P. K. Saikia, J.:-- This proceeding has been initiated for quashment of order dated 29.3.2010, 29.6.2011 and 7.9.2011 rendered by the Additional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Nagaland, Kohima ('PHED') regularising the services of respondent No.4 to respondent No.9 and also for a direction requiring the State respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners. 2. The facts projected by the petitioners, in short, are that the petitioners are work charged employees who were appointed to different Grade-Ill and Grade-IV posts during the period from 1982 to 1991. Though the petitioners have been working over a long period of time and to the satisfaction of one and all, their services have not been regularised although services of the work charged employees junior to them were allegedly regularised at regular interval. 3. In that connection, the petitioners had submitted several representations appealing the Government over the years seeking redress to their grievances but their appeals were fallen in deaf ears. Since the services of the petitioners have not been regularised despite preferring several representations seeking regularisation of their services and since the services of persons, much junior to them were regularised from time to time, they approached this court seeking relief aforementioned. 4. The notice of the proceeding was served on the respondents. The State respondents and private respondents having filed separate counter affidavits have contested the proceeding. The State respondents have contended that the proceeding of the petitioners is liable to be dismissed since they have no locus standi to file the present proceeding and since they are also guilty of suppressing of material facts having enormous bearing on the claim made by the petitioners in the proceeding in hand. 5. According to the State respondents, in 2004, a policy was formulated under which 50% of the regular vacancies in respect of Grade-Ill and Grade-IV posts occurring in a calendar year are to be filled up by direct recruitment whereas remaining 50% of such vacancies are to be filled up by way of regularising of the services of the work charged employees on seniority basis. 6. 6. It is the case of the State respondents that private respondents were appointed against 50% of vacancies, so earmarked for direct recruits and as such, the claim of the petitioners that the private respondents were appointed on work charged basis as well as their claim that the services of private respondents were regularized, and that too, bypassing the claim of the petitioners is wholly untrue and same is advanced just to defeat the genuine right of the private respondents. On this count alone, the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed. 7. During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the State-respondents submits that petitioners had never brought to the notice of 2004 of the court that a policy was adopted in 2004 under which 50% of the regular vacancies in Grade-Ill and Grade-IV posts occurring in a calendar year, are to be filled up by way of regularisation of services of the work charged employees whereas remaining 50% of such posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment. Since the private respondents were appointed against the posts/vacancies which were so reserved for direct recruits and since such a vital information was withheld from the notice of the court, the petitioners are guilty of suppressing the very material facts and on this count alone, the proceeding in hand is liable to be quashed. 8. In support of such a contention, my attention has been drawn to the decision of this court in the case of Jahura Khatun and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2006 (3) GLT 741. The relevant part of the judgment in Jahura Khatun (supra) is reproduced below : "10. As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies him from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. A calculated and designed suppression of material facts in order to secure admission and interim relief; which, if disclosed, would have dis-entitled the petitioner to the extraordinary remedy, or in case would have materially affected the merits on both the interim and ultimate relief claimed would deprive the petitioner from considering his case on merit. A calculated and designed suppression of material facts in order to secure admission and interim relief; which, if disclosed, would have dis-entitled the petitioner to the extraordinary remedy, or in case would have materially affected the merits on both the interim and ultimate relief claimed would deprive the petitioner from considering his case on merit. In the instant case, as noticed above, there is total suppression of material fact and the conduct of the petitioners relating to the proceedings before the Tribunal Court and as a rule of writ jurisdiction disentitle the petitioners to any relief as has been held by the Apex Court in a number of cases, an application under article 226 of the Constitution would be refused without hearing on the merits or a rule wise discharged, if it appears that the applicant has made a deliberate concealment of material facts with a view of mislead the court. 11. In the instant case, the petitioners resorting to falsehood not only got the writ petitions entertained by the court, but also become successful in obtaining an interim order. This being the position, the petitions are liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of suppression of material facts and misrepresentation relating to the proceedings before the Tribunal." 9. It is also the claim of the State respondents that the appointment of the private respondents against the posts/vacancies, so reserved for the direct recruits, no way interfere with the right of the petitioners to be regularised against the posts/vacancies, which are to be filled up by the way of regularisation of the services of the work charged employees. This is clear testimony of the petitioners not being aggrieved in consequences of the appointment of the private respondents against the posts aforesaid. 10. This clearly shows that the petitioners have not locus standi to file the proceeding in hand and on this count too, present proceeding is liable to be dismissed. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on the decision of hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haki Bashir Ahmed and Others, (1976) 1 SCC 671 . The relevant part of judgment in Jashbhi Motibhai Desai (supra) is reproduced below : "34. In support of such contention, reliance is placed on the decision of hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haki Bashir Ahmed and Others, (1976) 1 SCC 671 . The relevant part of judgment in Jashbhi Motibhai Desai (supra) is reproduced below : "34. This court has laid down in a number of decisions that in order to have locus standi to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 an applicant should ordinarily be one who has a personal right in the subject-matter of the application, though in the case of some of the writs like habeas corpus or quo warranto this rule is relaxed or modified. In other words as a general rule, infringement of some legal right or prejudice to some legal interest inhering in the petitioner is necessary to give him a locus standi in the matter." 11. According to learned counsel for the State respondents hon'ble Supreme Court expresses similar view in the case of Mani Subrat Jain and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (1977) 1 SCC 486 . The relevant part of the judgment in Mani Subrat Jain is also reproduced below : "9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something." 12. The further case of the State respondents was that in the seniority list of the work charged employees, maintained category-wise, the petitioners occupy positions at a comparatively lower stage in their respective category but their turns for regularisation are yet to come and as such, their services could not be regularised although they have been working as work charged employees over a long period of time. 13. The relevant part of the counter-affidavit of the State respondents is reproduced below : "5. 13. The relevant part of the counter-affidavit of the State respondents is reproduced below : "5. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, the deponent respectfully submits that the respondent department, is strictly following the Office Memorandum dated 22.9.2004, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, whereby in clause (iii) of the Office Memorandum, it is clearly stated that 50% of all regular vacancies of similar nature arising in a year will be reserved for regularisation of worked charged employees and the remaining 50% will be filled up as per normal rules of fresh recruitment and the appointments of respondents 4 to 9, comes within the preview of 50% reserved for fresh appointment, hence, there is no illegality or arbitrary on the part of the respondent-department. It is also submitted that a Worked Charged Employees are regularised only against vacant sanction post. However, due to lack of creation of new posts and the vacancies that arises due to retirement or death of a regular employees are limited, the regularisation of a Worked Charged Employees are in a slow pace. Further, regularisation is strictly by seniority in compliance with the Office Memorandum. The tables below are the seniority of the petitioners: SI. No.Name of the petitioners and designationSeniority No.in the relevant category 1.Shri Nokpangmongba Ao, Fitter Gade-11SI. No.32 2.Smt. Sashienla Ao, KhalasiSI. No.138 3.Smt. T. Alemla ao, KhalasiSI. No.541 4.Shri Toshimeren Ao, ChowkidarSI. No.102 5.Smt. Yangerla Ao, KhalasiSI. No.408 6.Smt. Amongla Ao, KhalasiSI. No.127 7.Smt. I. A tula Jamir, KhalasiSI. No.201 8.Shri Imlitemjen Ao, Fitter Grade-11SI. No.85 9.Smt. Akumlemla, KhalasiSI. No.146 10.Smt. Shilula Jamir, KhalasiSI. No.149 11.Smt. Merenungla Ao, KhalasiSI. No.169 12.Smt. O. Anungla, KhalasiSI. No.120 13.Smt. Marsenla Ao, KhalasiSI. No.394 14.Smt. Bendangsenla Ao, Bill AssistantSI. No.8 15.Smt. Nangdenzungla, TypistSI. No.7 16.Shri Temsu Walling, Fitter Grade-IISI. No.22 17.Smt. Sashijenla Ao, TypistSI. No.15 The above regularisation is purely as per seniority, hence the petitioner's service can be regularised as and when their turn comes. Further, from the above table, it is clear that there are large numbers of employees senior to the petitioner and hence it is not legally justified to regularise them at this stage. 6. No.22 17.Smt. Sashijenla Ao, TypistSI. No.15 The above regularisation is purely as per seniority, hence the petitioner's service can be regularised as and when their turn comes. Further, from the above table, it is clear that there are large numbers of employees senior to the petitioner and hence it is not legally justified to regularise them at this stage. 6. That the statements made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, the depondent respectfully submits that the respondent-department function as per the rules and regulation laid down by the State Government, further, the procedure for the regularisation of Worked Charged Employees are laid down on Office Memorandum dated 22.9.2004, hence all actions of the respondent department are in compliance of the said order Memorandum. It is further stated herein that the salary of the petitioners have paid up to February 2013 and not as alleged." 14. The private respondents having filed separate counter affidavit supported the stance, taken by State-respondents stating that they were appointed against the posts reserved for direct recruits in the terms of the policy aforementioned and as such, the allegation that the private respondents were first appointed as work charged employees and the allegation that their services were regularised ahead of regularisation of the services of the petitioners are without any basis whatsoever. They, therefore, urged this court to dismiss the proceeding with cost. 15. The petitioners having filed additional-affidavit submit that facts incorporated in the counter-affidavit of the State respondents are based, not on facts. In fact, by its counter affidavit, the State-respondents made an attempt to mislead the court inserting some figures therein to show that in matter of regularisation of the services of the petitioners, their turns are-yet to come since they have found themselves placed in some lower positions in the seniority list of work charged employees. However, such assertion was made not on facts but on falsehood. 16. In regard to suppression of material facts, it has been stated that private respondents are not direct recruits but they were appointed in 2009 on work charged basis and thereafter, in 2010 their services were regularized. However, such assertion was made not on facts but on falsehood. 16. In regard to suppression of material facts, it has been stated that private respondents are not direct recruits but they were appointed in 2009 on work charged basis and thereafter, in 2010 their services were regularized. In that connection, they have referred me to the Annexure R and R1 to the writ petition to show that private respondent No.4 and private respondent No.5 were appointed as Control man and Fitter Helper respectively in 2009 on work charged basis and their services were regularised in 2010. 17. Such contention of the petitioners has again been refuted by the respondents having filed additional-affidavit to the affidavit-in-reply of the petitioners stating that the private respondents were appointed against vacancies meant for direct recruits and as such, no illegality, whatsoever, was committed when the services of private respondent Nos.4 and 5 were regularised on their successful completion of probationary period. 18. Above being the claims and counter-claims, let me see whose claims stands to reason in view of materials available on record. Ms. S. Mere, learned Government advocate appearing for the State respondents strenuously submits that the claims of the petitioners that all the posts in Grade-III and Grade-IV in the State of Nagaland are to be filled up by way of regularisation is profoundly misleading and such a submission was made just to defeat the genuine rights of the private respondents. 19. In support of such a claim, learned Government Advocate refers to the Office Memorandum dated 22.9.2004 which, amongst others, provided that 50% of the vacancies in the Grade-III and Grade-IV posts occurring in a calendar year are to be filled up by way of regularisation of the services of the work charged employees whereas remaining 50% of such posts are to be filled up by the way of direct recruitment. 20. However, according to learned Government advocate, such an important aspect was withheld by the petitioners and instead, they vigorously tried to project a picture before the court to show that all the posts in Grade-Ill and Grade-IV in the State of Nagaland which fall vacant in a English calendar year are to be filled up by way of regularisation of the services of the work charged employees alone and by no other means. 21. 21. I have considered such submissions in the light of the averments, made in the pleadings of the petitioners and I have found that nowhere in the petition filed under section article 226 of the Constitution of India, did petitioners utter a word about the existence of Office Memorandum dated 22.9.2004. Since such a vital information having enormous bearing on the relief, sought for by the petitioners in this proceeding, was not brought before the court by the petitioners, in my opinion, the petitioners are definitely guilty of suppressing very material facts and in the terms of decisions rendered by hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jahura Khatun (supra), the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed. 22. It may be stated that during the course of argument, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are illiterate persons and they were ignorant about the existence of the aforesaid Office Memorandum and as such, no offence should be taken for not referring to the aforesaid Office Memorandum in the petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India. I have found that such an argument is without any basis since the petitioners had approached this court being guided by a qualified counsel. 23. Since the petitioners have approached this court having engaged a qualified counsel to vindicate their right as work charged employees, it needs to be presumed that, not only the counsel, engaged by the petitioners was aware about the existence of aforesaid notification but the petitioners too were aware of the notification of 2014 since such a notification tries to protect the interest of work charged employees in the State of Nagaland. In that view of the matter, the plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in not referring to such a vital document in the petition under section article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be accepted as mirror omission. Rather, such a lapse needs to be viewed with all seriousness, it deserves. 24. It is also the case of the private respondents that they were never appointed as work charged employees. Rather they were direct recruits and were recruited against 50% of the vacancies reserved for direct recruits in terms of policy of 1004. Rather, such a lapse needs to be viewed with all seriousness, it deserves. 24. It is also the case of the private respondents that they were never appointed as work charged employees. Rather they were direct recruits and were recruited against 50% of the vacancies reserved for direct recruits in terms of policy of 1004. Situation being such, according to private respondents, the claim of the petitioners that despite they being senior to the private respondents, in matter of regularisation of services, their claim was ignored only to favour the private respondents is without any basis. Our foregoing discussion has already confirmed the above submission, advanced from the side of the private respondents and as such, such a contention, in my opinion, needs no further discussion. 25. Coming to the allegation that the private respondents, respondent Nos.4 and 5 in particular, were appointed as work charged employees in 2009 and the allegation that their services were regularised in 2010, I have found that such allegation stood demolished in view of the statements made in the affidavits and in the documents, filed along with those affidavits. In that connection, I have also perused the summary of recruitment/appointment of the Grade-Ill and Grade-IV employees made in the department concerned during the period from 2004 to 2013. Such summary of appointments was prepared year-wise and same was furnished in compliance with the direction rendered by this court. 26. The aforesaid summary reveals that the respondent Nos.6, 7, 8 and 9 were also appointed as Control man, Khalasi and Section Assistant in 2011 against the posts, reserved for direct recruits and their names appeared at Serial Nos.3, 8, 10 and 15 of the list of employees recruited in the year 2011. Thus, it is found apparent that those private respondents are not work charged employees but they were recruited against the posts reserved for direct recruits. 27. It may be stated here that referring to Annexure R and Annexure R1 to the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the services of private respondent Nos.4 and 5 were regularised in 2010, one cannot but hold that respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 are work charged employees and their services were regularised in 2010. 27. It may be stated here that referring to Annexure R and Annexure R1 to the writ petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that since the services of private respondent Nos.4 and 5 were regularised in 2010, one cannot but hold that respondent No.4 and respondent No.5 are work charged employees and their services were regularised in 2010. I have perused the Annexure R and R1 and have found that though the respondent Nos.4 and 5 were appointed in 2009, they were put in probation for a period of one year and on successful completion of their probationary period, their services were subsequently regularized. 28. Above being the position, the claim of the petitioners that the private respondents were work charged employees as well as their claim that the services of private respondents were regularised ahead of regularisation of the services of the petitioners are found to be without any basis which in turn, requires this court to dismiss this proceeding. 29. Above revelation further shows that no right of the petitioners were violated for appointing the private respondents against the vacancies reserved for direct recruits. Being so, they are not aggrieved parties and in terms of the decision in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai (supra) and Marti Subrat Jain (supra), it needs to be held that the petitioners do not have locus standi to file the proceeding in hand. On this count also, the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed. 30. The petitioners further contend that the figures, quoted in the affidavit of the petitioners and the figures, quoted in the documents submitted by the State respondents regarding number of work charged employees whose services were regularised during the period 2004 to 2013 are found to be at poles apart and it only shows that no reliance should be placed on the figures, so furnished by the State respondents. 31. Since the petitioners could not make out their claim that the private respondents are work charged employees, since they could not establish that despite the petitioners being senior to the private respondents, the services of the those respondents were regularised ahead of the petitioners requiring this court to interfere with the orders in question, I am not inclined to probe such allegation since such an effort would be an unnecessary exercise only. 32. 32. In view of what I have discussed hereinbefore and what have emerged there-from, I am of the opinion that the present proceeding lacks of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 33. Consequently, this proceeding is dismissed of course without any cost.