JUDGMENT Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. This writ petition is filed praying for setting aside and quashing the advertisement dated 09.12.2011 (Annexure-H), wrongly typed as 09.12.2012, the written examinations dated 21.1.2012 and 18.2.2012, oral interview conducted from 3.5.2012 to 10.5.2012 and the result dated 15.5.2012 with a further prayer to consider the appointment of professionally trained candidates against equal number of vacancies and only thereafter to consider appointment of untrained candidates against the surplus/excess vacancies. The facts as have emerged from the writ petition are that the writ petitioners belong to recognized Scheduled Tribes within the State of Nagaland, and possess degree of Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.). A notification dated 4.1.2008 was issued by the Education Department, Government of Nagaland, on the recommendation of the State Level Education Committee (SLEC), notifying the policy on recruitment of teachers under the Department of School Education and specifying minimum educational qualification for Elementary, Secondary and Higher Secondary Schools. Subsequently, in continuation of the said notification dated 4.1.2008, on the recommendation of the Governor's Executive Council, another notification dated 10.32008 was issued notifying that policy on recruitment of teachers prescribing minimum education qualification shall be applicable for all appointments including ad hoc appointments. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 23(1) of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, for short, the Act of 2009, and in pursuance of Notification No. S.O.750(E) dated 31.3.2010 issued by the Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) had issued a notification laying down minimum qualifications for being eligible for appointment as teacher in Class I to VIII in a school referred to in Clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act of 2009 with effect from the date of the notification. The Department of School Education and Literacy, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, had published Guidelines (for short, MHRD Guidelines) dated 8.11.2010 under Section 35(1) of the Act of 2009 for implementation of the provisions of Section 23(2) of the Act of 2009. 2. NCTE had also issued a notification dated 11.2.2011 prescribing guidelines (for short, 'NCTE Guidelines') for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) under the Act of 2009, laying down eligibility criteria as well as structure and content of TET. 3. 2. NCTE had also issued a notification dated 11.2.2011 prescribing guidelines (for short, 'NCTE Guidelines') for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) under the Act of 2009, laying down eligibility criteria as well as structure and content of TET. 3. The Department of School Education issued a further notification on 28.11.2011 in continuation of the notification dated 4.1.2008 notifying that for recruitment of Elementary School Teacher candidates possessing Pre-Service Teacher Education (PSTE) qualification shall be given preference over other candidates. 4. On 9.12.2011, the Directorate of School Education issued an advertisement inviting applications from Naga indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland for filling up of a total number of 2856 posts of different categories of teachers indicating that preference will be given to candidates having PSTE/B.Ed, for appointment to Elementary/Secondary Schools. A clarification was sought by the Director, State Council of Educational Research and Training, (SCERT), Nagaland by the letter dated 16.12.2011 from the Commissioner & Secretary and SCERT, School Education on "Special Preference" that was decided to be given by SLEC. In response, by a letter dated 6.1.2012, approval of the Government to give first preference to candidates having professional qualification was conveyed. 5. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.12.2011, written examination was to be conducted simultaneously in all the 11 districts of the State on 21.1.2012. However, because of a boycott call given by one organization, namely, Eastern Nagaland Students' Federation (ENSF), written examination could be conducted on 21.1.2012 only in the districts of Kohima, Dimapur, Mokokchung, Zunheboto, Wokha, Phek and Peren. In the remaining 4 districts of Tuensang, Mon, Longleng and Kiphire, the examination was conducted on 18.2.2012. Oral interview was conducted by the District Level Selection Committee (DLSC) headed by the Deputy, Commissioner of the respective district as the Chairman, from 3rd to 10th May, 2012. The petitioners, relying upon the policy of the Government to accord special preference to candidates having professional qualification, had participated in the selection process. Result was compiled and finalized District-wise and declared on 15.5.2012 in all the establishments of the District Education Officer (DEO) by notifying it on notice boards and results were also published in different local Newspapers by the DEOs. Result was compiled and finalized District-wise and declared on 15.5.2012 in all the establishments of the District Education Officer (DEO) by notifying it on notice boards and results were also published in different local Newspapers by the DEOs. However, contrary to the policy of grant of special preference, the results disclosed that no preference was given to candidates having professional qualification and barring a few candidates, all other candidates having professional qualification; who had also cleared the written examination, were not selected. It is pleaded by the petitioners that the recruitment process initiated by the advertisement dated 9.12.2011 was conducted in flagrant violation of the Act of 2009 and notification and Guidelines issued by NCTE. 6. It is also pleaded that on an earlier occasion, the Department of School Education, Nagaland had issued an advertisement dated 15.12.2010 inviting applications exclusively for candidates possessing B.Ed. and PSTE for filling up of 400 posts of Primary Teachers and 23 posts of Graduate Teachers prescribing eligibility criteria therein. 7. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed an Affidavit-in-opposition raising preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the selected candidates as well as SCERT and District Selection Board (DSB), having not been made parties, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as they are necessary parties. With regard to the other pleas raised in the writ petition, it is stated that as the available vacancies were less than professionally qualified candidates in the year 2010, advertisement dated 15.12.2010 was issued inviting applications only from candidates having professional qualification which was not the case when the advertisement dated 9.12.2011 was issued. While the total number of vacancies stood at 2,856, they were only 976 trained candidates. According to the Department of Employment & Craftsman Training, as on 31.12.2011, there were 2,359 Post Graduates, 13,758 Graduates, 12,003 Pre-University passed and 486 Degree (Tech) holders in the register of Employment Exchanges awaiting appointment and as District Institute of Education Training (DIET) was available only in 6 districts, the Cabinet had taken a decision to recruit teachers from both trained and untrained pool. It has also been asserted that the department had sought relaxation under Section 23(2) of the Act of 2009 on 17.12.2009, followed up by letter dated 9.7.2012 and relaxation was granted by notification dated 28.9.2012 for the period up to 31.3.2014. It has also been asserted that the department had sought relaxation under Section 23(2) of the Act of 2009 on 17.12.2009, followed up by letter dated 9.7.2012 and relaxation was granted by notification dated 28.9.2012 for the period up to 31.3.2014. With regard to grant of preference to professionally qualified candidates, it is stated that the trained teachers were exempted from obtaining the minimum of 45% marks as notified in the advertisement dated 9.12.2011. For the written examination, questions for 20% marks were set from the syllabus of PSTE/B.Ed. Preference was also given to trained candidates in case equal marks were obtained by a trained candidate and an untrained candidate. It is also pleaded that the syllabus for recruitment of teacher was similar to TET though nomenclature for recruitment was different and the selection process was conducted by SCERT and DSB in consonance with the principles envisaged under the guidelines laid down by NCTE. 8. The impleaded respondent Nos. 3 to 375 also filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition. In the said affidavit, it is stated that recruitment process of 2,856 posts included 1,190 posts of Primary Teachers and 1,666 posts of Graduate Teachers. Out of the 1,666 posts of Graduate Teachers, 516 posts each were meant for the subjects of Mathematics, Science and English and 118 posts were meant for General Category subjects. Each of the districts was also allotted specified number of posts and selection was also conducted District-wise. In the said affidavit, the respondents indicated the districts from which they were selected. It is stated by these respondents that TET has not been conducted in the State of Nagaland and the petitioners are not eligible for appointment as teachers from Class I to V after 1.1.2012 and therefore, the petitioners do not have locus standi to challenge the selection of teachers for Classes I to V. As the writ petitioners did not disclose details regarding their education qualifications except stating that they possess B.Ed. Degree, without also mentioning whether such degree is in accordance with NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002, for short, Regulation of 2002, and as there is a requirement for possessing certain percentage of marks in B.A./BSc. Degree, without also mentioning whether such degree is in accordance with NCTE (Recognition Norms and Procedure) Regulations, 2002, for short, Regulation of 2002, and as there is a requirement for possessing certain percentage of marks in B.A./BSc. for appointment as teachers for Classes VI to VIII, recourse was taken by the respondent No. 102 to the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, for short, the Act of 2005, to obtain details of education qualifications of the writ petitioners and from the documents that were furnished, it appears that while some of the writ petitioners (they also identified) secured less than 45% marks in their B.A./BSc Degree, making them clearly ineligible, some of the writ petitioners, (they are identified) secured in between 45% marks to 50% marks in their Degree Examination. The petitioners having not disclosed materials facts, it has been pleaded that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition has also been taken on the ground that by way of a single writ petition, candidates from different districts cannot assail selection made District-wise. Similar plea is also taken in respect of challenge made in one single petition in respect of all categories of teachers and in respect of different subjects. It is also pleaded that writ petition is not maintainable for not enclosing the select list of the selected candidates of the various districts as also for non-joinder of necessary parties like the selected candidates and SCERT. 9. In the said affidavit, apart from taking the aforesaid preliminary objections, it is stated that the Government can depart from policy/decision as communicated by letter dated 6.1.2012 and that interpretation of the word "preference" by the writ petitioners is wholly misconceived. It has been pleaded that before making the advertisement, no relaxation is required to be obtained from the Central Government under Section 23(2) of the Act of 2009 though such relaxation is necessary before making the appointments. It is also stated that Classes IX and X fall under secondary school and are not covered by the notification dated 8.11.2010. It is also asserted that the petitioners having participated in the selection process without any protest and having taken a calculated chance, cannot question after declaration of the result that selection conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.12.2011 and the advertisement dated 9.12.2011 itself are bad in law. 10. It is also asserted that the petitioners having participated in the selection process without any protest and having taken a calculated chance, cannot question after declaration of the result that selection conducted pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.12.2011 and the advertisement dated 9.12.2011 itself are bad in law. 10. While no Affidavit-in-Reply was filed to the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 3 to 375, a reply-affidavit was filed to the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the respondent Nos. I to 3. No affidavit is filed by the respondent No. 4. 11. Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. I. Longjem, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 375 as well as Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned C.G.C. appearing for respondent No. 4. None appears for respondent No. 5. 12. At the very outset, Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that names of petitioner Nos. 92, 94 and 114 be struck off as they have instructed him to strike off their names. Accordingly, on his prayer, the names of petitioner Nos. 92, 94 and 114 are struck off. 13. It is submitted by Mr. Tongpok that an advertisement was issued on 9.12.2011 by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland and Ex-Officio Principal Director, School Education Department inviting applications from Naga indigenous inhabitants for filling up of posts of Primary Teachers and Graduate Teachers in the Elementary and Secondary schools. The advertisement also prescribed for written test as well oral interview for the candidates qualifying in the written test In the respective District Headquarters. It is submitted by him that barring the districts of Mon, Longleng, Tuensang and Kiphire, written examination was held on 21.1.2012 and in the said 4 districts, written examination was held with separate sets of papers on 18.2.2012. Oral interview was held in between 3.5.2012 to 10.5.2012 and results were declared District- wise in the middle part of May, 2012. He submits that, in all, 2,856 candidates were selected, out of which 1,190 were selected as Primary Teachers and rest 1,666 as' Graduate Teachers. 14. Oral interview was held in between 3.5.2012 to 10.5.2012 and results were declared District- wise in the middle part of May, 2012. He submits that, in all, 2,856 candidates were selected, out of which 1,190 were selected as Primary Teachers and rest 1,666 as' Graduate Teachers. 14. The learned counsel submits that the qualification prescribed in the said advertisement is less than the qualification prescribed by NCTE in its notification dated 23.8.2010 for a person to be eligible for appointment as teacher from class I to VIII in respect of schools referred to in clause (n) of Section 2 of the Act of 2009, with effect from the date of notification. Referring to MHRD Guidelines dated 8.11.2010, he submits that the State Government may seek relaxation under Section 23(2) of the Act of 2009 with regard to requisite minimum educational qualification for a period not exceeding 5 years. It is also emphasized by him that under no circumstances, the condition of passing TET can be relaxed by the Central Government. The learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to the NCTE Guidelines for conducting TET and submits that before the impugned advertisement was issued, the State authorities did not apply to the Central Government far grant of relaxation of minimum qualification and it was much later i.e., on 9.7.2012, after the publication of the result, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland vide Annexure-3 of the affidavit of the State, sought for relaxation of minimum qualification for appointment as teacher for a period of 5 years in the State of Nagaland beginning from 2011-2012. He points out that even in this letter, the State did not disclose to the Central Government that it had undertaken an exercise to recruit Primary Teachers as well as Graduate Teachers with reduced qualifications prescribed on its own. He has also pointed out that by notification dated 28.9.2012 at Annexure-4 of the State affidavit, relaxation was granted by the Central Government on the terms and conditions as laid down therein wherein also it was made imperative that State Government of Nagaland should conduct TET. He has also pointed out that by notification dated 28.9.2012 at Annexure-4 of the State affidavit, relaxation was granted by the Central Government on the terms and conditions as laid down therein wherein also it was made imperative that State Government of Nagaland should conduct TET. According to him, the State could not have legally and validly conducted recruitment process with the qualification prescribed by the impugned advertisement at a time when there was no relaxation granted by the Central Government and therefore, no right accrues to any selected candidate on the basis of the examination conducted with such minimum educational qualification. The State could not have also held the written as well as oral interview in the manner as it had been done pursuant to the said advertisement dated 9.12.2011. He contends that TET, as notified, is an examination of 150 marks of Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ) with one and half hour duration comprising 5 components. He submits that oral interview is not envisaged under TET and therefore, the exercise undertaken by the State Government with 2 hours duration of 100 marks for the written test and 20 marks for oral interview cannot, under any circumstances, be equated with TET. It is also submitted by him that though other prayers are made in the writ petition, he restricts his challenge only to the impugned advertisement dated 9.12.2011 and the process undertaken thereof culminating in the impugned result of the selection, on the ground that the same is violative of the provisions of the Act of 2009 and the Rules and Regulations framed there under. He also candidly submitted that though pleaded and prayed for in the writ petition, the petitioners are not seeking any preference in appointment in terms of the Clause 6 of the advertisement dated 9.12.2011. The learned counsel submits that petitioners having challenged gross arbitrary and illegal action of the State authorities, the selected candidates are not required to be made party respondents. In any view of the matter, the learned counsel submits that as a large number of selected candidates have impleaded themselves in the writ petition, even if there is any defection the writ petition for not arraying the selected candidates, the same stood nullified in view of presence of private respondent Nos. 6 to 375, representing about 12% of the selected candidates. 6 to 375, representing about 12% of the selected candidates. He relies on the decision rendered in the case, of Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, reported in AIR 1985 SC 167 in this regard. 15. It is also submitted by him that the writ petitioners are entitled to maintain this application and their mere participation in the selection process will not disentitle them to challenge the exercise undertaken through the impugned advertisement dated 9.12.2011 as the same is, per se, void and illegal and in this regard, he places reliance on Bar Council of Delhi & Anr. Vs. Surjeet Singh & Ors, reported in AIR 1980 SC 1612 as well as on A.C. Jose Vs. S. Pillai & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 SC 921 . He also relies on, in the context of relaxation granted, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Vs. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala & Ors, reported in (2002) 1 SCC 633 to emphasize that when a statue vests power in a certain authority, such power has to be exercised in the manner prescribed and in no other manner. Reliance is also placed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Bhupendra Nath Tripathi & Ors., reported in (2010) 13 SCC 203 to impress upon the constitutional obligation of the State to provide education to all children of the age of 6 to 14 years. 16. Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General Nagaland, at the very outset, has submitted that the writ petitioners having not impleaded the selected candidates, who are necessary parties, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone and to substantiate his argument, he places reliance on Bhagwanti & Ors. Vs. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana & Anr., reported in 1995 Supp (2) SCC 663. It has also been argued by him that the responsibility for conducting the examination was given to SCERT and the SCERT having also not been made a party respondent, the writ petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, requiring dismissal of the same at the hands of the Court. The writ petitioners have not disclosed material particulars and it is a cardinal principle of law that one who seeks equity, must make a correct and true disclosure of facts. The writ petitioners have not disclosed material particulars and it is a cardinal principle of law that one who seeks equity, must make a correct and true disclosure of facts. Viewed from that perspective, non-disclosure of relevant materials and particulars renders the petition not maintainable in law in the present form, he submits. It is submitted by him that pursuant to the advertisement dated 9.12.2011, interview was held District-wise. The writ petition having been filed by candidates of different districts together challenging selection of candidates in respect of all the districts, the writ petition in the present form is also not maintainable because of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties. 17. Tracing the prevailing scenario in the State of Nagaland, Mr. Jamir submits that even before the NCTE norms and qualifications came to be effected 23.10.2010, the State was finding it difficult in meeting the then existing norms and therefore, had written a letter dated 17.12.2009 at Annexure-2 of the affidavit-in-opposition for relaxation of the norms. The State had to fill up 2,856 posts in all comprising of Primary Teachers and Graduate Teachers. There are only 976 trained candidates and the 6 DIET that are in place today in the State of Nagaland, were not sufficient to impart training to fulfill requirements of NCTE norms at a short notice. It is in this context, the advertisement was issued with the minimum requisite educational qualification as prescribed therein enabling a large number of candidates to be in the zone for selection. Though not on record, he has made a statement that around 8,000 candidates had taken part in the selection process. For the written examination, 100 marks was assigned and for the oral component, 20 marks. It is also submitted by him that 20% of the marks out of 100 marks was earmarked for questions to be set covering curricula of Phd/B.Ed/PSTE and for 20 marks in respect of oral interview also, 5 marks was meant for professional knowledge benefiting the trained candidates and therefore, the trained candidates were at a very advantageous position. He has also submitted that examination was held in all the 11 districts and there were in all 15 centres. Except for the districts of Dimapur, Kohima, Wokha and Mokokchung, which had 2 centres apiece, the rest of the 7 districts had one centre each. He has also submitted that examination was held in all the 11 districts and there were in all 15 centres. Except for the districts of Dimapur, Kohima, Wokha and Mokokchung, which had 2 centres apiece, the rest of the 7 districts had one centre each. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 6, 23 and 26 of the Act of 2009 to impress upon the Court that in absence of adequate number of candidates fulfilling the norms envisaged in the notification dated 23.10.2010, the State could not have remained a silent spectator and in order to implement the provisions of the Act of 2009 and in public interest, had taken recourse to conduct the examination aforesaid and no fault can be attributed to the State on that score. He has also emphasized that although results were declared in the month of May 2012, as Section 23 of the Act of 2009 prohibited appointment unless relaxation is granted by competent authority, no appointment orders were issued and finally, the competent authority had granted relaxation to the State of Nagaland vide notification dated 28.9.2012 on the terms and conditions as set out therein. He submits that though TET has not been conducted, the examination conducted can be held to be akin to such test and the petitioners having not raised any objection at any point of time earlier and also having waited for 3 months after publication of the result in the month of May 2012, are estopped from challenging the examination process undertaken by the State authorities. Although the petitioners were better placed and were in an advantageous position, yet they were not selected and therefore, no interference is called for in this writ proceeding. Referring to the letter dated 9.7.2012 ( Annexure- 3 to the affidavit of the State) on the subject of proposal for relaxation of minimum qualification required for appointment as teacher for a period of 5 years in Nagaland, the learned counsel submits that though it was not mentioned in the said letter that an exercise in the form of conducting examination for recruitment of teachers was-undertaken, non-mentioning of the same in the said letter is of no consequence inasmuch as embargo under Section 23 of the Act of 2009 was in relation to appointment and it is on record that no appointment was made. He also submitted that the present examination was undertaken on the basis of a decision of the Cabinet taken on 29.7.2008 to adopt the relaxation policy as enumerated in the notification dated 4.1.2008 (Annexure-A to the Writ petition). He has also urged that the writ petitioners have not alleged any mala fide and the process being transparent, no interference is called for. He implores this Court to permit the State authorities to make appointment so that in the coming academic session, students can have the benefit of the teachers already selected. Drawing attention to Section 37 of the Act of 2009, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland submits that as the action had been taken bonafide, no interference with such action can be made in the present proceeding. 18. Mr. L.S. Jamir, on appointed query of the Court, submits mat there is no Recruitment Rules prescribing qualification for recruitment of teachers. 19. Mr. Longjem, learned counsel representing the respondent Nos. 6 to 375 submits that the writ petitioners having not made the selected candidates party respondents, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the contention of the writ petitioners at paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in- reply to the effect that in the present lis, the selected candidates are not required to be made party respondents. He has strenuously urged that valuable rights have accrued to the selected candidates and one of the prayers made in the writ petition is setting aside of the result of the selection. Any order setting aside and quashing the select list would adversely affect the selected candidates and therefore, they are necessary parties to the present petition. It is also submitted by him that some of the private respondents, whom he represents, impleaded themselves on their own and it cannot be said that they are representing the interest of the selected candidates in their representative capacity. He relies upon the following decisions in support of his submission: (1) 1995 Supp (2) SCC 663 (Bhagwanti & Ors. Vs. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana & Anr) and (2) (1984) 4 SCC 25 : AIR 1985 SC 167 (Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors). He relies upon the following decisions in support of his submission: (1) 1995 Supp (2) SCC 663 (Bhagwanti & Ors. Vs. Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana & Anr) and (2) (1984) 4 SCC 25 : AIR 1985 SC 167 (Prabodh Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors). It is also submitted by him that the select list, in its entirety, has not been placed on record by the writ petitioners and even as of today, the same is not part of the record of this proceeding. 20. Mr. Longjem submits that according to the advertisement, a candidate had to offer his candidature District-wise. Therefore, the candidates of a particular district can maintain an application only in respect of the post in his district and that too, in connection with the subject in which candidature is offered. He submits that the posts for Graduate Teachers numbering 1,666 were broken into 4 components, namely, Mathematics, Science, English and General. While number of posts earmarked for General Teacher was 110, 516 posts each were earmarked for the other 3 subjects. These were again sub-divided District-wise and for the district of Kohima, while 14 posts were set apart for General, 43 posts each were given for the other 3 subjects. There are 18 petitioners from the district of Kohima and out of 18, 17 had applied only for General and I had applied for English. Thus, the contention advanced is that the writ petition is, per se, not maintainable for clubbing altogether of different causes of action in a single writ petition covering all the district. 21. It is submitted by Mr. I. Longjem, that all the writ petitioners may be possessing B.Ed degree, but, it has not been asserted by the writ petitioners that the B.Ed, degree obtained by them is in conformity with the norms laid down in the Regulation of 2002. Elaborating further, he submits that the NCTE, vide notification dated 23.8.2010, prescribed minimum qualification from Class I to VIII. The qualification prescribed for Class I to V requires a two year Diploma in Elementary Education. It is also submitted by him that for Class VI to VIII, the minimum eligibility criteria is 45% with a B.Ed, degree, should the B.Ed degree be in accordance with Regulation of 2002, else minimum qualification prescribed is 50% marks with a B.Ed. degree. The qualification prescribed for Class I to V requires a two year Diploma in Elementary Education. It is also submitted by him that for Class VI to VIII, the minimum eligibility criteria is 45% with a B.Ed, degree, should the B.Ed degree be in accordance with Regulation of 2002, else minimum qualification prescribed is 50% marks with a B.Ed. degree. It has been contended by him that in the writ petition, the petitioners have not disclosed the marks obtained by them in the Graduation examination. Thus, the argument advanced is that when the petitioners are not possessing minimum qualification prescribed under NCTE notification dated 23.8.2010,no rights of the petitioners have been infringed. If that be so, he submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. He submits that it is also otherwise necessary for the writ petitioners to establish the legal right vested in them in order to succeed in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To re-inforce his submissions, he places reliance on two decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors., reported in (1976) 1 SCC 671 and Governing Body of Dayanand Anglo Vedic College Vs. Padmanabha Padhy & Ors, reported in (1988)1 SCC 653 . 22. Mr. Longjem also submits that the petitioners cannot approbate and reprobate and that is what has transpired in the instant case. The advertisement very clearly laid down the qualification prescribed and the petitioners did not, at any point of time, raised any objection to the qualifications prescribed and rather, had availed and taken the opportunity of participating in the recruitment process. As they have appeared in the examination, they cannot be permitted to turn around and contend after the results were declared in which they were not successful, that the qualifications prescribed did not meet the requirements in law. In order to buttress his arguments, he relied on (1) (1995) 3 SCC 486 : Madan Lal & Ors. Vs. State of J & K Ors., (2) 1986 (Supp) SCC 285: Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors., (3) (2002) 2 SCC 712 : G.N. Nayak Vs. Goa University & Ors., (4) (1979) 3 SCC 165 : Smt. Swaran Lata Vs. Union of India & Ors., (5) (2009) 5 SCC 515 : K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines & Ors. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla & Ors., (3) (2002) 2 SCC 712 : G.N. Nayak Vs. Goa University & Ors., (4) (1979) 3 SCC 165 : Smt. Swaran Lata Vs. Union of India & Ors., (5) (2009) 5 SCC 515 : K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines & Ors. and (6) (2011) 1 SCC 150 : Vijender Kumar Varma Vs. Public Service Commission Uttarakhand & Ors. 23. The next submission of Mr. Longjem is that the crucial word appearing in Section 23 of the Act of 2009 is "appointment". According to him, even without relaxation, a recruitment process can be initiated without conforming to prescribed qualifications but until and unless relaxation is granted by the proper authority, appointment cannot be offered and therefore, relaxation having been granted in the instant case by the competent authorities, it cannot be said that the recruitment process is not sustainable in law. He relies upon in the case of Prafulla Kumar Swain Vs. Prakash Chandra Misra, reported in 1993 Supp (3) SCC 181 to explain the meaning of the word "appointment". 24. Mr. Longjem submits that TET having not been conducted in the State since its inception, the impugned selection should be validated as the requirement of TET was inoperative for nearly one and half year. He relies on (1991) 4 SCC 243 (State of Sikkim Vs. Dorjee Tshering Bhutia & Ors.) in support of his submission. 25. Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned C.G.C. appearing for the respondent No. 4 submits that respondent No. 4 has no role to play in the present controversy. 26. In reply, Mr. Tongpok conceded that in the pleadings, no averments were made stating that the petitioners were eligible under the notification dated 23.8.2010. However, he makes a statement at the bar that most of the petitioners, if not all, were qualified. 27. He further submits that the arguments advanced by the counsel for the respondents that even without valid relaxation being granted by the Central authorities, the State authorities could have undertaken an exercise to recruit teachers is wholly mis-conceived inasmuch as the same will be akin to placing a cart before the horse. He submits that the holding of TET cannot be waived under any circumstances and therefore, the emphasis on the subsequent relaxation granted, articulated by the learned counsel for the respondents, has no substance. He submits that the holding of TET cannot be waived under any circumstances and therefore, the emphasis on the subsequent relaxation granted, articulated by the learned counsel for the respondents, has no substance. He submits that even if examination conducted was conforming to TET, then also, advertisement having been issued at a time when there was no relaxation, the same amounts to an incurable defect and therefore, no sanctity can be attached to such an examination process. 28. It is also submitted by him that the petitioners had taken up a core issue, the foundation of which is to be found in the eligibility criteria laid down in the advertisement dated 9.12.2011 and therefore, pleas of mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties have no legs to stand. On the subject of not enclosing the result sheet of the successful candidates in the writ petition, it is sought to be contended by Mr. Tongpok that when the foundation falls, the super structure falls automatically and the challenge having been made to the advertisement, if the advertisement is held to be illegal and not sustainable in law, all consequential developments will necessarily have to be adjudged null and void and therefore, nothing hinges for not enclosing the entire select fist. 29. As the learned counsel for the respondents in their respective pleadings and during the course of submissions questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on a number of grounds, it will be only proper to address the issue relating to maintainability of the writ petition. Even on the point of maintainability of the writ petition, as the learned counsel for the respondents highlighted that as the selected candidates were not made party respondents, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, it is considered appropriate at first to focus on the effect, if any, on the writ petition, for not arraying the selected candidates as parties to the proceeding. 30. It is to be noticed that the respondent Nos. 6 to 375, who are some selected candidates, had filed an application for impleading them as parties, which was registered as CMC No. 121 (K)/2012 and this Court, by an order dated 8.10.2012, allowed them to be impleaded as respondent Nos. 6 to 375. 31. In the writ petition, needless to say, none of the selected candidates were made party respondents. In response to the plea raised by the respondent Nos. 6 to 375. 31. In the writ petition, needless to say, none of the selected candidates were made party respondents. In response to the plea raised by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 regarding maintainability of the writ petition for not arraying the selected candidates, the writ petitioners in their affidavit-in-reply stated thus: 2. That with regard to the statement made in the affidavit-in-opposition in paragraph 2, the question of maintainability of the writ petition for non impleadment of necessary parties does not arise. The petitioners are challenging the validity of the conduct of the Teachers Recruitment Examination in violation of the clear provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short the Right to Education Act, 2009), and the rules framed there under. What the petitioners are aggrieved at is not the illegalities committed during the conduct of the selection or the result of the selection but the legality of conducting the selection contrary to the rules and procedure laid down by statutory provisions. It is not the case of the petitioners that the written examination and/or oral examination were conducted in a questionable manner and mat thereby the result has been vitiated. If the case of the petitioners were so, then there would be the necessity to implead the authorities who had conducted the written and oral examination and also the selected candidates, but such is not the case here. The main, if not sole, issue raised by the petitioner is whether the Department of School Education, Nagaland, had the power and jurisdiction to conduct Selection of teachers in contravention of the clear provisions of law. This being the case, only the department is the necessary party. The Department alone, and no other, must defend its action of not complying with the provisions of law. The preliminary objection raised by the State respondent is, therefore, not tenable. 32. This being the case, only the department is the necessary party. The Department alone, and no other, must defend its action of not complying with the provisions of law. The preliminary objection raised by the State respondent is, therefore, not tenable. 32. Although the candidates included in the select list do not have vested right to appointment, they surely will be interested in protecting and defending the select list Though from the order dated 8.10.2012, it is seen that the learned counsel for the petitioners had not raised any objection to the application for impleading the applicants as respondents, a categorical stand was taken in the affidavit-in-reply aforesaid, which was filed on 2.11.2012, that in the facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioners had challenged the selection procedure as contrary to provisions of the Act of 2009 as well as the Rules and Regulations holding the field, only the School Education Department Nagaland and none else, is a necessary party. 33. In Prabodh Venna (supra), the Apex Court laid down as follows: 50. To summarize our conclusions: (1) A High Court ought not to hear and dispose of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large to join them as respondents individually, and if the petitioners refuse to so join them, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition for nonjoinder of necessary parties. (2) The Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 9174 of 1978 - Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh v State of Uttar Pradesh, without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition or at least some of them being made respondents thereto in a representative capacity as the number of reserve pool teachers was too large and, had the petitioners refused to do so, to dismiss that writ petition for non-joinder of necessary parties. ................................ 34. Similarly, in Bhagwanti (supra), the Supreme Court laid down as follows: 3. It is obvious from the impugned order of the High Court that in the writ petition before it only the Subordinate Services Selection Board was impleaded party. ................................ 34. Similarly, in Bhagwanti (supra), the Supreme Court laid down as follows: 3. It is obvious from the impugned order of the High Court that in the writ petition before it only the Subordinate Services Selection Board was impleaded party. Neither the selected candidates nor those who were issued appointment letters were impleaded as parties before the High Court. The High Court set aside the selection and the appointments without hearing the persons concerned. It is a settled proposition of law that no order to the detriment of a person can be passed without hearing him. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order of the High Court on this short ground. The writ petition filed by the respondents before the High Court is thus dismissed. No costs. 35. In A.M.S. Sushanth & Ors. Vs. M. Sujatha & Ors., reported in (2000) 10 SCC 197 , Supreme Court has stated thus: 4. We find that none of the persons who were selected and whose appointment were set aside by the High Court had been impleaded as a party-respondent. It appears that a public notice was given in a representative capacity only with regard to the appointment to the post of Assistant Sericulture Officer. The direction of the High Court, however, is not confined to that post alone and it is the appointments to the other posts also which have been set aside. This could not be done. The principles of natural justice demanded that any person who was going to be adversely affected by the order should have had an opportunity of being heard. That apart, one would have expected the High Court to have considered the report submitted under Section 65 on its merits and then decided whether the said report should be accepted or not. 5. In view of the fact that opportunity to all the affected parties was not given, we allow these appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct the High Court to hear the cases once again after giving full opportunity to the persons who are likely to be affected if the writ petitions are allowed and to report under Section 65 is accepted. 36. 36. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, there is no manner of doubt that selected candidates are necessary parties in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even after a plea was taken regarding non-maintainability of the writ petition for not making the selected parties as respondents, there was no attempt on the part of the petitioners to implead them or to take recourse to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC as well as other provisions of the CPC and on the contrary, they had taken the stand in their reply affidavit as noticed herein above. 37. During the course of arguments, Mr. Tongpok had submitted that respondent Nos. 6 to 375 having impleaded themselves, selected candidates are represented by them in a representative capacity and therefore, the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties falls through. The submission cannot be accepted. No general public notice was issued regarding filing of the writ petition and requiring the selected candidates to participate in the proceeding, if so advised. The entire proceeding was sought to be conducted by the writ petitioners in absence of the selected candidates, who may not be even aware of the present proceeding. It cannot be said that the writ petitioners have joined the respondent Nos. 6 to 375 as representatives of the selected candidates. The said respondents impleaded themselves and in any event, a general public notice widely published, giving notice to the selected candidates regarding pendency of the writ proceedings and asking them to participate in the proceeding, if so advised, is the essence of principles of natural justice which cannot be dispensed with as dispensation of such a requirement will militate against the fundamental concept of natural justice. 38. In view of the above discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for not impleading selected candidates as party respondents. 39. In view of the aforesaid finding recorded, this Court does not consider it necessary to go into other contentions including other preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition. 40. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed for the reasons assigned herein above. No costs. Petition dismissed