JUDGMENT & ORDER : S.Serto, J. 1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2016, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.163(K)/2013. 2. The facts which led to the filing of this writ appeal briefly stated are as follows; That on requisition made by the Nagaland State Council Educational Research and Training (which shall hereinafter be referred to SCERT), Nagaland Public Service Commission, (which shall hereinafter be referred to NPSC) issued an Advertisement No. 5/2004-2005, dated 17.02.2005, inviting applications for filing up vacancies in various posts under Higher Education department and under SCERT. Pursuant thereto, the appellants applied for the posts of Lecturer in Science and Social Science and the respondents/writ petitioners applied for the post of Lecturer in English. Thereafter, the NPSC vide Notice No. NPSC/CON-16/2004, dated 13.05-2005, notified the list of selected candidates and informed the candidates to appear for the viva voce on 21.06.2005 for Lecturer post in English, on 22.06.2005 for the Lecturer post in Education, on 27.06.2005 for the post in Science and on 28.05.2005 for Lecturer post in Social Science. The same was followed with individual calling letters. In that notification, the names of the appellants as well as the names of the respondents/writ petitioners figured among the selected candidates. Thereafter, viva voce for all other subjects was held on the dates as fixed but for the English subject it was not held on the date fixed due to a litigation before this High Court, however, it was ultimately held on 01.10.2005. The result of the appellants’ viva voce was declared vide notification dated 29-6-2005 and that of the respondents was declared on 01.10.2005. Thereafter, they were recommended by the NPSC for appointment and their appointment was issued on the same day. That while the appellants and the respondents were serving in their respective posts, the SCERT vide O.M. No. EDS/DIET-1/05(Pt), dated 17.11.2006, notified a final seniority list of officers serving under the SCERT/DIET as on 01.07.2006, and in that the names of the appellants figured at Sl. No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16 respectively whereas, the names of the respondents/writ petitioners figured at Sl. No.17 to No.22. No. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16 respectively whereas, the names of the respondents/writ petitioners figured at Sl. No.17 to No.22. Due to implementation of the Nagaland Retirement from Public Service (Second Amendment) Act, 2009, the department felt the need to update the seniority list of the officers of the department, therefore, the Director, SCERT vide letter No. SCERT/ADM-8/2009-10, dated 28.09.2010, circulated the tentative seniority list of officers under DIET and invited objections or claims, if any, which should be submitted by 08.10.2010. In that tentative seniority list, (in the Lecturers’ column) the names of the appellants were shown at Sl. No. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25 respectively, while the names of the respondents/writ petitioners were shown at Sl. No. 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 & 31 respectively. The respondents/writ petitioners submitted a joint representation against the said tentative seniority list on 09.04.2012, which is after about a lapse of 2 years from the date the tentative seniority list was issued. However, the State respondents acted on the representation and requested the NPSC vide letter dated 01.05.2012, to furnish the merit list of DIET, Lecturers as per the examination conducted pursuant to the Advertisement dated 17.02.2005. On receipt of the same, the NPSC furnished the merit list as requested. Thereafter, another tentative seniority list of the officers under DIET was circulated vide Circular dated 31.07.2012, and in that the appellants were shown above the respondents/writ petitioners. Once again, the respondents/writ petitioners submitted their representation objecting the tentative seniority list. However, the final seniority list was published vide O.M No. DSE/DIET/SL-74/2012, dated 12.09.2012. 3. Being aggrieved by the said final seniority list, the respondents/writ petitioners approached this Court by filing the W.P(C) No. 163(K) of 2013, wherein a prayer was made for quashing or setting aside the letter of NPSC dated 05.11.2009, the merit list dated 17.08.2012, the tentative seniority list dated 17.09.2006, the final seniority list dated 12.09.2012. The appellants and the State respondents contested the writ petition by filing affidavit-in-opposition. The writ petition was disposed vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2016, wherein the prayer of the respondents/writ petitioners was allowed and the State respondents were directed to determine the interse seniority list of the appellants and respondents/writ petitioners on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the recruitment conducted by NPSC. The writ petition was disposed vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.04.2016, wherein the prayer of the respondents/writ petitioners was allowed and the State respondents were directed to determine the interse seniority list of the appellants and respondents/writ petitioners on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the recruitment conducted by NPSC. The operative portion of the impugned judgment and order is given here below:- “(21). The marks obtained by the petitioners and the private respondents are reflected in the letter dated 17.08.2012 (also in the letter dated 27.08.2012) of NPSC. They are as follows: Date of result 29.08.2005 (Respondent Nos. 4 to 14) Sl. No. Name Roll No. Subject Marks 1. Daniel Thong Seb 126 Science 96.58 2. James Sema 44(B) Science 96.02 3. Vitsono Meyase 141 S. Science 94.72 4. Kekhriekhou Dzuvichu 138 S.Science 93.15 5. N. Yitoli Sema 133 Science 92.98 6. Iralu Megoriano N 127 Science 92.03 7. C. Yoonglie Konyak (B.T) 142 S. Science 89.03 8. Satemmenla Longkumer 136 Science 88.16 9. Zhanuo Thakhro 130 Science 85.50 10. T. Anungla 132 Science 82.34 11. Beduklho Chuzho (B.T) 134 Science 77.47 Date of result 01.10.2005 (Petitioner) Sl. No. Name Roll No. Subject Marks 1. Veketulu Veiyie 70 English 92.54 2. Sungtimenla 69 English 83.25 3. Lichumbeni kikon 73 English 83.20 4. Aneile Puro 67 English 81.91 5. Imnakala 68 English 81.85 6. Kenyuhilie Kent 156 English 78.20 (22) It will be appropriate, having regard to the arguments advanced, to extract herein below, the relevant portion of the Memorandum dated 09.06.2966 “2. When recruitment is made directly through open competition through the Nagaland Public Service Commission or other approved Selection Boards, the relative seniority of direct recruits shall be determined by the other of merit in which they are selected for appointment on the recommendation of the Commission or other Selecting Authority, Persons appointed as a result of an earlier selection will be senior to those appointed as a result of subsequent selection.” (23). The Nagaland Public Service Commission (state Civil and other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008 came into effect on 29th February, 2008. Rule 25 (2) of the aforesaid Rules provide as follows: “(2) The inter-se-seniority of then selected candidates recruited in one batch will be fixed in the order of the merit list as published in the notification of the results. The Nagaland Public Service Commission (state Civil and other Services) Recruitment Rules, 2008 came into effect on 29th February, 2008. Rule 25 (2) of the aforesaid Rules provide as follows: “(2) The inter-se-seniority of then selected candidates recruited in one batch will be fixed in the order of the merit list as published in the notification of the results. Provided that the conditions in the service Rules concerned regarding the time prescribed for joining service are fulfilled by the candidates.………..” (24). In the final seniority list dated 12.09.2012, the name of respondent Nos. 4 to14 are placed as follows: Respondent No. 4 42 Respondent No.56 43 Respondent No.6 46 Respondent No.7 47 Respondent No.8 49 Respondent No.9 50 Respondent No.10 51 Respondent No.11 52 Respondent No.12 44 Respondent No.13 45 Respondent No.14 48 (25). The names of the petitioners in the said list dated 12.09.2012 appear as follows: Petitioner No. 1 55 Petitioner No.2 53 Petitioner No.3 54 Petitioner No.4 56 Petitioner No.5 57 Petitioner No.6 58 (26). The argument of Mr. Iralu is that the combined merit list ought to have been prepared and if the same was prepared, the position would have been reflected as follows: Respondent No. 4 42 Respondent No.5 43 Respondent No.12 44 Respondent No.13 45 Respondent No.6 46 Petitioner No.2 47 Respondent No.7 48 Respondent No.14 49 Respondent No.8 50 Respondent No.9 51 Petitioner No. 2 52 Petitioner No. 1 53 Respondent No.10 54 Petitioner No. 4 55 Petitioner No.5 56 Petitioner No. 6 57 Respondent No.11 58 (27). After production of the records by Ms. V. Suokhrie on perusal of the same, the Court, by order passed on that date, had observed as follows: “It appears from the said records that an Office Memorandum dated 1st August, 2006 was issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland on the subject of tentative seniority of the officers under SCERT and DIET as ion 1st July, 2006. In the said list at Annexure-III, names of present respondents Nos. 4 to 14 appeared at serial Nos. 6 to 16+ and that of the writ petitions from serial Nos. 17 to 22. Letter bearing No. SCERT/Senuiority-1/2005-06/901 dated 8th September, 2006 indicates that 19(nineteen) employees of SCERT and 35 (thirty five) employees of DIET had submitted their representations including Smti. Nukshinaro and Keduwe-u Tsuhah, whose names figured at serial Nos. 4 to 14 appeared at serial Nos. 6 to 16+ and that of the writ petitions from serial Nos. 17 to 22. Letter bearing No. SCERT/Senuiority-1/2005-06/901 dated 8th September, 2006 indicates that 19(nineteen) employees of SCERT and 35 (thirty five) employees of DIET had submitted their representations including Smti. Nukshinaro and Keduwe-u Tsuhah, whose names figured at serial Nos. 3 and 5 of Annexure-III of the tentative seniority list dated 1st August, 2006. Thereafter, by Office Memorandum dated 17th November, 2006, final seniority of the officers under SCERT/DIET, as on 1st July, 2006, was published indicating that no further representations shall be entertained in this regard.” (28). It is important to note that private respondents had filed affidavit on 12.11.2013, prior to the filing of affidavit by the State respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in which the private respondents did not even make a whisper about existence of a seniority list dated 17.11.2006 and it is contended that the impugned seniority dated 12.09.2012 was prepared in accordance with the standing memoranda and guidelines issued by the Government of Nagaland. In the context of the case, non-mentioning of aforesaid seniority list dated 17.11.2006 assumes great significance. The categorical case of the writ petitioners is that neither the tentative seniority list nor the so-called final seniority list dated 17.11.2006 was published and the petitioners were kept in complete dark. Records produced by the respondents do not indicate that the seniority list was served upon the petitioners through the letter dated 17.11.2006 indicated copies had been given to all concerned officers under SCERT. The petitioners and the private respondent Nos. 4to 14 were appointed only in the month of April, 2006 and the tentative seniority list was published on 01.08.2006. Another important feature is that the private respondents did not file any affidavit even after the amendments were effected by arguments have been advanced by Mr. Jamir that challenge made to the seniority list dated 17.11.2006 suffers from delay and laches. The fact that the private respondent Nos. 4 to 14 did not raise the issue of publication of the seniority list dated 17.11.2006 in their affidavit will lead credence to the case of the petitioners that the same was not circulated, at least, amongst the newly recruited officers. Therefore, I not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. The fact that the private respondent Nos. 4 to 14 did not raise the issue of publication of the seniority list dated 17.11.2006 in their affidavit will lead credence to the case of the petitioners that the same was not circulated, at least, amongst the newly recruited officers. Therefore, I not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Jamir that the petitioners had lodged a very belated protest, more so, in view of the fact that in the interregnum no promotion, etc. had taken place from amongst the petitioners and the private respondents. None of the parties have place on the record what happened after the tentative seniority list dated 27.09.2010 was issued. On the contrary, another tentative list was published on 31.07,.2012 which came to be finalized with publication of the final seniority list on 12.09.2012. The said final seniority list dated 12.09.2012 came to be challenged immediately thereafter. It may be noted that the dispute of seniority is, essentially, confined only to the petitioners and the respondents Nos. 4 to 14 and even if the Court interferes with the final seniority list, in the fact and circumstances of the case, the same would not amount to upsetting a long settled position of seniority. Therefore, I am not inclined to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of laches and delay. (29). It is to be noted that while oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in English was scheduled on 21.06.2005, oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Social Science were notified to be held on 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005. For holding of interviews for the aforesaid subjects, there was common advertisement dated 17.02.2005. It is only under fortuitous circumstances, as noticed earlier, interview for the posts of Lecturers in English came to be held on 01.10.2005. The result dated 29.06.2005 contains the names of candidates on the basis of merit in respect of both the subjects, that is to say, list was prepared depending on the marks score in the interview held on 27.06.2005 and 128.06.2005. To illustrate, it can be pointed out that serial Nos.1 and2 were selected for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Serial No.3 for the posts of Lecturer of Social Science. As interview for the posts of lectures in English was held on 01.10.2005, result of such selection was declared on 01.10.2005. (30). To illustrate, it can be pointed out that serial Nos.1 and2 were selected for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Serial No.3 for the posts of Lecturer of Social Science. As interview for the posts of lectures in English was held on 01.10.2005, result of such selection was declared on 01.10.2005. (30). The question that arises for consideration is as to whether publication of result on different dates initiated by a common advertisement for the posts of same cadre would result in 2(two) separate selection processes. (31). The Memorandum dated 09.06.1966 makes it abundantly clear that the related seniority of direct recruits shall be determined by order of merit in which they are selected on the recommendation of the commission. The State counsel as well as Mr. Jamir have submitted that with the declaration of the result, one selection process had come an end and there being 2(two) dates of result, it is to be construed that 2(two) selection processes had taken place and therefore, in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 09.06.1966, persons appointed on the basis of declaration of result on 29.06.2005 will rank senior to those who were selected on 01.10.2005. (32). In Pawan Pratap (supra), the Apex Court observed that appointees in 1991 would rank senior to appointees in 1994 even though appointment of 1994 appointees was for earlier vacancies. In Balwant Singhi (supra), it was held that candidate who were selected against earlier vacancies but who could not be appointed along with others of the same batch due to certain technical difficulties, when appointed subsequently, will have to be placed above those who were appointed against subsequent vacancies. (33). Process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment. It consist of various steps like inviting application, scrutiny of applications, conducting examinations and, therefore, it would be unreasonable to construe the word selection only as the factum of preparation of select list. Date of interview is a variable factor. One must not forget that it is a common interview process for a common cadre and publication of the list by NPSC for a particular subject for the vacancies in question will not determine inter-se-seniority as a contrary view will have the potential to destroy the very sanctity of the selection process. Date of interview is a variable factor. One must not forget that it is a common interview process for a common cadre and publication of the list by NPSC for a particular subject for the vacancies in question will not determine inter-se-seniority as a contrary view will have the potential to destroy the very sanctity of the selection process. It may be good thing for the purpose of transparency to declare the result immediately after holding of the interview for a particular subject. Mandate of the Commission is to prepare the select list and preparation of the select list is not complete till such time interviews are held for all the subjects in question. The commission cannot, on its own, divide and sub-divide a common selection process initiated by a single advertisement on the basis of declaration of results on different dates. It is, however, to be placed on record that it is not the case of either of the parties that the commission had deliberately or with an oblique motive published the list on 2(two) dates. It would have been better if the commission had published the list of selected candidates separately for the posts of Lecturers in Science and Lecturer of Social Science instead of clubbing it together on the basis of merit when it declared t5he result on 29.06.2005 because at that time , interview for the posts of Lecturers in English had not taken place. That way the NPSC could have maintained utmost transparency in the selection process. After the interview for the subjects for which the advertisement was issued, a composite merit list ought to have been published. In absence of any separate advertisement for the posts of Lecturers in English, which is the first step in a selection process, in the scenario that has been depicted, I am not inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that 2(two) selection processes, one of the respondent Nos.4 to 14 and one in respect of the petitioners, had taken place and this court is of the considered opinion that there is only one selection process in which the candidates had been assessed. (34). All the persons who are likely to be effected are made parties in the proceeding. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. (34). All the persons who are likely to be effected are made parties in the proceeding. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. Jamir that the select list of 12.09.2012 having been challenged in its entirety and all the persons having not been arrayed as parties, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Technically, having regard to the prayer made, all the persons ought to have been made parties but the Court has to consider the essence of the challenge. Substratum of the challenged is the position of the respondent Nos.4 to 14 in the select list. The Court, in exercise of power under Article 226 of the constitution of India, for interest of justice, can mould the relief and, therefore, the impugned seniority list dated 12.09.2012 as well as other seniority lists are interfered with only with regard to the petitioners and private respondent Nos.4 to 14. (35). This Court is of the considered opinion that direction to the NPSC to prepare a composite merit list of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 to 14 will be redundant as the marks obtained by them have become part of this judgment. Accordingly, the State respondents are directed to fix the inter-se-seniority of the petitioners and the respondents on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioners and the private respondent Nos. 4to 14 considering the result dated 29.06.2005 and 01.10.2005 to be out of one selection process in the light of the directions and observations made in this writ petition. (36). The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the above. No cost. (37). Registry will immediately transmit the records to Kohima Bench.’’ Aggrieved, the appellants has approached this court by filing the present writ appeal challenging the findings or conclusions drawn in the impugned judgment and order. 4. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. (36). The writ petition is allowed and disposed of in terms of the above. No cost. (37). Registry will immediately transmit the records to Kohima Bench.’’ Aggrieved, the appellants has approached this court by filing the present writ appeal challenging the findings or conclusions drawn in the impugned judgment and order. 4. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel for the appellants submitted that the seniority list of officers under the DIET was finalized and published on 17.11.2006 but the respondents/writ petitioners filed the writ petition challenging the same after a lapse of about 7 years, as such, there was delay and laches in filing the same, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought to have dismissed the same on that ground alone, but, instead the same was allowed by the impugned judgment and order thereby unsettling a settled position which is against the settle principle of law. The learned counsel cited the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and Another –versus- Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others reported in (2013) SCC 179 particularly, paragraphs-26 to 29 in support of his submission. The same is reproduced here below:- “26. Presently, sitting in a time machine, we may refer to a two-Judge Bench decision in P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein it has been laid down that: (SCCp.154, para 2) “2.....A person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. It is not that there is any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor is it that there can never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after the passage of a certain length of time. But it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters.” 27. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled. We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled. There may not be unsettlement of the settled position but, a pregnant one, the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Anyone who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. As we perceive neither the tribunal nor the High Court has appreciated these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base that a junior was promoted and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the promotion. 28. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the Tribunal and accepted by the High Court. 29. True it is, notional promotional benefits have been granted but the same is likely to affect the State exchequer regard being had to the fixation of pay and the pension. These aspects have not been taken into consideration. What is urged before us by the learned counsel for the respondents is that they should have been equally treated with Madhav Singh Tadagi. But equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not after expiry of two decades. Not for nothing, it has been said that everything may stop but not the time, for all are in a way slaves of time. There may not be any provision providing for limitation but a grievance relating to promotion cannot be given a new lease of life at any point of time”. (ii) The learned Sr. counsel further cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors –versus- State Of Orissa & Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471 , particularly, paragraphs- 21 to 30. The same are given here below:- “21. (ii) The learned Sr. counsel further cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors –versus- State Of Orissa & Others reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471 , particularly, paragraphs- 21 to 30. The same are given here below:- “21. The issue of challenging the seniority list, which continued to be in existence for a long time, was again considered by this Court in K.R. Mudgal & Ors. v. R.P. Singh & Orsf. The Court held as under: (SCC pp.532 & 536, paras 2 & 7) “2....A government servant who is appointed to any post ordinarily should at least after a period of 3 or 4 years of his appointment be allowed to attend to the duties attached to his post peacefully and without any sense of insecurity......... “7... Satisfactory service conditions postulate that there shall be no sense of uncertainty amongst the Government servants created by writ petitions filed after several years as in this case. It is essential that anyone who feels aggrieved by the seniority assigned to him, should approach the Court as early as possible otherwise in addition to creation of sense of insecurity in the mind of Government servants, there shall also be administrative complication and difficulties.... In these circumstances we consider that the High Court was wrong in rejecting the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents to the writ petition on the ground of laches." (emphasis added) 22. While deciding. Mudgal case18, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgment in Malcom Lawrance Cecil D'Souza v. Union of India, 1269, wherein it had been observed as under: (Cecil D'Souza case19,SCCp.602, para 9) "9. Although security of service cannot be used as a shield against administrative action for lapse of a public servant, by and large one of the essential requirements of contentment and efficiency in public service is a feeling of security. It is difficult no doubt to guarantee such security in all its varied aspects, it should at least be possible to ensure that matters like one's position in a seniority list after having been settled for once should not be liable to be re-opened after lapse of many years at the instance of a party who has during the intervening period chosen to keep quiet. Raking up old matters like seniority after a long time is likely to result in administrative complications and difficulties. It would, therefore, appear to be in the interest of smoothness and efficiency of service that such matters should be given a quietus after lapse of some time." (Emphasis added) 23. In B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab this Court while deciding the similar issue re-iterated the same view, observing as under: (SCCp.526, para 7) "7...It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re-opened in such situations after the lapse of reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone was sufficient to decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition". (Emphasis added) 24. In Dayaram A. Gursahani v. State of Maharashtra, while reiterating the similar view this Court held that in absence of satisfactory explanation for inordinate delay of 8-9 years in questioning under Article 226 of the Constitution, the validity of the seniority and promotion assigned to other employee could not be entertained. 25. In P.S. Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu. this Court considered the case where the petition was filed after lapse of fourteen years challenging the promotion. However, this Court held that aggrieved person must approach the Court expeditiously for relief and it is not permissible to put forward stale claim. The Court observed as under : (SCCp.154,para 2) "2.....A person aggrieved by an order promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion." The Court further observed that it was not that there was any period of limitation for the Courts to exercise their powers under Article 226 nor was it that there could never be a case where the Courts cannot interfere in a matter after certain length of time. It would be a sound and wise exercise of jurisdiction for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extra ordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who standby and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claim and try to unsettle settled matters. 26. 26. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Sudama Devi vs. Commissioner; State of U.P. vs. Raj Bahadur Singh and Northern Indian Glass Industries vs. Jaswant Singh. 27. In Dinkar Anna Patil vs. State of Maharashtra this Court held that delay and laches in challenging the seniority is always fatal, but in case the party satisfies the Court regarding delay, the case may be considered. 28. In K.A. Abdul Majeed vs. State of Kerala this Court held that seniority assigned to any employee could not be challenged after a lapse of seven years on the ground that his initial appointment had been irregular, though even on merit it was found that seniority of the petitioner therein had correctly been fixed. 29. It is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be allowed to raise the dispute or challenge the validity of the order after its conclusion. No party can claim the relief as a matter of right as one of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the Court is guilty of delay and the laches. The Court exercising public law jurisdiction does not encourage agitation of stale claims where the right of third parties crystallises in the interregnum. (vide Aflatoon vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi; State of Mysore vs. V.K. Kangan ; Municipal Council, Ahmednagar vs Shah Hyder Beig; Inder Jit Gupta vs. Union of India; Shiv Dass vs. Union of India; A.P.SRTC vs. N. Satyanarayana; ( and City and Industrial Development Corporation vs. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala34). 30. Thus, in view of the above, the settled legal proposition that emerges is that once the seniority had been fixed and it remains in existence for a reasonable period, any challenge to the same should not be entertained. In K.R. Mudgal, this Court has laid down, in crystal clear words that a seniority list which remains in existence for 3 to 4 years unchallenged, should not be disturbed. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation. 31. Thus, 3-4 years is a reasonable period for challenging the seniority and in case someone agitates the issue of seniority beyond this period, he has to explain the delay and laches in approaching the adjudicatory forum, by furnishing satisfactory explanation. 31. The Tribunal ought to have dismissed the case of Parsuram Sahu only on the ground of delay and the laches, as the applicant approached the Tribunal at the verge of his retirement and after getting two promotions while the other parties have got three promotions. In the said case, the private respondents have not considered it proper to contest the case because both of them were likely to superannuate just thereafter on attaining the age of retirement. Undoubtedly, the said judgment and order has not been challenged by anybody and it attained finality but that remained the judgment in personam. More so, there is nothing on record to show as to whether the said applicant Parsuram Sahu could ever get any relief from the State Government”. (iii) The learned Sr. counsel further cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Rajendra Pratap Singh and Others –versus- State Of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2011) 7 SCC 743 , particularly, paragraphs- 43, 45 and 46. The relevant portions of the judgment are given here below:- “43. In Rana Randhir Singh's case9 this Court clearly held that the seniority of the officers appointed in the U.P. Police Service after 1980 shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Rule 21 of the U.P. Police Service Rules, 1942. Respondent no.4 was appointed in 1994, therefore, the 1942 Rules would be applicable to him as the said Rules are still in force. 45. We deem it appropriate to reiterate that in service jurisprudence there is immense sanctity of a final seniority list. The seniority list once published cannot be disturbed at the behest of a person who chose not to challenge it for four years. The sanctity of the seniority list must be maintained unless there are very compelling reasons to do so in order to do substantial justice. This is imperative to avoid avoidable litigation and unrest and chaos in the services. 46. The sanctity of the seniority list must be maintained unless there are very compelling reasons to do so in order to do substantial justice. This is imperative to avoid avoidable litigation and unrest and chaos in the services. 46. We, therefore, direct the respondent-State of U.P. to prepare a fresh seniority list and place all three of them on their respective positions as they had not received the benefit of 1973 seniority. There has been a considerable delay in this matter, therefore, we direct the State of U.P. to publish a fresh seniority list as expeditiously as possible, in any event within two months from the date of this judgment”. (iv) The learned Sr. counsel also cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of B.S Bajwa and Another -versus- State Punjab and Others reported in (1998) 2 SCC 523 , particularly, paragraphs- 7 and 8. The relevant portions of the judgment are given here below:- “7. Having heard both sides we are satisfied that the writ petition was wrongly entertained and allowed by the single Judge and, therefore, the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench have both to be set aside. The undisputed facts appearing from the record are alone sufficient to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of latches because the grievance made by B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta only in 1984 which was long after they had entered the department in 1971-72. During this entire period of more than a decade they were all along treated as junior to the order aforesaid persons and the rights inter se had crystallised which ought not to have been reopened after the lapse of such a long period. At every stage the others were promoted before B.S. Bajwa and B.D.Gupta and this position was known to B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta right from the beginning as found by the Division Bench itself. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re- opened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for 15 and to reject the writ petition. 8. It is well settled that in service matters the question of seniority should not be re- opened in such situations after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for 15 and to reject the writ petition. 8. In view of the above conclusion it is not necessary for us to express any opinion on the merits of the point raised by B.S. Bajwa and B.D. Gupta. We make it clear that the view thereon taken by the High Court is not to be treated as concluded or having affirmation of any kind. The appeals of B.S.Bajwa and B.D.Gupta are dismissed and the appeal filed by D.P.Bajaj and Jagir Singh is allowed. With the result that the judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition filed by B.S.Bajwa and B.D.Gupta stand dismissed”. (v) Lastly, the learned Sr. counsel cited the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar –versus- State of Haryana and Others reported in (2003) 5 SCC 604 , particularly, paragraphs- 54 and 55. The relevant paragraphs are given here below:- “54. Furthermore, it is now well settled that a settled seniority position should not be unsettled. The respondents had already been posted to the post of Additional District Judge. As would appear from the report of the Sub-Committee that the seniority list was published in the year 1992. Representations were, however, made only in the year 1997 which was rejected by the High Court on 22-8-1997. The writ petition was filed in March, 1998 which was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 18.8.1999. 55. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs”. 5. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge had erred in holding that the seniority list of 2006 and 2010 were not circulated, and the respondents/writ petitioners were not aware of the existence of such seniority list. The learned Single Judge could have easily confirmed or verified from the record which was made available to him and ascertain as to whether the two seniority list were circulated or not. The learned Single Judge could have easily confirmed or verified from the record which was made available to him and ascertain as to whether the two seniority list were circulated or not. But having failed to do so, the learned Single Judge arrived at a wrong conclusion that the two seniority list were not circulated. The learned Sr. counsel further submitted that in a direct recruitment, the persons who was selected on the basis of earlier selection has to be placed higher in the seniority list than those who are selected in a subsequent selection test as such, in this case also the appellants whose selection test was conducted earlier than the respondents/writ petitioners has to be placed higher in the seniority list than the respondents/writ petitioners. The learned counsel cited the Office Memorandum No. 11/APA/1/66, dated 09.06.1966, issued by the Government of Nagaland, Home Department Appointment ‘A’ Branch, particularly, para-2. The same has been already given in the impugned judgment quoted above, therefore, it is not reproduced here again. It is contended by the learned Sr. counsel that all these were not given due consideration by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition, therefore, the impugned judgement and order deserves to be interfered with. The learned Sr. counsel also submitted that the fact that the appellants had been already promoted to the post of Sr. Lecturer on 28.01.2014 though on officiating basis based on the seniority list and thereafter, the respondents/writ petitioners were also promoted to the post of Sr. Lecturer on officiating basis by a subsequent order dated 04.03.2014, was placed before the learned Single Judge along with the record but the learned Single Judge failed to take the same into consideration while considering as to whether any change in the seniority list will unsettle any settled position among the appellants and the respondents in respect of their service. The learned Sr. counsel further submitted that the seniority list was prepared in consultation with NPSC who is the authority on the subject, therefore, the learned Single Judge need not have interfered in the already settled seniority list. The learned Sr. counsel further submitted that the seniority list was prepared in consultation with NPSC who is the authority on the subject, therefore, the learned Single Judge need not have interfered in the already settled seniority list. He also submitted that NPSC conducted the recruitment test in two batches and results were also declared separately, therefore, the respondents whose result was declared later has to be placed below the appellants whose recruitment test was held earlier and result was also declared earlier, however, this fact was not appreciated by the learned Single Judge in its right perspective. Therefore, it is necessary to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge. 6. Mr. R. Iralu, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. Mhabeni, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that seniority among the persons who are directly recruited has to be prepared as per the merit list or the mark scored by them in the examination, therefore, there is no need to interfere in the decision of the learned Single Judge. Mr. R. Iralu, further submitted that though the examination were held on different dates the posts were advertised by one advertisement, and appointment orders were issued on the same day, therefore, the seniority list of the appellants/respondents has to be prepared as per their standing in the merit list. Mr. R. Iralu, also submitted that the seniority list of 2006 and 2010 were never circulated, therefore, the respondents/writ petitioners never knew about the existence of such document till 2012 through their colleagues. It was soon after coming to know of the existence of such seniority list that a joint representation dated 19.04.2012, was submitted to the concerned authority by the respondents/writ petitioners. Effort was also made by the respondents for obtaining marks scored by the candidates in the examination through RTI. However, the information requested for has never been supplied to the respondents/writ petitioners. The State Government, about the same time, through a letter No. DSE-DIET-19/2007, dated 01.05.2012, addressed to the Secretary, NPSC requested NPSC to furnish the merit list of DIET Lecturers recruitment examination held vide Advertisement No.5/2004-05, dated 17.02.2005. In response, the Commission vide letter dated 17.08.2012, furnished the merit lists along with the marks scored by each of the 17 Lecturers. The same has been given in the portion of the impugned judgment quoted above as such it is not reproduced here again. In response, the Commission vide letter dated 17.08.2012, furnished the merit lists along with the marks scored by each of the 17 Lecturers. The same has been given in the portion of the impugned judgment quoted above as such it is not reproduced here again. Based on the same, the Government prepared the seniority list which was challenged in the W.P.(C) No. 163(K) of 2013, and in that the case, the learned Single Judge has rightly upheld the claim of the respondents/writ petitioners, therefore, there is no room for interference in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 7. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate submitted that the Government respondents has no grievances in the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge therefore, there is nothing much to submit from the side of the government respondents. 8. Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the NPSC /respondent No.9 submitted that NPSC had submitted the merit list as required by the Government and the duty of the Commission has ended there. Therefore, there is nothing much to submit on behalf of the Commission. 9. We have given our serious consideration on the claim of both the parties, the facts and circumstances, the settled principles of law on the subject matter. There is no dispute on the fact that the posts to which the appellants and the respondents were appointed were advertised by the same Advertisement No. 5/2004-05, dated 17.02.2005, and the examinations for the post for which they have applied for were fixed on different dates. There is also no dispute on the fact that while the examinations for the posts to which the appellants were appointed were held on the dates fixed vide Notification No. NPSC/CON-16/2004, dated 13.05.2005, the examination to which the respondents were appointed could not be held due to an interim order passed by this High Court in W.P.(C) No. 160.(K) of 2005. However, the examination was ultimately held on 01.10.2005. It is also not disputed that though the results were declared on different dates the appointment orders were issued on the same day. However, the examination was ultimately held on 01.10.2005. It is also not disputed that though the results were declared on different dates the appointment orders were issued on the same day. Plainly looking at the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that though the examinations were held on different dates they were held under one single recruitment process and for the same department and for the same grade of posts, therefore, there should be only one merit list and their seniority interse should be as per the common merit list. On the interpretation of the O.M. dated 09.06.1966, specially, para-2 of the same we are fully in agreement with the learned Single Judge. Because, the provision makes it amply clear that when recruitment is made directly through open competition either through NPSC or other approved Selection Board, the relative seniority of direct recruits from such examination or recruitment has to be determined by the order of merit in which they are selected for appointment. We can not think of another interpretation which will give effect to the intend of the law. Therefore, we are unable to persuade our self to agree with the submission of Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Sr. counsel. 10. There is no disagreement on the principle of law relating to delay in approaching the Court for rectification of seniority list. The judgment cited by the learned Sr. counsel, Mr. C.T. Jamir has made it sufficiently clear that Courts should not interfere when the parties approach Court after 3 to 4 years. In this case, the respondents claim that they came to know only in 2012, the tentative seniority list purportedly issued in 2010 was not circulated. The tentative seniority list has to be circulated to all individuals concerned to give opportunity to all of them to raise objection if not satisfied. Placement in the seniority list shows the standing of the employees in the hierarchy of the cadre which in turn provides further opportunity for promotion in ones’ carrier, therefore, while preparing such seniority list care must be taken by the authority concerned that everyone concerned or all stake holders are informed properly. The claim of the respondents is quite probable because if anyone among them had known about tentative seniority list there is no reason why at least one of them or some of them would not have raise objection. 11. The claim of the respondents is quite probable because if anyone among them had known about tentative seniority list there is no reason why at least one of them or some of them would not have raise objection. 11. It is recorded by the learned Single Judge in his judgment at paragraph-28 that there is not even a whisper in the affidavit of the private respondents about the existence of a seniority list issued on 17.11.2006. We have gone through the affidavit of the private respondents and we find that the learned Single Judge was right in saying so, therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellants cannot now raised the issue in this appeal. Further, though the record produced by the Government respondents shows that the seniority list was notified and copies of the same were marked to all concerned officers under SCERT there is nothing in the records to show that the copies of the same were actually served to all the officers concerned in the department. Therefore, the submission of the learned Sr. counsel, Mr. C.T. Jamir that since the seniority list was issued on 17.11.2006, the writ petition of the respondents, suffered from delay and laches, in our opinion, cannot be accepted. Further, there is no nothing in the records which shows that after the tentative seniority list dated 27.09.2010 was issued the final seniority list was issued in the same year or the next year. In fact the records shows that after a long process the final seniority list was issued only on 12.09.2012. Since the writ petition challenging the seniority list was filed and instituted on 26.08.2013, in our opinion, no delay and laches has been committed by the respondents. Viewing all these facts and circumstances in the light of the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, we are of the view that no delay has been committed by the respondents in filing their writ petition. More so, because nothing appears to have taken place in the service of the parties based on the seniority list, therefore, we are in agreement with the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Judge. In view of the discussions and the conclusions drawn, we find no merit in the appeal, therefore, the same is dismissed.