JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The facts eventually leading to the institution of the present appeal has a chequered history, albeit exhaustive at times. In the maze of facts, what calls for attention is that in the cadre of Company Commandant (alluded to as Coy Commandant) under the establishment of Home Guards and Civil Defence, Govt. of Nagaland, the appellant stood senior to one Mr. Dally Jamir, arrayed as the Respondent No.4 in the present appeal. The post of Coy Commandant is equivalent to that of an Inspector. Whereas the date of regular appointment of the appellant i.e. Mr. Watilemba in the said cadre was reckoned with effect from 2.8.1988, Mr. Dally Jamir's regular appointment was adjudged with effect from 1.10.1993. This position finds disclosure in the Final Seniority List of Inspectors appended to the Circular dated 27.3.1995. 2. The effective date of regular appointment of Mr. Dally Jamir in the Inspector grade witnessed a perceptible change following the judgment and order dated 19.10.2000 in WP(C) 22(K) 2000 instituted by Mr. Dally Jamir. In the said case Mr. Dally Jamir claimed regularization with effect from 1.8.1988 instead of 1.10.1993 without, however, claiming seniority over the persons placed above his name in the Final Seniority List dated 27.3.1995, which included the appellant herein. For the reasons indicated in the said judgment, a direction was made to the effect that the service of Mr. Dally Jamir as Coy Commandant/Inspector be regularized with effect from 1.8.1988 and not with effect from 1.10.1993. An observation was also made that consequent upon the regularization made effective from 1.8.1988, seniority in the said grade be counted from that date. 3. Controversy as regards inter-se seniority starts at the level of Class-I Gazetted Officer's post i.e. in the higher cadre of District Commandant. The appellant had already been granted officiating promotion to the post of District Commandant vide Notification dated 30.5.1998 against clear vacancy. By Office Memorandum dated 22.6.2004 the Final Seniority List in respect of Class-I and Class-II Gazetted Officers as on 30.4.2004 was published. Whereas the name of the appellant figured at serial No.6 of the Class-I list, Mr. Dally Jamir figured at serial no.1 of the Class-II list. In other words, as on 30.4.2004, Mr. Dally Jamir was not even borne in the cadre of District Commandant, his name being shown only in the list of Coy Commandant/Inspectors. 4. Whereas the name of the appellant figured at serial No.6 of the Class-I list, Mr. Dally Jamir figured at serial no.1 of the Class-II list. In other words, as on 30.4.2004, Mr. Dally Jamir was not even borne in the cadre of District Commandant, his name being shown only in the list of Coy Commandant/Inspectors. 4. On 9.8.2004, a Govt. Notification was issued, addressed to the Director General, Home Guards, Nagaland, conveying sanction of the Governor of Nagaland to the creation of a temporary supernumerary post of District Commandant (Home Guards), Class-I Gazetted Officer with effect from 5.2.1996 making it personal to Mr. Dally Jamir. The Notification indicated that the post would stand abolished as and when clear vacancy is available under the Department. Further, that the said arrangement had been made in view of the judgment dated 19.10.2000 in the aforesaid WP(C) 22 (K) 2000. On the very next date i.e. 10.8.2004 another Notification was issued to the extent of restoring seniority of Mr. Dally Jamir as Coy Commandant with effect from 1.8.1988 with notional promotion against the supernumerary post of District Commandant created with effect from 5.2.1996 as to the date of his immediate junior one Mr. S Rotokha Zhimomi in order to protect his subsequent seniority in the rank of District Commandant (Home Guards). The said Notification dated 10.8.2004 also makes mention that in WP(C) 22(K) 2000 Mr. Dally Jamir besides claiming restoration of his seniority with effect from 1.8.1988 had also claimed promotion as District Commandant (Home Guards) on the same date as that of his immediate junior and that the Court by its verdict dated 19.10.2000 had directed the State Government "to implement as pleaded". This Notification had the effect of disturbing the position of the incumbents in the Final Seniority List of Class-I Gazetted Officers dated 22.6.2004. 5. A representation was made by Mr. S Rotokha on 25.8.2004, being aggrieved of the Notification dated 10.8.2004. In consequence thereof, status-quo in respect of the seniority arrangement was maintained by publishing a Seniority List on 4.7.2005 with Mr. Rotokha at serial No.5, followed by the appellant at serial No.6 and Mr. Dally Jamir at serial No.8. In so far as the dates of appointment in the post of District Commandant are concerned, both Mr. Rotokha and the appellant were reckoned from 16.5.1998 whereas the date of appointment of Mr. Dally Jamir was held from 5.2.1996. Rotokha at serial No.5, followed by the appellant at serial No.6 and Mr. Dally Jamir at serial No.8. In so far as the dates of appointment in the post of District Commandant are concerned, both Mr. Rotokha and the appellant were reckoned from 16.5.1998 whereas the date of appointment of Mr. Dally Jamir was held from 5.2.1996. The matter did not rest there. On 16.7.2005 another Notification was issued allowing Mr. Dally Jamir to hold the post of District Commandant with effect from 24.2.2004 consequent upon the untimely demise of one Aseron Tep, District Commandant (Home Guards), Wokha on 23.2.2004. This position continued until the year 2006. 6. For the purpose of regularizing the promotion of the officers in the Department of Home Guards, the Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC' for short) held deliberations on 18.8.2006. The DPC considered the proposal of the Department of Home Guards for regularization of the officiating promotions of District Commandant and to that end took into consideration the seniority list finalized by the Department on 22.6.2005, which had been confirmed by the competent authority. Recommendation for regularization was made in the following order: (1) S Rotokha, District Commandant, w.e.f. 5.2.1996 (2) Watilemba (appellant), District Commandant, w.e.f. 16.5.1998 (3) Akhu Kath, District Commandant, w.e.f. 16.5.1998 (4) Dally Jamir (Respondent 4), District Commandant, w.e.f. 16.5.1998. 7. Another DPC was held on 12.10.2006 on the basis of a letter of the Home Department regarding review of the DPC Minutes dated 18.8.2006. The DPC observed that the seniority list of the District Commandants at the level of Inspectors was required to be reviewed by the Home Department. Meantime, it was also observed that the Department may give effect to the DPC Minutes dated 18.8.2006 with the amendment that all District Commandants will be regularized with effect from 16.5.1998. Further, that the inter-se seniority of the Coy Commandants/Inspectors could be decided by the Department separately which would form the basis of inter-se seniority of the District Commandants. 8. Consequential orders of regularization of officiating promotion dated 6.12.2006 at the level of District Commandants followed suit. The regularization of each of the incumbents i.e. Mr. S Rotokha, Mr. Watilemba, Mr. Akhu Kath and Mr. Dally Jamir were given effect from 16.5.1998. 9. On 15.10.2008 a tentative Seniority List of District Commandants (HG), Class-I Gazetted, was published showing the date of appointment to the present post held as on 16.5.1998. The regularization of each of the incumbents i.e. Mr. S Rotokha, Mr. Watilemba, Mr. Akhu Kath and Mr. Dally Jamir were given effect from 16.5.1998. 9. On 15.10.2008 a tentative Seniority List of District Commandants (HG), Class-I Gazetted, was published showing the date of appointment to the present post held as on 16.5.1998. This state of affairs continued until a Memorandum was issued on 9.12.2010 by the Home Department publishing the Final Seniority List of the officers as on 15.10.2008. In so far as District Commandants are concerned, the Seniority List put Mr. Dally Jamir at position No.1 in order of preference, followed by Mr. S Rotokha and thereafter Mr. Watilemba. This Memorandum, besides the Notification dated 6.12.2006 and DPC dated 12.10.2006 was put to challenge by Mr. S Rotokha in WP(C) 35(K) of 2011 and jointly with Mr. Watilemba and Mr. Akhu Kath in WP(C) 36(K) of 2011. 10. Both the writ petitions were heard and disposed of by common judgment and order dated 30.8.2013. The learned Single Judge while allowing WP(C) 35(K) of 2011 with modification made to the order of promotion dated 6.12.2006 in respect of Mr. S Rotokha and Mr. Dally Jamir, the other WP(C) 36 (K) of 2011 was dismissed. The learned Single Judge took note of the following facts and case laws: (i) The DPC of 18.8.2006 had recommended that Mr. S Rotokha be regularized with effect from 5.2.1996, while maintaining regularization in respect of the other three incumbents with effect from 16.5.1998. (ii) The DPC of 12.10.2006 ushered an amendment to the DPC dated 18.8.2006 to the extent that regularization of all District Commandants would take effect from 16.5.1998. As regards the inter-se seniority of Inspectors, the same would be decided by the Department and such determination of seniority would form the basis of inter-se seniority of the District Commandants. (iii) Although seniority in the lower grade may not always determine the seniority in the higher grade [ref. (2002) 9 SCC 634 -Kaushal Kishore Singh v. Dy. Director of Education], however, seniority in the lower grade cannot be shorn of any meaning, in that, Clause 3 of the Government Memorandum dated 9.6.1966 stipulates that position in the seniority list in the entry grade/lower grade would generally determine the position in the promotional grade as well. (iv) There was no dispute over the fact that while Mr. S Rotokha, Mr. Watilemba and Mr. (iv) There was no dispute over the fact that while Mr. S Rotokha, Mr. Watilemba and Mr. Akhu Kath were directly recruited to the grade of Coy Commandant in between 30.7.1988 to 2.8.1988, Mr. Dally Jamir had joined in the same grade by way of promotion on 1.8.1988, which had received judicial sanction in WP(C) 22 (K) of 2000. (v) In view of the principles laid down in the Memorandum of 1966 as well as the provisions under Rule 5(2) read with rule 18(2) of the Nagaland Police Service (Class I and Class II) Rules, 1977 which provides for giving preference to a promotee over direct recruits in case both join the same grade in the same calendar year, Mr. Dally Jamir needs to get preference over the others in the matter of seniority. (vi) Although in the case of State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath [1991 Supp (1) SCC 334] and State of Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma [ (2007) 1 SCC 683 ] it was held that no person can be promoted with retrospective effect from a date when he was not born in the cadre so as to adversely affect others, however, law permits promotion with retrospective effect in exceptional circumstances [ref. Amarjeet Singh v. Devi Ratan, (2010) 1 SCC 417 ]. (vii) Mr. Dally Jamir is undisputedly senior to the others in the grade of Coy Commandant and he was deprived of promotion to the post of District Commandant without there being any reasons whatsoever. (viii) Although in WP(C) 22 (K) of 2000 Mr. Dally Jamir did not claim seniority over the officers and nor did the Court give any specific directions to the State Government to that effect, one cannot be oblivious of the fact that the Court while disposing of the said writ petition had directed counting of seniority of Mr. Jamir in the grade of Coy Commandant with effect from 1.8.1998. (ix) The DPC dated 18.8.2006 is faulty in so far as it relates to seniority amongst the incumbents, which is why the second DPC dated 12.10.2006 was held. No fault can be attributed to the recommendation of the second DPC calling upon the State Government to review determination of seniority of the officers concerned at the level of Inspectors. Also, the Memorandum dated 9.12.2010 invites no interference. (x) There was no justification for the State to regularize the service of Mr. No fault can be attributed to the recommendation of the second DPC calling upon the State Government to review determination of seniority of the officers concerned at the level of Inspectors. Also, the Memorandum dated 9.12.2010 invites no interference. (x) There was no justification for the State to regularize the service of Mr. S Rotokha and Mr. Dally Jamir with effect from 16.5.1998 instead of 5.2.1996. Accordingly, the orders of promotion dated 6.12.2006 in respect of the said two incumbents stands to be modified without disturbing the seniority position as conveyed vide Memorandum dated 9.10.2010 (Final Seniority List). 11. Mr. P Khataniar, learned counsel representing the appellant, submits that there was absolutely no basis in issuing the Final Seniority List dated 9.10.2010. The same has the effect of negativing/annulling the Final Seniority List of Class I officers dated 22.6.2004, on which date Mr. Dally Jamir was not even born in the said grade. Further, in so far as the judgment under appeal is concerned, the same suffers inherent contradictions, in that, while approving the second DPC dated 12.10.2006 which had fixed the date of regularization of all the incumbents concerned in the grade of District Commandant as 16.5.1998, the action of the State Respondents has now been questioned and interfered with in giving regularization with effect from 16.5.1998 and not from 5.2.1996 to Mr. Rotokha and Mr. Jamir. Mr. Khataniar also makes reference to Rule 20 of the aforesaid Rules, 1977 to say that seniority in Class I service has to be in the order in which the names are arranged by the Departmental Promotion Committee under Rule 19(2) thereof for the purpose of promotion to that grade. In terms of the DPC dated 18.8.2006, Mr. Watilemba is senior to Mr. Dally Jamir in the order of the names so arranged therein. As such, as per the Rules there could not have been a situation holding otherwise. According to Mr. Khataniar, the provisions under Rule 20 of the Rules was totally left out of consideration while rendering the judgment under appeal. In any view of the matter, contends Mr. Khataniar, the Final Seniority List dated 9.12.2010 cannot stand the scrutiny of law being contrary to the Rules, 1977. 12. Mr. D Choudhury, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 i.e. Mr. Khataniar, the provisions under Rule 20 of the Rules was totally left out of consideration while rendering the judgment under appeal. In any view of the matter, contends Mr. Khataniar, the Final Seniority List dated 9.12.2010 cannot stand the scrutiny of law being contrary to the Rules, 1977. 12. Mr. D Choudhury, learned counsel for Respondent No.4 i.e. Mr. Dally Jamir, submits that the judgment under appeal does not suffer from infirmity as it finds support from Rule 18(2) of the aforesaid Rules, 1977. The fact that Mr. Jamir was held to be senior to the appellant and the others in the Class II grade is a fait accompli and rightly held so by the learned Single Judge by taking into consideration the facts in issue vis-a-vis the Memorandum of 1966 and that of provisions under Rule 5(2) read with Rule 18(2) of the Rules, 1977. 13. Ms. T Khro, learned State counsel, submits that the Department of Home Guards & Civil Defence has adopted the Rules of Nagaland Police. Also, the review DPC had decided to give effect to the DPC Minutes of 18.8.2006 with the amendment that all District Commandants will be regularized with effect from 16.5.1998. In respect of inter-se seniority of the District Commandants, the same would have its basis on the determination of inter-se seniority to be made by the Department separately at the level of Coy Commandants/Inspectors. According to Ms. Khro, the Final Seniority List of Company Commandants/Inspectors had already been published vide earlier Memorandum dated 27.3.2001 where Mr. Dally Jamir was placed above the appellant and also Mr. S Rotokha. Further, that the DPC Minutes of 18.8.2006 having been superseded in the review DPC, the order in which the names had been arranged in the DPC of 18.8.2006 is altogether irrelevant in the present case. The fact that Mr. Dally Jamir is senior to the others can be had from the Final Seniority List dated 27.3.2001. Relying upon the provisions of Rule 18(2) and Rule 19(1) of the Rules, 1977, Ms. Khro submits that the appellant has no legal basis to claim seniority. 14. From the facts above it transpires that the sole issue or controversy hinges on the determination of seniority conveyed vide the Final Seniority List dated 9.12.2010. To backtrack a few steps, the DPC of 18.8.2006 had recommended regularization of the concerned officers i.e. Mr. Khro submits that the appellant has no legal basis to claim seniority. 14. From the facts above it transpires that the sole issue or controversy hinges on the determination of seniority conveyed vide the Final Seniority List dated 9.12.2010. To backtrack a few steps, the DPC of 18.8.2006 had recommended regularization of the concerned officers i.e. Mr. S Rotokha with effect from 5.2.1996 and the rest, including the appellant and Respondent No.4, with effect from 16.5.1998. This arrangement was not disturbed in the review DPC of 12.10.2006. Rather, it was made clear that the Department would give effect to the DPC Minutes of 18.8.2006 save the amendment that the date of regularization will be with effect from 16.5.1998. The State Government duly acted on it by issuing the orders of regularization dated 6.12.2006 to each of the four incumbents effective from 16.5.1998. Significantly, the DPC of 12.10.2006 also held that the inter-se seniority of Coy Commandants/Inspectors can be decided by the Department separately and the seniority determined in the said exercise would form the basis of inter-se seniority of the District Commandants. 15. Apparently, this vital aspect was lost sight of while publishing the Final Seniority List dated 9.12.2010. No documents have been placed by the State Respondent to vindicate any exercise undertaken in that regard. Endeavour of this Court to learn about any exercise undertaken was answered in the negative, particularly of any exercise taking place during any period prior to issuance of the impugned List. It can be conclusively held that consequent upon the DPC Minutes of 12.10.2006, the Department did not undertake the exercise of determining the inter-se seniority of Coy Commandants /Inspectors, which was the essential requirement to fix the inter-se seniority of District Commandants. 16. The provisions under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1977 postulates that determination of seniority of the members in Class I service, with which we are concerned with in the present proceedings, shall be in the order in which the names are arranged by the DPC under Rule 19(2) thereof. Promotions to Class I service would be from the list of suitable members of Class II service as prepared from time to time and reviewed, as and when necessary, by the DPC. Admittedly, there is no determination of seniority of the Coy Commandants/Inspectors pursuant to the DPC Minutes of 12.10.2006. Promotions to Class I service would be from the list of suitable members of Class II service as prepared from time to time and reviewed, as and when necessary, by the DPC. Admittedly, there is no determination of seniority of the Coy Commandants/Inspectors pursuant to the DPC Minutes of 12.10.2006. In the absence of it, there is no basis in fixing inter-se seniority of the District Commandants. No Departmental Promotion Committee also sat prior to issuance of the Final Seniority List dated 9.12.2010. At least, nothing has been brought on record to show that a DPC had sat in the interregnum and had arranged the names of members of Class I service. 17. The facts in the instant case although being exhaustive, the ultimate answer lies in Rule 20 of the Rules, 1977 and to the effective implementation of the DPC Minutes dated 12.10.2006. On both counts, no consideration was made by the learned Single Judge. The basis of the Final Seniority List dated 9.12.2010 did not find appreciation in its proper perspective. In fact, the said List appeared from the blue without any prior exercise undertaken in terms of the DPC Minutes dated 12.10.2006 and that of the provisions under Rule 20 of the Rules, 1977. 18. In view of the above, the Memorandum dated 9.12.2010 in respect of the Seniority List of District Commandants, Home Guards, Class-I, only in so far as placing Mr. Dally Jamir above Mr. Watilemba is concerned, is interfered with and set aside. A further direction is made to the State Respondent to first cause determination of seniority at the level of Coy Commandants/Inspectors in terms of the DPC Minutes dated 12.10.2006, which would form the basis of inter-se seniority of the District Commandants. The necessary exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within an outer limit period of 4 (four) months from today. 19. The judgment under appeal stands interfered to the extent indicated above having regard to the fact that the appellant herein had confined his challenge (both in the writ petition and the present writ appeal) only in respect of Mr. Dally Jamir having been placed above him in the Seniority List of District Commandants. 20. Resultantly, this writ appeal stands allowed to the extent above, however, without any order as to costs.