minimum qualification required for the post of Inspector is a Graduate with 8 years of experience. The Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC') meeting held on 20.6.2008 had also recommended the senior most LDAs for promotion to the post of Inspector. In such meeting, taking note of the fact that the quota earmarked for the promotees had been filled up by ad hoc appointees, it was directed that steps should be taken immediately to terminate such appointees. After the coming into force of the Act of 2009, 10 vacancies in the post of Inspector having fallen vacant, minimum 2 posts are required to be reserved for promotional quota and the aforesaid position is also recognised by the Government as is evident from the letter dated 28.2.2011, wherein 2 posts were directed to be filled up by in-service senior most Directorate UDAs. He has also brought to the notice of this court that in the said letter, number of vacancies were shown to be 9. 12. He has also brought to the notice of this court that in the said letter, number of vacancies were shown to be 9. 12. He has also submitted that the orders of appointment on contract basis were given to the private respondents by identical orders dated 30.6.2011, though appointment on contract basis is unknown to the scheme of the Rules. What is more important, no advertisement was also issued inviting applications for appointment on contract basis, he submits. According to him, the paper publication on 13.6.2011 merely asked the applicants who had submitted applications earlier to report for screening test and the same cannot be construed to meet the requirements of an advertisement. He has also drawn the attention of this court to the Annexures ‘X’ and ‘Y’ to the affidavit-in-reply to indicate that manipulations have been resorted to by the State respondents and that such manipulations are writ-large on the face of it. He submits that the respondents could not have taken recourse to filling up of the vacancies of Inspector in the manner as had been done in the instant case. He also submits that the petitioners have educational qualification and requisite length of service and the respondent authorities cannot ignore the service rendered by the petitioners as LDAs. The learned counsel also castigated the respondents for not furnishing information with regard to which of the 2 posts were reserved for the promotees, though asked for by this court. Mr. Jamir has placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the cases of (1) Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, 1978 SC 851 with particular reference to paragraphs 88 and 89, (2) Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi (3) and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 with particular reference to paragraph 6, and (3) Nagendra Chandra and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 798 with particular emphasis on paragraph 8. 13. Mr. R. Iralu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3 to 12 submits that when there is a set of Rules in place, appointments/promotions have to be made in consonance with the provisions of the Rules and not otherwise. He submits that assuming that there is a practice for some time of LDAs and UDAs in the department being promoted as Inspector, the same cannot be legitimized if such appointments and promotions are made de hors the Rules. He submits that assuming that there is a practice for some time of LDAs and UDAs in the department being promoted as Inspector, the same cannot be legitimized if such appointments and promotions are made de hors the Rules. Rules as it stand today would leave no room for doubt that UDAs and LDAs, do not, by any stretch of imagination, come within the ambit of lower grade. Therefore, according to Mr. Iralu, very foundation of the claim of the writ petitioners has no basis. He further submits that the ministerial staff such as LDAs and UDAs are not in the feeder cadre of Inspector and, therefore, they are not legally entitled to be considered for promotion. The provisions of the Rules of 2006 provide for channel of promotion to the UDAs and LDAs, and adequate opportunities have been provided to the UDAs and LDAs for their career progression and, therefore, the basis on which the petition has been filed is fallacious. The learned counsel further submits that the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 is for a limited period of 1 year or till such time the post are filled up through NPSC. Though advertisement in the strict sense of the term was not issued, yet a fairly large number of persons had submitted their applications and 38 of such applicants had also taken part in the screening test. In the aforesaid background, Mr. Iralu contends that it cannot be said that the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 are given appointments by the backdoor. 14. Mr. Iralu has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Anr. v. T.K. Suryanarayan and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 766 to contend that erroneous promotions granted in respect of some employees cannot be a ground to claim promotion contrary to the Service Rules. 15. Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel appearing for the State respondents has, in his submissions, endorsed the stand of the respondents in the affidavit filed. He is in candid enough to submit that earlier as contended by the writ petitioners, promotions were given to the post of Inspector from the posts of LDAs and UDAs. He further submits that the same was done on a wrong notion and understanding of the provision of the Service Rules. He is in candid enough to submit that earlier as contended by the writ petitioners, promotions were given to the post of Inspector from the posts of LDAs and UDAs. He further submits that the same was done on a wrong notion and understanding of the provision of the Service Rules. He submits that a careful reading of the Rules would indicate that LDAs and UDAs are not feeder posts for promotion to the post of Inspector. On consideration of the provisions of the Rules, it was noticed that the authorities were not correctly following the Rules for promotion to the post of Inspector and as such, the same is sought to be corrected and no exception can be taken to that. He also submits that according to the own admission of the writ petitioners, the UDAs and the Inspectors are of the same grade, and, therefore, in fact, the writ petitioners are basically seeking a change of cadre from ministerial cadre to executive cadre inasmuch as the post of Inspector is in the executive cadre. The learned counsel further submits that in order to tide over the difficulties, 10 posts of Inspectors having fallen vacant with the implementation of the Act of 2009, it was considered necessary to make appointment on contract basis for a limited period of one year or till the posts are filled up through NPSC, whichever is earlier. According to him, there are no provisions in the Rules to make appointment on contract basis. However, the learned counsel submits that the appointments offered to respondent Nos. 3 to 12 being not regular appointments but being only for a limited period, it is permissible for the respondent authorities to make ad hoc or contractual appointments in the interest of public service. Mr. A. Zhimomi has also contended that the writ petitioners being not eligible to be considered in terms of the Rules for consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector, this writ application at their instance, is not maintainable. He has also submitted that the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 have been appointed after an exercise was undertaken in a transparent manner and, therefore, no fault can be attributed in appointing the respondent Nos. 3 to 12. Mr. He has also submitted that the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 have been appointed after an exercise was undertaken in a transparent manner and, therefore, no fault can be attributed in appointing the respondent Nos. 3 to 12. Mr. A. Zhimomi has, in order to buttress his submissions, relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Union of India v. Rakesh Kumar, (2001) 4 SCC 309 , (2) Union of India v. S. Dhingra and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 229 , (3) Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Anr. v. T.R. Suryanarayan and Ors., (1997) 6 SCC 766 , which case is also relied upon by Mr. R. Iralu and (4) Saikat Debbarma and Ors. v. State ofTripura and Ors., 2011 (2) GLT 811. 16. There is no dispute that promotions used to be effected to the post of Inspector from amongst the LDAs/UDAs working in the Directorate of Industries and Commerce, Nagaland. Mr. C.T. Jamir is right in submitting that the two writ petitioners were also found eligible to be considered for promotion in the meeting of the Departmental Screening Committee held on 13.5.2009. 17. Having regard to the prayer made in the writ petition that direction should be issued to the State respondents to consider the cases of the writ petitioners for promotion to the 25% reserved quota for Departmental promotion as provided under the Rules, it would be only appropriate to consider relevant provision of the Rules. 18. Under Schedule-II of the Rules, 75% of the posts of Inspector of Industries/Extension Officer is to be filled up by direct recruitment and 25% by promotion. The promotional posts shall be filled up by selection from amongst the senior most confirmed staff of the lower grade having knowledge in the line with eight years (minimum) experience in any trade. The post of Inspector of Industries/Extension Officer is in the Nagaland Industries Subordinate Service Grade-I. There are number of other posts under various headings, such as, weaving, crafts, etc. under the Nagaland Industries Subordinate Service Grade-I. The writ petitioners in paragraph 3 of the writ petition have stated that the post of UDA is equivalent to the post of Inspector and, therefore, admittedly, post of UDA cannot be held to be a post in the lower grade. under the Nagaland Industries Subordinate Service Grade-I. The writ petitioners in paragraph 3 of the writ petition have stated that the post of UDA is equivalent to the post of Inspector and, therefore, admittedly, post of UDA cannot be held to be a post in the lower grade. A perusal of the Rules and more particularly, the qualification prescribed for promotion to the post of Inspector would indicate that the requirement of the Rules for promotion is "confirmed staff working in the lower grade having knowledge in the line with 8 years (minimum) experience in any trade." All other posts in the Nagaland Industries Subordinate Service Grade-I in Schedule-II are in the lower grade compared to the post of Inspector. It is also an admitted position that the LDAs/UDAs are not having experience in any trade. Nagaland Industries Subordinate Service Grade-I includes posts which are connected with trade. Therefore, on the basis of the provisions as contained therein, it is not possible to hold that LDAs/UDAs come within the fold of feeder cadre from which promotions are to be effected to the post of Inspector. Even prior to the coming into force of the Rules of 2006, there were other avenues for promotion to the ministerial staff. The Rules do not visualise that 25% of posts meant for promotion to the post of Inspector is to be filled up from the eligible ministerial staff from amongst the UDAs/LDAs. 19. However, it is also an admitted position that the Department had been promoting LDAs/UDAs to the post of Inspector and if that be so, whether the writ petitioners can, on the basis of such practice, claim any right to be considered for promotion is the next question that is to be considered by this court. 20. In T.K. Suryanarayan (supra), the Apex Court had held that even if in some cases, erroneous promotions had been given contrary to the Service Rules and consequently such employees have been allowed to enjoy the fruits of improper promotion, an employee cannot base his claim for promotion contrary to the statutory Service Rules in law courts. It was also laid down that incorrect promotion either given erroneously by the Department by misreading the said Service Rules or such promotion given pursuant to judicial orders contrary to Service Rules cannot be a ground to claim erroneous promotion by perpetrating infringement of statutory Service Rules. It was also laid down that incorrect promotion either given erroneously by the Department by misreading the said Service Rules or such promotion given pursuant to judicial orders contrary to Service Rules cannot be a ground to claim erroneous promotion by perpetrating infringement of statutory Service Rules. In Rakesh Kumar (supra), in similar vein, the Apex Court had laid down that no person can claim any right on the basis of a decision which is de hors the statutory Rules nor can there be any estoppel and further, there is no question of application of article 14 of the Constitution in such cases. Similarly, in S.R. Dhingra (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that a mistake does not confer any right to any party and can be corrected. 21. The decision of Mohinder Singh (supra) cited by Mr. C.T. Jamir with reference to paragraphs 88 and 89 does not help the case of the petitioners in any way. The ratio laid therein is that where a statute confers powers or duties in general terms, all powers and duties incidental and necessary to make such legislation effective are included by implication. In the present case, we are not confronted with a general term but are dealing with a specific provision relating to promotion and, therefore, the question of exercise of incidental power, thereby expanding the zone of feeder cadre, as Mr. C.T. Jamir wants this court to accept, does not arise. Uma Devi (supra) makes it clear that no Government orders, notifications or circulars can be substituted for the Statutory Rules framed under the authority of law. The orders issued for consideration of the cases of the writ petitioners for the 25% promotion quota, thus, pales into insignificance. 22. In view of the discussions aforesaid, this court is of the view that no direction can be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion under 25% Departmental promotion quota. 22. The petitioners, in view of the past practice of the Department, cannot be faulted for taking a stand that they are entitled to be, considered for promotion to the post of Inspector and, therefore, in the considered opinion of the court, the plea taken by the respondents that this petition is not maintainable, is without any merit. 22. The petitioners, in view of the past practice of the Department, cannot be faulted for taking a stand that they are entitled to be, considered for promotion to the post of Inspector and, therefore, in the considered opinion of the court, the plea taken by the respondents that this petition is not maintainable, is without any merit. But for such practice, the petitioners may not have come to this court and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be heard on the issues raised by them and it is in this context that this court had proceeded to examine the issues raised by the writ petitioners. In Saikat Debbarma (supra), on which reliance was placed by Mr. A. Zhimomi, the writ petitioner was clearly not eligible to offer candidature in terms of an advertisement issued, being aged about 47 years and it was in that context, it was stated by a Division Bench of this court that issue relating to reservation as raised by the petitioner could not have been decided without first deciding the locus of the petitioner. The present case stands on a different footing. No doubt this court has recorded a finding that the petitioners, in terms of the Rules, are not eligible to be considered for promotion to the 25% Departmental quota. However, a significant aspect which cannot be overlooked is that even after the vacancies numbering 10 had arisen, the authorities were about to follow the same practice of promoting LDAs and UDAs to the post of Inspector. Only when the petitioners had challenged the appointment orders of the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 in the present writ petition, for the first time, the respondents came up with the stand that all along promotion to the post of Inspector was erroneously given from the post of LDAs and UDAs. In that view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio of Saikat Debbarma (supra) will not be applicable in the instant case and the issue relating to appointment of the private respondent Nos. 3 to 12 is open for scrutiny at the instance of the writ petitioners. 24. This brings us to the question as to whether the appointment orders of the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 can be sustained. 3 to 12 is open for scrutiny at the instance of the writ petitioners. 24. This brings us to the question as to whether the appointment orders of the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 can be sustained. Having regard to the admission made by the State respondents that the LDAs/UDAs were all along considered for promotion to the post of Inspector, the position that emerges is that the promotional quota was not filled up by persons who were entitled to be promoted against such promotional quota. Even in the instant case, all the ten posts have been filled up by taking recourse to appointment by contract. No explanation is forth coming as to why the posts which are meant to be filled up by departmental promotion were not accordingly filled up. Admittedly, two out of ten posts should have been filled up by promotion. The State respondents have also failed to disclose to this court which two posts were earmarked for the promotees. The appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 is also not preceded by any advertisement. However, it appears that thirty eight candidates had responded to the notice inviting them to appear in the Screening Test. The concept of contract appointment in the Service Rules is nowhere to be found. Nagendra Chandra (supra) lays down a proposition that any appointment in violation of the recruitment Rules would be illegal. However, this court is of the opinion that in the exigency of Government Service, it may be permissible to take recourse to contractual appointment pending recruitment in accordance with the Rules. However, in such cases also, the authorities are obliged to issue advertisement inviting applications from all interested candidates. 25. However, it is also to be borne in mind that 84 applications were submitted and out of them 38 have responded to the Screening Test and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 have been handpicked. 26. Taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly having regard to the fact that the writ petitioners are not entitled to be considered for the post of Inspector, the appointment orders of respondent Nos. 3 to 12 are not interfered with. However, it is made clear that the appointment orders of the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 shall not be extended beyond the term of one year under any circumstances. 3 to 12 are not interfered with. However, it is made clear that the appointment orders of the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 shall not be extended beyond the term of one year under any circumstances. As the respondents had submitted that the appointment of the respondent Nos. 3 to 12 on contract basis was made due to compelling necessity, the respondents are also directed to fill up the ten posts in accordance with law, i.e., 75% by way of direct recruitment and 25% by way of promotion. It is submitted at the bar that for the purpose of direct recruitment, Nagaland Public Service Commission is to be moved. Accordingly, appropriate steps are directed to be taken by the respondents for filling up the posts meant for direct recruitment without any delay. 27. It will be also necessary to deal with the contention raised by Mr. C.T. Jamir that Annexures ‘X’ and ‘Y’ are manipulated documents. While the document at Annexure X contains two paragraphs, the document at Annexure Y does not contain the second paragraph. Annexure X indicates that the Director had received the copy of the said letter dated 4.5.2011 on 11.7.2011. The author of Annexure X and Annexure Y had filed a personal affidavit indicating the circumstances under which the variations in the order dated 4.5.2011 have found place. On perusal of the statements made in the said affidavit, I am inclined to take a view that the allegation of manipulation is not justified. 28. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. _____________