JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Suman Shyam, J. The instant writ appeal, preferred by the State of Nagaland and its officials, is directed against the judgment and order dated 21-09-2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.73(K)/2015 whereby, the impugned notification dated 08-04-2015 appointing the respondent/writ petitioner as In-charge Principal of State Council of Teachers Education (SCTE) was set aside and a direction was issued to appoint her to the post of Principal, SCTE in the pay band of 37400-67000 with academic grade pay of Rs. 10,000.00 in terms of the notification dated 27-03-2015. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the Government of Nagaland, in the Department of Higher and Technical Education had issued an advertisement notice dated 27-03-2014 inviting application from the eligible candidates for filling up two posts of Principal for the SCTE, Kohima and Mokokchung College of Teachers Education (MCTE) in the pay band 37400-67000 with academic grade pay of Rs. 10,000.00. In the said advertisement notice, the essential qualifications for the post of Principal for both the posts were laid down. In response to the advertisement dated 27-03-2014, the respondent/writ petitioner had submitted an application dated 16-04-2014 addressed to the appellant No.3 submitting her candidature for the post of Principal, SCTE, Kohima. By notification dated 19-08-2014, the Governor of Nagaland had constituted a Departmental Selection Committee for the purpose of selection of candidates for appointment as Principals in the SCTE and MCTE. The Departmental Selection Committee had considered the candidature of two candidates including the respondent herein and thereafter, recommended the case of the respondent for appointment as Principal-in-Charge of SCTE by notification dated 08-04-2015. Since the advertisement dated 27-03-2014 was issued, inter alia, for filling up the post of Principal, SCTE, Kohima on regular basis, hence, the respondent was aggrieved by the order dated 08-05-2015 appointing her as "Principal-in-Charge" of the SCTE and accordingly, instituted W.P.(C) No. 73(K)/2015 on the ground that her appointment ought to have been as regular Principal of the SCTE, Kohima and not as Principal-in-Charge. The aforesaid writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 21-09-2015. Hence the present writ appeal. 3. We have heard Ms. V. Soukhrie, learned Govt. Advocate, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the appellants. We have also heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. The aforesaid writ petition preferred by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 21-09-2015. Hence the present writ appeal. 3. We have heard Ms. V. Soukhrie, learned Govt. Advocate, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the appellants. We have also heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. W. Jamir, learned counsel representing the respondent. 4. Ms. Soukhrie submits that the respondent did not meet the essential qualification norms as prescribed by the advertisement notice dated 27-03-2014. Since the respondent was holding the substantive post of Asstt. Professor at the time of submission of her candidature, hence, she was not eligible for being considered for appointment as a college Principal since the feeder cadre for appointment as Principal of the SCTE, Kohima is the grade of Associate Professor which is equivalent to the grade of Lecturer (selection grade). By referring to the provision of Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to an Rules of 2003) Ms. Soukhrie submits that although the respondent was neither qualified nor did she have the requisite length of service for being regularly appointed to the post of Principal yet, apparently out of a erroneous view taken by the Departmental Selection Committee and considering the fact that there were acute shortage of candidate in Nagaland who could hold the post of Principals, the case of the respondent was recommended for being appointed as Principal-in-Charge. The learned Govt. Advocate submits that the respondent ought to have considered herself fortunate to have been appointed as Principal-in-Charge of the SCTE, Kohima notwithstanding the fact that she did not fulfil the eligibility norms but, instead of accepting the same, the respondent has instituted the writ petition seeking enforcement of a non-existent legal right. 5. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submits that a bare perusal of the advertisement dated 27-03-2014 would go to show that the applications had been invited from eligible candidates for filling up the post of Principal by direct recruitment and present is not a case of promotion. The learned Sr. counsel submits that the reference made to the Rules of 2003 was completely misplaced as the said rules merely governed the condition for filling up the post of Principal by means of promotion and not by direct recruitment. The learned Sr. counsel submits that the reference made to the Rules of 2003 was completely misplaced as the said rules merely governed the condition for filling up the post of Principal by means of promotion and not by direct recruitment. The Departmental Selection Committee having been found that the respondent/writ petitioner possesses the requisite qualification as per the NCTE norms, the Committee ought to have recommended the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for appointment as Principal of SCTE as per the terms of the advertisement notice dated 27-03-2014. The same not having been done, the respondent was compelled to approach this Court by filing the aforementioned writ petition which was rightly allowed by the learned Single Judge. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that the core question that would arise for consideration of this Court is as to whether the respondent/writ petitioner did possess the requisite qualification as per the advertisement dated 27-03-2014 for being appointed to the post of Principal of SCTE, Kohima. For the purpose of ascertaining the said aspect of the matter, a reference to the essential qualification mentioned in the advertisement notice is deemed necessary. Since we are concerned only with the post of Principal, SCTE in this case, hence, the qualification for the said post alone, as laid down in the advertisement notice dated 27-03-2014, is quoted herein below : "Essential Qualification : (i) Principal/Professor/Head for SCTE, Kohima (a) A Master's Degree in Arts/Humanities/Science/Commerce and M.Ed each with a minimum of 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed), Or MA (Education) with 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) and B. Ed each with a minimum of 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) (b) Ph. D in Education; and (c) At least ten years of teaching experience in University department of education or College of Education of which a minimum of five years at the M. Ed level with published work in the area of his/her specialization." 7. A bare perusal of the mark sheet of the respondent pertaining to her MA (final) examination (Annexure-C) goes to show that the respondent had obtained 49.87% marks in her Master's Degree. But the minimum percentage required under the advertisement is 55%. A bare perusal of the mark sheet of the respondent pertaining to her MA (final) examination (Annexure-C) goes to show that the respondent had obtained 49.87% marks in her Master's Degree. But the minimum percentage required under the advertisement is 55%. That apart, a perusal of the application dated 16-04-2014 submitted by the respondent herself goes to show that her teaching experience at the M. Ed level was for 2½ months only. Whereas minimum five years teaching experience of M. Ed level was required. As such, evidently and admittedly, the respondent did not meet the essential qualification No. i(a) and (c) of the advertisement notice dated 27-03-2014. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the respondent has also fairly admitted the said position. If that be so, then the respondent did not have the eligibility to apply for the post of Principal, SCTE, Kohima in response to the advertisement notice dated 27-03-2014. Therefore, the question of selecting and appointing her to the said post in terms of the aforesaid advertisement notice did not raise at all. 8. Coming to the recommendation made by the Departmental Selection Committee as has been mentioned herein above, the Committee was of the view that the respondent did not comply with the norms of the Rules of 2003. The observation made by the Departmental Selection Committee, as recorded in the minutes of the meeting held on 29-08-2014 pertaining to the respondent, is quoted herein below : "Dr. Bendangyapangle has requisite qualification as per NCTE norms, length of teaching and service, but her present status as Asstt. Professor does not comply with the Higher Education Service Rules, 2003 for immediate promotion to the post of Principal. However, the committee recommended her case to be appointed as Principal-in-Charge till she is promoted to the post of Associate Professor by the Government, since there is shortage of candidates to man Institute of Teacher Education in Nagaland." 9. As has been noticed herein above, the respondent did not possess the requisite qualification under the advertisement dated 27-03-2014 for being appointed to the post of Principal, SCTE. However, the Departmental Selection Committee appears to have committed an error in holding that she did possess the requisite qualification as per the NCTE norms which is equivalent to the norms prescribed for the SCTE. However, the Departmental Selection Committee appears to have committed an error in holding that she did possess the requisite qualification as per the NCTE norms which is equivalent to the norms prescribed for the SCTE. It is a fact that the Rules of 2003 relate to filling up the post of college Principal by means of promotion. However, since the respondent admittedly did not fulfil the eligibility norms under the advertisement dated 27-03-2014, hence, even dehors the Rules of 2003, she could not have been selected by the Departmental Selection Committee for regular appointment to the post of Principal, SCTE. Such being the position, the respondent did not have any right that could have been enforced by filing the W.P.(C) No.73(K)/2015 through a writ of mandamus. As such, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge was not correct in allowing the writ petition directing the appellants to appoint the respondent/writ petitioner to the post of Principal, SCTE since the respondent was not qualified to be appointed as a Principal under the advertisement notice dated 27-03-2014. 10. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order dated 21-09-2015 is not sustainable in the eye of law and the same is accordingly set aside. In the result, the writ petition filed by the respondent stands dismissed. The writ appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to cost.