JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting side the Order No. CT/ESTT/624/2012/5281, dated 09.10.2014, and Order No. CT/ESTT/624/2012/5248, dated 09.10.2014, by which the private respondents No. 5 and 6 were appointed to the post of peon respectively, in the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Mokokchung Zone, Mokokchung and to pass any further order or orders or direction or directions as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Supu Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K. Angami, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the private respondent No.5. As for the respondent No.6 none appeared inspite of the fact that notice was sent to him through registered post with AD on 17.08.2016. 3. From the submission of the learned counsels and from the pleadings of the parties on record facts of the case that has emerged are as follows;- That by Oder No. CT/ESTT/134/97(Pt), dated 28.06.2011, the petitioner was appointed on contract basis as a peon in the Office of Assistant Commissioner of Taxes, Mokokchung, Nagaland against the vacancy that occurred due to the retirement of Shri. Medemkaba, for a period of 1(one) year or till regular appointment is made by the Selection Board whichever is earlier, in the scale of pay of Rs. 4400-17200/- GP Rs. 1300/- pm plus House Rent Allowance @ 10%, plus all other allowances as are admissible to a similar post of the State Government. Thereafter, the petitioner’s service was extended from time to time by the respondents vide their Orders No. CT/ESTT/134/97/601, dated 20.07.2012, No. CT/ESTT/134/97/ 2828, dated 05.08.2013, and No. CT/ESTT/1345/97, dated 13.08.2014 respectively. The petitioner while in service submitted an application dated 05.04.2015 to the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland stating that he was about to be over age for appointment to Government service, therefore, he may be regularised in his service. The same was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Mokokchung to the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland with his forwarding letter dated 08.04.2015. Since the same was not considered he submitted another application to the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland requesting for extension of his adhoc service by another year. The same was forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Mokokchung to the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland with his forwarding letter dated 08.04.2015. Since the same was not considered he submitted another application to the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland requesting for extension of his adhoc service by another year. The same was also forwarded by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Mokokchung vide his letter No. DCTM/ESTT/MISC/1/2012-13, dated not illegible. Thereafter, the petitioner also submitted 1(one) more representation to the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland for regularisation of his service. All his representations having not been considered he submitted his last representation addressed to the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland through the Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Mokokchung on 16.09.2015 seeking for regularisation of his service in the post last held by him. The same also was not considered. Instead on 09.10.2014, the respondent No. 3 issued 2(two) orders being Order No. CT/ESTT/624/2012/5281, dated 09.10.2014 and No. CT/ESTT/624/2012/5248, dated 09.10.2014, appointing the respondent No.5 (Shri. Benjongkumba Ao) and respondent No.6 (Shri. O. Among Sanglir), to the post of peon respectively, in the Office of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Mokokchung Zone on regular basis, without issuing advertisement and recommendation of Selection Board. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner having served more than 5(five) years should have been regularised in the post held by him since he had served with all sincerity and dedication. The learned counsel also submitted that the appointments of the private respondents were illegal as the same was done without issuing advertisement and without the recommendation of Selection Board. Therefore, they deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Mr. K. Angami, learned Government Advocate submitted on behalf of the State respondents that on 27.06.2013, the Commissioner of Taxes (i.e. respondent No.3) forwarded different lists of applicants for appointment to different post/services lying vacant in the department and in one of such list the name of the petitioner was included among the applicants for post of peon. However, since he did not possess the requisite educational qualification, his name was not considered, therefore, the names of the 2(two) private respondents i.e. the respondent No. 5 and 6 were selected/approved by the Government and in pursuance of the approval they were appointed to their respective posts. As such, there is nothing wrong in the appointments by the respondents. 6. Mr. As such, there is nothing wrong in the appointments by the respondents. 6. Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the private respondent No.5 submitted that the petitioner has been appointed once again on contingency paid office peon with a fixed pay of Rs. 3,000/- pm in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Mokokchung Zone vide order dated 19.10.2015 issued by the Commissioner of Taxes, Nagaland. Therefore, he has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the private respondents and on this ground alone the petition deserves to be dismissed. The learned counsel also submitted that the appointments of the private respondents were done with the approval of the Government, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order which requires interference of this Court. The learned counsel further submitted that the petition is defective since it did not challenge the Government approval, therefore, it is not sustainable in law. 7. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was Class-IX passed, whereas, the needed qualification for appointment to the posts of peon was only Class-IX, therefore, to say that the petitioner was not qualified or did not have the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of peon is totally wrong. The learned counsel also submitted that the fact that the petitioner has been appointed on contingency basis does not disentitle him from asking what he is lawfully entitled to. 8. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsels. It is admitted fact that there is no scheme of the State Government under which the petitioner can be regularised in the post where he was appointed on adhoc. With that in view it can only be concluded that the petitioner had no right to claim for regularisation in the post held by him. The only valid claim he could have made was relaxation of eligibility age for applying for the post as and when advertisement would have been issued. Other than this, this Court find nothing which would confer the right for regularisation in the post once held by him. The only valid claim he could have made was relaxation of eligibility age for applying for the post as and when advertisement would have been issued. Other than this, this Court find nothing which would confer the right for regularisation in the post once held by him. However, there is nothing to show that advertisement inviting applicants for filling up of the 2(two) posts of peon including the post once held by the petitioner was ever issued and there is also nothing which would show that a Selection Board was constituted and the respondents No. 5 and 6 along with others were interviewed by such Board before their appointments to the post was approved and orders to that effect were issued. The law has been settled by pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases that all appointments to public office or Government services should be preceded by issuance of advertisement which should also be widely circulated. The reason for the same is obvious. Under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India it is enshrined that every citizen should be given equal opportunity for appointment to public employment or Government services. To avoid unnecessary repetition and wastage of space only 2(two) judgments wherein the law was pronounced by the Hon’ble Supreme Court are given here below:- (i) In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others –versus- Umadevi & Others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 1 . The relevant paras-38, 40 & 41. “38. In Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela & Others [ 2006 (2) SCALE 115 ], this Court answered the question, who was a Government servant and stated:- "Article 16 which finds place in Part III of the Constitution relating to fundamental rights provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The main object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices. The words "employment" or "appointment" cover not merely the initial appointment but also other attributes of service like promotion and age of superannuation etc. The main object of Article 16 is to create a constitutional right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices. The words "employment" or "appointment" cover not merely the initial appointment but also other attributes of service like promotion and age of superannuation etc. The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made. A regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange where eligible candidates get their names registered. Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution (See B.S. Minhas Vs. Indian Statistical Institute and others AIR 1984 SC 363 )." 40. At this stage, it is relevant to notice two aspects. In Kesavananda Bharati Vs. State of Kerala (1973 Supp. S.C.R. 1), this Court held that Article 14, and Article 16, which was described as a facet of Article 14, is part of the basic structure of the Constitution of India. The position emerging from Kesavananada Bharati (supra) was summed up by Jagannatha Rao, J., speaking for a Bench of three Judges in Indira Sawhney Vs. Union of India (1999 Suppl. (5) S.C.R. 229). That decision also reiterated how neither the Parliament nor the Legislature could transgress the basic feature of the Constitution, namely, the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of which Article 16 (1) is a facet. This Court stated, "The preamble to the Constitution of India emphasises the principle of equality as basic to our constitution. In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, it was ruled that even constitutional amendments which offended the basic structure of the Constitution would be ultra vires the basic structure. Sikri, CJ. This Court stated, "The preamble to the Constitution of India emphasises the principle of equality as basic to our constitution. In Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, it was ruled that even constitutional amendments which offended the basic structure of the Constitution would be ultra vires the basic structure. Sikri, CJ. laid stress on the basic features enumerated in the preamble to the Constitution and said that there were other basic features too which could be gathered from the Constitutional scheme (para 506 A of SCC). Equality was one of the basic features referred to in the Preamble to our Constitution. Shelat and Grover, JJ. also referred to the basic rights referred to in the Preamble. They specifically referred to equality (paras 520 and 535A of SCC). Hegde & Shelat, JJ. also referred to the Preamble (paras 648, 652). Ray, J. (as he then was) also did so (para 886). Jaganmohan Reddy, J. too referred to the Preamble and the equality doctrine (para 1159). Khanna, J. accepted this position (para 1471). Mathew, J. referred to equality as a basic feature(para 1621). Dwivedi, J. (paras 1882, 1883) and Chandrachud, J.(as he then was) (see para 2086) accepted this position. What we mean to say is that Parliament and the legislatures in this Country cannot transgress the basic feature of the Constitution, namely, the principle of equality enshrined in Article 14 of which Article 16(1) is a facet." 41. In the earlier decision in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India [1992 Supp. (2) S.C.R. 454), B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. speaking for the majority, while acknowledging that equality and equal opportunity is a basic feature of our Constitution, has explained the exultant position of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the scheme of things. His Lordship stated:- "6. The significance attached by the founding fathers to the right to equality is evident not only from the fact that they employed both the expressions 'equality before the law' and 'equal protection of the laws' in Article 14 but proceeded further to state the same rule in positive and affirmative terms in Articles 15 to 18. 7. Inasmuch as public employment always gave a certain status and power --- it has always been the repository of State power ---besides the means of livelihood, special care was taken to declare equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment by Article 16. 7. Inasmuch as public employment always gave a certain status and power --- it has always been the repository of State power ---besides the means of livelihood, special care was taken to declare equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment by Article 16. Clause (1), expressly declares that in the matter of public employment or appointment to any office under the state, citizens of this country shall have equal opportunity while clause (2) declares that no citizen shall be discriminated in the said matter on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them. At the same time, care was taken to, declare in clause (4) that nothing in the said Article shall prevent the state from making any provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizen which in the opinion of the state, is not adequately represented in the services under the state.."(See paragraphs 6 and 7 at pages 544 and 545) These binding decisions are clear imperatives that adherence to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is a must in the process of public employment”. (ii) In the case of State of Orissa & Anr. –vs- Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 . The relevant paragraphs- 35 and 36. “APPOINTMENT/EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT: 35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from Employment Exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in Radio and Television as merely calling the names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Article of the Constitution. (Vide: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 789 ; State of Haryana & Ors. (Vide: Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 789 ; State of Haryana & Ors. v. Piara Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 SC 2130 ; Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P.v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao & Ors., (1996) 6 SCC 216 ; Arun Tewari & Ors. v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 331; Binod Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. Ram Ashray Mahoto & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 2103 ; National Fertilizers Ltd. & Ors. v. Somvir Singh, AIR 2006 SC 2319;Telecom District Manager & Ors. v. Keshab Deb, (2008) 8 SCC 402 ; State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 65 ; and State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Mohd. Ibrahim, (2009) 15 SCC 214 ). 36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit”. 9. From the above two judgments, one can understand without a tinge of doubt that recruitment or appointment to Government services without issuance of advertisement has become a thing of the past and it should no longer be practice as doing so would invite the ills of Article of 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further, it is also clear that recruitment or appointment to Government services or public services should be preceded by advertisement so that every citizen who is eligible and interested gets the same opportunity to apply and compete for such post or service. 10. Further, it is also clear that recruitment or appointment to Government services or public services should be preceded by advertisement so that every citizen who is eligible and interested gets the same opportunity to apply and compete for such post or service. 10. In view of the above, the two impugned Orders being No. CT/ESTT/624/2012/5281, dated 09.10.2014, and No. CT/ESTT/624/2012/5248, dated 09.10.2014, by which the respondents No. 5 and 6 were appointed to the posts of peon in the office of Deputy Commissioner of Taxes, Mokokchung Zone are quashed and set aside. The Government respondents should advertised the 2(two) posts within a period of 2(two) months and give opportunity to everyone who are eligible and interested in appointment to the posts to apply and compete for the same. Needless to say but for the sake of clarity it is directed that the petitioner be allowed to apply and compete for the post by relaxing the eligibility age for him considering his past service. With this, the writ petition is disposed.