Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1361 (GAU)

Celine Dzuvichu v. Aprale Kirha

2019-12-12

MANISH CHOUDHURY, SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. 1. Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the State respondents in both the appeals. Also heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Imti Longjem, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16-27, 29-36, 38-40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 50-54, 56, 58, 59, 60, 62-65, 67, 68, 70 and 71 in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017 and for respondent nos. 1-4, 7-9, 11-14, 16-27, 29-36, 38-40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 50-54, 56, 58-60, 62-65, 67, 68, 70-72, 76, 92, 96, 99, 103, 118, 121, 122, 132, 139, 141-143, 148, 157, 159, 166, 167, 169, 187, 193, 202-204, 208, 211, 220, 221, 227, 232, 235, 238, 242, 244, 245, 250, 256, 264, 266 and 268 in Writ Appeal No. 16/2017. 2. Both these intra-court appeals are preferred against the common judgment and order dated 01.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015 and W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016. The learned Single Judge by his common judgment while allowing the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015, had, consequently, dismissed the other writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016. While Writ Appeal No. 16/2017 is preferred against the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016, Writ Appeal No. 17/2017 is directed against the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015. 3. The writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015, was preferred by the present respondents in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017, wherein, the present appellants were impleaded as party-respondents. On the other hand, the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016, was preferred by the present appellants as the writ petitioners impleading the present respondents in Writ Appeal No. 16/2017 as party-respondents. By orders, both dated 4.12.2018, passed in these two appeals this Court had held the service of notice on all the respondents to be sufficient. 4. As the subject-matters of both these two appeals are inter-connected, they are taken up and heard together. 5. The bone of contention between the two groups, the appellants on one side and the private respondents on the other side, are about the manner of counting of their seniority and their consequent inter-se seniority positions in a Final Seniority List of 2015, published by the State respondents, for Graduate Teachers serving in various schools under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Nagaland. For a better understanding of the dispute at issue, it would be apt to state the relevant and necessary background facts projected by the two rival groups in the writ petitions. Writ Petition No. 214(K)/2015 6. The writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015, was filed by the petitioners, 71 in numbers, who have been impleaded as respondent nos. 1 to 71 in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017. The respondent nos. 1 to 70 were initially appointed as Primary Teachers/Under-Graduate Teachers (for easy reference, hereinafter also referred to as PTs/UGTs at places). Their initial appointments, as reflected from the chart available at pages: 416-423 of the appeal papers of Writ Appeal No. 17/2017, were from 1984 to 1996. Some of these PTs/UGTs were appointed initially on ad-hoc/contract basis and subsequently, they were regularised in service through the District Selection Board. Some others were appointed as PTs/UGTs directly by way of regular selection through the District Selection Board. These present respondents while in service, had acquired Graduate degrees and on acquisition of such Graduate degrees, they were upgraded, as per their contention, as Graduate Teachers by giving them the pay scale of Graduate Teachers (for easy reference, hereinafter also referred to as GTs at places) with effect from their respective dates of graduation. The respondent no. 71 was directly appointed as a Teacher in the pay scale of Graduate Teacher (GT) on compassionate ground by an order dated 22.08.2003. For the purpose of convenience, this group of Teachers is also referred as "the First Group" hereinafter, wherever necessary. In the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015, the 135 nos. of appellants in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017 were amongst the 366 nos. of party-respondents impleaded as respondent nos. 4 to 369. For the purpose of convenience, the other group of Teachers is referred to as "the Second Group" hereinafter, wherever necessary. Writ Petition No. 34(K)/2016 7. The writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016, was filed by the members belonging to the Second Group, 136 in numbers, who are also the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 16/2017. It was contended by them that they all were appointed to the post of Graduate Teachers (GTs) and were serving as such in various High Schools under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Nagaland. In their writ petition, 269 nos. of members belonging to the First Group were impleaded as party-respondent nos. It was contended by them that they all were appointed to the post of Graduate Teachers (GTs) and were serving as such in various High Schools under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Nagaland. In their writ petition, 269 nos. of members belonging to the First Group were impleaded as party-respondent nos. 4 to 272 stating that they were originally appointed as Primary Teachers/Under-Graduate Teachers (PTs/UGTs). The same 269 nos. of respondents have been impleaded as party-respondent nos. 1 to 269 in Writ Appeal No. 16(K)/2017. 8. (i) The claim of the members of the First Group was that the members belonging to the Second Group were initially appointed as Graduate Teachers (GTs) on ad-hoc/contract basis. (ii) By an order dated 30.11.2006 passed by the Additional Director of School Education, Directorate of School Education, Government of Nagaland i.e. the respondent no. 3, the services of 183 nos. of Teachers, belonging to the Second Group, were regularised with effect from their respective dates of joining service. Thereafter by another order dated 14.05.2007, the previous order dated 30.11.2006 was modified stating that the seniority of those 183 nos. of Teachers, regularised by the order dated 30.11.2006, shall be counted w.e.f. 26.10.2006. Subsequently, the order dated 14.05.2007 was again modified by a Corrigendum dated 12.03.2009 fixing the effective date of regularisation of these 183 nos. Teachers, belonging to the Second Group, w.e.f. 16.01.2004. In the said Corrigendum dated 12.03.2009, it was stipulated that their seniority would be counted only from 16.01.2004. It was, however, provided that the period of past services rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis would be counted for purposes like increment, leave, pension, etc. (iii) By another order dated 4.12.2009, the services of 342 nos. of ad-hoc/contract Teachers, appointed as Graduate Teachers (GTs) and belonging to the Second Group, were regularised w.e.f. 16.01.2004 clearly prescribing therein that seniority of these Teachers so regularised, would be counted w.e.f. 16.01.2004. Similar stipulation that the period of past services rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis would be counted for purposes like increment, leave, pension, etc., like in the Corrigendum dated 12.03.2009, was incorporated in the order dated 04.12.2009. (iv) By another order dated 8.06.2011, the services of another 91 nos. of ad-hoc/contract Teachers, appointed as Graduate Teachers (GTs) and belonging to the Second Group, were regularised w.e.f. 16.01.2004 with similar conditions like the batches of 183 nos. and 342 nos. of ad-hoc/contract Teachers, mentioned earlier. (iv) By another order dated 8.06.2011, the services of another 91 nos. of ad-hoc/contract Teachers, appointed as Graduate Teachers (GTs) and belonging to the Second Group, were regularised w.e.f. 16.01.2004 with similar conditions like the batches of 183 nos. and 342 nos. of ad-hoc/contract Teachers, mentioned earlier. (v) The appellants herein, belonging to the Second Group, were amongst these batches of 183 nos., 342 nos. and 91 nos. of GTs the services of whom were regularised w.e.f. 16.01.2004. 9. According to the respondents herein, belonging to the First Group, the respective seniority of the appellants as GTs, in view of their such regularisation w.e.f. 16.01.2004, is to be counted only w.e.f. 16.01.2004. The other contention of the present respondents is that their seniority in the cadre of Graduate Teachers (GTs) was counted with effect from the dates on which they were up-graded/appointed in the pay scale of Graduate Teachers (GTs). 10. By a Memorandum dated 16.8.2012, the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland finalised and published a Final Seniority List for Graduate Teachers/SIS/Supervisors(AE) by taking into consideration the date of appointment, date of graduation and date of regularisation as determining factors, in terms of the various Government Orders mentioned therein. It was mentioned therein that the authority had taken into consideration the representations submitted by All Nagaland School Teachers' Association (ANSTA) and other individuals while finalising the list. It was also mentioned in the Memorandum that the same was issued for the period up to 16.01.2004. In the Final Seniority List so published on 16.08.2012, the appellants were placed below the respondents as the seniority of the appellants as Graduate Teachers was fixed with effect from their respective date of regularisation as GTs in terms of their orders of regularisation w.e.f. 16.01.2004. 11. A writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 243(K)/2014, came to be filed by All Nagaland School Teachers' Association (ANSTA) with the grievance that the State respondents did not consider their various representations including the two representations submitted on 31.05.2014 and on 08.07.2014 respectively, submitted by the Association against the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, published on 16.08.2012, wherein a number of discrepancies were highlighted. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 11.12.2014 with the direction to the State respondents to consider the grievances expressed by the Association by giving appropriate opportunity of hearing and thereafter, to pass necessary orders within a period of 3 (three) months. 12. It transpires that pursuant to the said order dated 11.12.2014, the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland constituted a 3-Member Committee ("the Committee", in short) to study and examine the alleged discrepancies in the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers to bring about a fair settlement. By a communication dated 29.04.2015, addressed to the respondent no. 2, the respondent no. 3 apprised and sought approval of the Government in respect of the recommendations made by the said 3-Member Committee. Two of the recommendations of the said Committee were that firstly, the seniority of those Teachers who had been appointed as Graduate Teachers (GTs) from the entry point, should be counted from the date of appointment, and secondly, the seniority of those Under-Graduate Teachers (UGTs) whose posts had been converted into Graduate Teachers (GTs) should be counted from the date of conversion. The Department of School Education in the Government of Nagaland conveyed its approval to the recommendations made by the Committee for preparation of the Seniority List of Graduate Teachers by its letter dated 18.06.2015. 13. A draft Tentative Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, etc. was circulated on 28.08.2015 inviting objections/representations, etc. from the concerned individuals by 17.09.2015. In the said list, the positions of the members belonging to the Second Group were determined on the basis of their respective dates of joining service by counting the service rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis. Representations were submitted individually as well as collectively by the members of the First Group including the respondents herein, against such rationale adopted by the State respondents for counting and fixation of Seniority. 14. By an Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2015, the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland published the impugned Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015. Mention was made about the constitution of the 3-Member Committee, the Government approval to the recommendations made by the 3-Member Committee and consideration of the representations submitted by the ANSTA besides about examining the Teacher's bio-data, Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers of 2012 and other individual documents. Mention was made about the constitution of the 3-Member Committee, the Government approval to the recommendations made by the 3-Member Committee and consideration of the representations submitted by the ANSTA besides about examining the Teacher's bio-data, Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers of 2012 and other individual documents. The said Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015 which was for the period up to 10.08.2010, the State respondents declared, had nullified the previous Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2012. 15. In the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015, the seniority positions of the appellants i.e. the members belonging to the Second Group, were determined and fixed from the date of their initial appointments on ad-hoc/contract basis and as a result, their seniority as GTs stood changed from their respective date of regularisation in service i.e. 16.01.2004 to their respective dates of initial appointment on ad-hoc/contract basis. On the other hand, the respective seniority of the private respondents herein i.e. the members belonging to the First Group was counted with effect from the dates they were granted scale of pay of Graduate Teachers and not from their initial dates of appointment. 16. Aggrieved by the rationale adopted by the State respondents in counting and fixation of seniority of the appellants herein belonging to the Second Group and their consequent placement in the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015, the respondent nos. 1 to 71 who belong to the First Group, as writ petitioners, had instituted the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015, seeking quashing and setting aside of the letter dated 18.6.2015 and the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015 published vide Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2015 in so far as it concerned the respondent nos. 4 to 369, wherein included the appellants in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017. A further direction was sought for to count the seniority of the respondent nos. 4 to 369 with effect from 16.1.2004. 17. A learned Single Judge while issuing notice of motion in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015, on 26.11.2015, had stayed the operation of the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015. Contending that the petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015 i.e. the respondent nos. 4 to 369 with effect from 16.1.2004. 17. A learned Single Judge while issuing notice of motion in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015, on 26.11.2015, had stayed the operation of the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015. Contending that the petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015 i.e. the respondent nos. 1 to 71 in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017, are not Graduate Teachers and their names were wrongly included in the said Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015, the appellants, 136 in numbers, in Writ Appeal No. 16/2017 preferred the other writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016, seeking a direction to the State respondents to exclude/delete the names of respondent nos. 4 to 272 impleaded therein from the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015. The respondent nos. 4 to 272 are members belonging to the First Group. 18. Some of the respondents out of the 366 nos. of party-respondents impleaded as respondent nos. 4 to 369 had contested the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015 by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. The State respondents had also filed its affidavit. In W.P.(C) No. 34(K)/2016, some of the respondents amongst the 269 nos. of party-respondents impleaded as respondent nos. 4 to 272 had filed their affidavit-in-opposition. Additional pleadings were also filed by the parties by bringing in some more relevant facts, about which reference would be made at appropriate places hereinafter. 19. The learned Single Judge taking note of the policy formulated and consistently followed by the Government to the effect that the seniority of the ad-hoc/contract appointee would be counted only from the date on which he has been absorbed on regular basis, had found fault in the action of the State respondents in drawing out the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015, holding the same to be in violation of the said Government policy. Having held so, the learned Single Judge had set aside and quashed the letter dated 18.06.2015 of the Government of Nagaland, School Education Department whereby the approval of the Government was conveyed to the Director of School Education, Nagaland about accepting the rationale recommended by the 3-Member Committee for preparation of seniority list of Graduate Teachers, in the Department of School Education, Government of Nagaland as well as the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015. The State respondents had been directed to re-arrange the seniority of Graduate Teachers within a period of 3 (three) months from 01.09.2017 i.e. the date of the impugned common judgment and order, which has been assailed in these two intra-court appeals. 20. Mr. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has submitted that the post of GTs and the post of PTs/UGTs are of two different cadres. The mode of appointment and requisite educational qualifications for appointment to the aforesaid two posts are also distinct and different. While the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of GT was a Graduate degree at that point of time, the requisite education qualification for appointment for the post of PTs/UGTs was Higher Secondary/Pre-University pass. Mere acquisition of Graduate degree by the in-service PTs/UGTs and consequent grant of pay scale of GTs to the PTs/UGTs did not result in their inclusion automatically in the cadre of GTs. At no point of time, he submits, the post of PTs/UGTs, held by the members belonging to the First Group, had been up-graded to the post of GTs. The members belonging to the First Group were only granted the pay scale of GTs in view of their acquiring Graduate degree while in service and mere grant of such scale of pay does not mean their appointment to the post of Graduate Teacher. He has reiterated the plea of locus standi of the members belonging to the First Group, as had been raised before the learned Single Judge, on the ground that the respondents herein, belonging to the First Group, did not have the locus to challenge the placement of the appellants in the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015 above them when they belonging to a completely different cadre, lower in rank and status, did not have the right to be included in the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015. Just because of the fact that the respondents herein who were PTs/UGTs, were granted the scale of pay of Graduate Teachers prior to regularisation of the appellants in terms of the policy of regularisation then in vogue, the respondents herein could not have been included in the cadre of Graduate Teacher. Inclusion of the respondents herein in the impugned Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers has prejudicially affected the rights of the appellants to be considered for further promotion in the service. Inclusion of the respondents herein in the impugned Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers has prejudicially affected the rights of the appellants to be considered for further promotion in the service. In order to claim seniority over the appellants in the cadre of Graduate Teachers, the respondents herein and for that matter, any member belonging to the First Group shall have to first establish that they were appointed to the post of Graduate Teacher or that the post held by them had been upgraded to the post of Graduate Teacher but they had failed to establish the same. It was only on receipt of the notice in the connected writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015 and on careful examination of the impugned Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015, it could be ascertained by the appellants that the respondents herein were not Graduate Teachers and the said writ petition, WP(C) No. 34(K)/2016, was filed with promptitude as the other writ petition, WP(C) No. 214(K)/2015, was filed to displace the appellants unjustly below the respondents herein, who were only PTs/UGTs. 21. Mr. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel has also placed reliance on the decisions of Indian Railway SAS Staff Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1998) 2 SCC 651 (Para-14 & 17); Sub-Inspector Rooplal & Anr. Vs. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi & Ors., reported in (2000) 1 SCC 644 (Para-17); Union of India & Ors. Vs. Rakesh Kumar, reported in (2001) 4 SCC 309 (Para-21); State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar Mann, reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321 (Para-3); State of UP. & Ors. Vs. Rajkumar Sharma & Ors., reported in (2006) 3 SCC 330 (Para-15); and Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Daulat Mal Jain & Ors., reported in (1997) I SCC 55(Para-24 & 28). 22. Mr. Zhimomi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents indicated herein above, has reiterated that the respondent nos. 1 to 70, save and except respondent no. 41, in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017 were initially appointed as PTs/UGTs during the period from 1984 to 1996 while the respondent no. 71 therein was appointed directly as a Teacher in the pay scale of Graduate Teacher on compassionate ground on 22.08.2003. He points out that the respondent no. 41 was not initially appointed as PT/UGT and he was initially appointed as an LDA in the year 1986. 71 therein was appointed directly as a Teacher in the pay scale of Graduate Teacher on compassionate ground on 22.08.2003. He points out that the respondent no. 41 was not initially appointed as PT/UGT and he was initially appointed as an LDA in the year 1986. By an order dated 25.03.2000, he was transferred and appointed as Graduate Teacher which fact was, however, inadvertently not stated initially in the writ petition. He asserts that such inadvertent omission has no bearing in the ultimate merits of the cases. The respondents in Writ Appeal No. 16/2017 whom he represents also belong to the First Group and they were also similarly appointed and thereafter, their posts were converted into that of GTs and they were granted the pay scale of GTs. The services of some of the respondents, initially appointed as PTs/UGTs on ad-hoc/contract basis, were regularised through the District Selection Board while some others were directly appointed as PTs/UGTs through the District Selection Board. On obtaining the Graduation degree, these respondents were granted the pay scale of Graduate Teachers with effect from their respective dates of Graduation and they were treated as Graduate Teachers for all intents and purposes since then. Such pay scale was granted only when they acquired the Graduation degree like the appellants belonging to the Second Group. Both the groups had the essential academic qualification required for the post of Graduate Teacher. 23. He further submits that the posts of the respondents were converted into/upgraded as Graduate Teachers (GTs) between the years 1993 to 2003 when they were granted the pay scale of Graduate Teachers. The Final Seniority List for Graduate Teachers, published by the Memorandum dated 16.08.2012, was only for the period up to 16.01.2004. But prior to that the State respondents by an Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2003 had published a Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, as on 24.06.2003. In the said Seniority List dated 27.06.2003, the names of as many as 49 nos. of respondents in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017 were included, who belonged to the First Group. In the Final Seniority of Graduate Teachers, published by the Memorandum dated 16.8.2012, all their names were included counting their seniority with effect from the dates they were granted pay scale of Graduate Teacher. of respondents in Writ Appeal No. 17/2017 were included, who belonged to the First Group. In the Final Seniority of Graduate Teachers, published by the Memorandum dated 16.8.2012, all their names were included counting their seniority with effect from the dates they were granted pay scale of Graduate Teacher. From the said fact itself, he submits, it is clear that the State respondents have been treating the members of the First Group as Graduate Teachers as and when they were granted the pay scale of Graduate Teachers on their acquiring the Graduate degree. It has been the consistent policy of the State Government to upgrade the in-service Teachers, as an incentive, to the higher post as soon as they acquire the requisite academic qualification to hold the higher post, he submits. That the posts these respondents are holding are posts of Graduate Teachers Is amplified by Schedule-I to the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2017. The strength of the Cadre of Graduate Teachers has been indicated in the said Schedule-I and the private respondents' posts are amongst the posts included in the cadre of Graduate Teacher. 24. The post of GTs and PTs/UGTs were also not included in the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2002. An exercise to revamp and restructure the Department of School Education was undertaken in the year 2011 and pursuant thereto, a Notification dated 21.07.2011 was issued mentioning, inter-alia, the strength of posts, the manner of filling up the posts, etc. But that Notification dated 21.07.2011 also did not mention the manner in which posts of GTs or PTs/UGTs were to be filled up, meaning thereby, there were no service rules regulating and governing the recruitment and other conditions of service of the GTs and PTs/UGTs till formulation of the rules in 2017. 25. In so far as the grant of seniority of the appellants in the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015 is concerned, he submits that it is a settled proposition that if ad-hoc service is regularised subsequently in a particular grade, the seniority of such an employee in that particular grade shall only be counted from the date of regularisation and the period of ad-hoc service cannot be counted for grant of seniority. In terms of the policy of the State Government, the services of the appellants can be regularised only with effect from 16.01.2004, about which the private respondents herein had no grievance at all. As the private respondents herein had already been in the regular posts of Graduate Teachers prior to 16.01.2004, the action of granting seniority to the appellants in the cadre of Graduate Teachers from the respective dates of their ad-hoc/contract appointments was clearly illegal, arbitrary and unjust, which the learned Single Judge had noticed in the impugned common judgment and order dated 01.09.2017. It is further submitted by him that many persons like the private respondents herein, who initially joined as PTs/UGTs, were granted the rank and status of Graduate Teacher on acquisition of the Graduate degree and thereafter, were given promotions to the higher grades of Senior Graduate Teacher, Assistant Headmaster, Headmaster, Assistant Director/S.D.E.O. and their names are also appearing in the Final Seniority List of 2015 at serial nos. 6, 8, 18 to 22, 24, 25, 26 and 30 respectively in these grades. The appellants' contention for exclusion/deletion of the private respondents from the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015 is wholly misconceived as it also suffers from the vices of delay and laches. As such, no interference is called for and the writ appeals deserve dismissal, he submits. 26. In support of his submissions, Mr. Zhimomi has placed reliance in the decisions of Loyalakpa Wahengbam Ananta Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., reported in 2010 (3) GLT 150 (Para-11); State of Punjab Vs. Balkaran Singh, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 709 (Para-22); Shiba Shankar Mohapatra Vs. State of Orissa, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471 (Para-18, 19 & 30); B.S. Bajwa Vs. State of Punjab, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 523 (Para-7); P.U. Joshi Vs. Accountant General, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 (Para-10); State of Rajasthan Vs. Fateh Chand Soni, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 562 (Para-8); Chief of Naval Staff Vs. G. Gopalakrishna Pillai, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 521 (Para-4); and A. Rajagopalan & Ors. Vs. District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 560 (Para-5). 27. Ms. Accountant General, reported in (2003) 2 SCC 632 (Para-10); State of Rajasthan Vs. Fateh Chand Soni, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 562 (Para-8); Chief of Naval Staff Vs. G. Gopalakrishna Pillai, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 521 (Para-4); and A. Rajagopalan & Ors. Vs. District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 560 (Para-5). 27. Ms. Suokhrie, learned State Counsel has endorsed the submission made on behalf of the private respondents herein to the effect that the private respondents, for all intents and purposes, have been treated as Graduate Teachers all along by the State respondents after acquisition of Graduate degree by them and grant of pay scale of Graduate Teachers to them, although they were initially appointed as PTs/UGTs and their names have been included, accordingly, in different seniority lists of Graduate Teachers published from time to time, more particularly, in the years 2003, 2012 and 2015. She further submits that the seniority of the appellants were made on the basis of the recommendations made by the 3-Member Committee as the said recommendations were approved by the State Government. It is admitted by the State respondents in its affidavit that the cadres of GTs and PTs/UGTs are two different cadres and the requisite educational qualification for appointment to the said two posts are also different. The Department had considered the private respondents herein as Graduate Teachers after they were granted the pay scale of Graduate Teachers. In the State of Nagaland, Graduate Teachers could be transferrable anywhere i.e. High/Middle/Primary Schools and there were no hard and fast rules that Graduate Teachers were to be posted only in specified category of schools. Since prior to 2001, the Government had been adopting a policy to encourage the in-service Teachers (Matriculate/Under-Graduate) to pursue higher education in order to improve the quality of their teachings and after completion of the Graduate degree, the State Government used to grant Graduate scale to them and count them as Graduate Teachers. A policy was formulated by the State Government for recruitment of Primary School Teachers vide Notification dated 15.01.2001. It has been spelled out there that pay scale for all Primary School Teachers is in non-Graduate scale. Any Teacher with Graduate or Post-Graduate degree shall be offered uniformly only the non-Graduate scale of pay plus 1 (one) advanced increment for possessing educational qualification. It has been spelled out there that pay scale for all Primary School Teachers is in non-Graduate scale. Any Teacher with Graduate or Post-Graduate degree shall be offered uniformly only the non-Graduate scale of pay plus 1 (one) advanced increment for possessing educational qualification. It was, inter-alia, also prescribed therein that the Primary School Teachers with Graduate/Post-Graduate degree shall be entitled to higher scale of pay as and when they are promoted to the higher category. 28. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available in the records of the two appeals. 29. Before proceeding further, it is deemed. proper at this stage itself to refer to the decisions which the appellants have cited in their support. The decision in Indian Railway SAS Staff Association (supra) is relied on for the proposition that the scale of pay alone cannot be the criteria for classification of posts to put at par two different categories of posts. It is laid down in Sub Inspector Rooplal (supra) that in law, it is necessary that if the previous service of a transferred official is to be counted for seniority in the transferred post then the two posts should be equivalent. Equivalency of two posts is not judged by the sole fact of equal pay. At least four factors are to be considered for equivalency of two posts and they are; (i) the nature and duties of a post; (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary of the post It is seen that the salary of a post for the purpose of finding out the equivalency of posts is the last of the criteria. The decision in Rakesh Kumar (supra) was in respect of entitlement to pensionary benefits for members of Border Security Force (BSF) resigning under Rule 19, Border Security Force (BSF) Rules, 1969 before completing the minimum length of qualifying service requisite for eligibility for retirement wherein it was held that no person can claim any right on the basis of decision which is dehors the statutory rules nor can there be any estoppel. Ram Kumar Mann (supra) is cited for the well settled proposition that two wrongs can never make a right. It is reiterated in Rajkumar Sharma (supra) that Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality, and if the State committed the mistake it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. The decision in Daulat Mal Jain (supra) has been cited for the principle that Article 14 has no application or justification to legitimise an illegal and illegitimate action. 30. We also take note of the decisions relied on by the private respondents in support of their submissions. The decision in Loyalakpa Wahengbam Ananta (supra) is relied on for the proposition that a parry cannot take a stand contrary to its own conduct. In Balkaran Singh (supra), it has been observed that belated challenge to seniority which will upset seniority of a number of persons, who have been shown as seniors in respective seniority list, is impermissible. The decision in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) is also to the effect that a belated challenge to seniority is hit by delay and laches. As per B.S. Bajwa (supra), it is settled law in service matters that question of seniority should not be re-opened after a lapse of reasonable period because it results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. In P.U. Joshi (supra), it is stated that question relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service. It is observed in Fateh Chand Soni (supra) that in service law, the expression 'promotion' has been understood in the wider sense and promotion can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post. It is observed in Fateh Chand Soni (supra) that in service law, the expression 'promotion' has been understood in the wider sense and promotion can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post. The decision in G. Gopalkrishna Pillai (supra) has been referred to for another well settled proposition that in the absence of any specific rule of service by which a person holding an ad-hoc post will be entitled to get seniority to the said post if he is later on selected on a regular basis to the post, the holder of ad-hoc post is not entitled to claim seniority on the basis of ad-hoc service and such ad-hoc service cannot be counted for determining seniority. The decision in A. Rajagopalan (supra) is relied on by the private respondents who had become graduates while in service and were granted the pay scale of Graduate Teachers (GTs), in support of the contention that such action of the State respondents amounted to promotion/upgradation as it was held in A. Rajagopalan (supra) that once a promotee becomes a graduate there cannot be any rational basis for discrimination against him vis-a-vis direct recruits and such a promoteee who is also a graduate has to be placed at par with the direct recruits because he has also got a degree. 31. It is not in dispute that the appellants were amongst the batches of 183 nos., 342 nos. and 91 nos. of Graduate Teachers initially appointed on ad-hoc/contract basis, whose services were regularized by orders dated 30.11.2006, 14.5.2007 & 12.03.2009 (for 183 nos.), by order dated 04.12.2009 (for 342 nos.) and by order dated 08.06.2011 (for 91 nos.) in the posts of Graduate Teachers. The afore-mentioned orders had clearly specified that the effective date for regularisation was with effect from 16.01.2004 and the seniority of these regularised Graduate Teachers was to be counted from 16.1.2004. The orders further prescribed that the past services rendered were to be counted for all other benefits such as increments, leave, pension, etc., save and except seniority and the pay fixation in scale was to be made in terms of the Revision of Pay (RoP) Rules, 1999 from 16.01.2004 notionally for fixation benefits only. The orders had further provided that their inter-se seniority positions were to be fixed in order of their dates of joining the post of Graduate Teacher. 32. The orders had further provided that their inter-se seniority positions were to be fixed in order of their dates of joining the post of Graduate Teacher. 32. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the parties have highlighted the significance of the date, 16.01.2004 by placing reliance on a Memorandum dated 18.02.2004, whereby, the policy formulated by the State Government in the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms for regulation of ad-hoc/contract basis appointment was circulated after receipt of approval of the Cabinet on 16.01.2004. The policy so formulated had, inter-alia, provided that a case of an employee appointed on ad-hoc/contract basis was to be considered for regularisation provided, inter-alia, the employee had fulfilled all the eligibility criteria for the post including the requisite educational qualification and had records of satisfactory service. 33. The State Government in its Memorandum dated 08.07.1975 had stated that in case the services rendered by an official on ad-hoc appointment on continuous basis is followed by regular appointment, the seniority in the particular cadre should count only from the date of regular appointment. The Office Memorandum dated 19.11.1975 is on the subject-matter of seniority of Government Servant on contract appointment wherein it is laid down that seniority in a particular post held earlier on contract basis, shall be counted from the date of his absorption on regular basis into the said post. The said principle of counting seniority has been reiterated in the Communication dated 24.03.1976 and the Office Memorandum dated 09.07.2004 of the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, Government of Nagaland, which are appended to the appeal papers. 34. It is not a pleaded case of the appellants that their initial appointments as Graduate Teachers on ad-hoc/contract basis was preceded by any process of selection. Had it been a case that the appellants' ad-hoc/contract basis appointments were preceded by a selection process or were made by a regularly constituted body having capacity to hold selection for the post the claim of the appellants' as regards fixation and counting of seniority from the dates of their respective initial ad-hoc/contract appointment could have been on a different plank. But the appellants' pleaded case is that they were initially appointed to the post of Graduate Teacher on ad-hoc/contract basis and subsequently regularised in the same post of Graduate Teacher. But the appellants' pleaded case is that they were initially appointed to the post of Graduate Teacher on ad-hoc/contract basis and subsequently regularised in the same post of Graduate Teacher. It is well settled that the holder of an ad-hoc/contract post is not entitled to claim seniority on the basis of ad-hoc/contract service when such ad-hoc/contract appointment was not preceded by any valid and regular selection process and such ad-hoc/contract service cannot be counted for determining seniority. 35. In the backdrop of the policy formulated by the State Government in respect of the principle of fixation and counting of seniority of an employee on regularisation of his service after having rendered his service in a post on ad-hoc/contract basis without being preceded by any selection process and in view of the settled position of law as laid down in this regard, the recommendation of the 3-member Committee to the effect that the seniority of teachers who were appointed as Graduate Teachers on ad-hoc/contract basis, shall be counted from their entry point date of appointment, as communicated by the letter dated 29.04.2015 to the School Education Department, Government of Nagaland by the Director of School Education, Nagaland, which received the approval of the State Government vide letter dated 18.6.2015 is dehors the law, erroneous and unsustainable. The seniority of the appellants could not have been counted from their respective initial appointments on ad-hoc/contract basis. When the orders of regularisation of the appellants had categorically stated that they were regularised in the post of Graduate Teachers with effect from 16.01.2004 and their consequent seniority in the said post of Graduate Teacher would be counted only with effect from 16.01.2004, their placement in the impugned Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015 could not have been made on the basis of the dates of their initial appointments on ad-hoc/contract basis in the post of Graduate Teacher. They can be said to have been brought into the cadre of Graduate Teacher only on 16.01.2004. Thus, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the learned Single Judge was right on that count in setting aside and quashing the impugned letter dated 18.06.2015 and the impugned Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, 2015 with the further direction to re-arrange the seniority of Graduate Teachers. 36. As has been noted above, there is no dispute to the fact that the respondents nos. 36. As has been noted above, there is no dispute to the fact that the respondents nos. 1 to 70, save and except respondent no. 41, in Writ Appeal No. 17(K)/2017 were initially appointed as PTs/UGTs on ad-hoc/regular basis when they did not have the Graduate degree but had the requisite educational qualification to be appointed as PTs/UGTs and their such appointments on ad-hoc/regular basis were during the period from 1984 to 1996. Ms. Tozheli Chishi (the respondent no. 41 in Writ Appeal No. 17(K)/2017 & respondent no. 44 in Writ Appeal No. 16(K)/2017) was not initially appointed as PT/UGT as she was initially appointed as an LDA in the year 1986 by an order dated 18.08.1986. Later on, by an order dated 25.03.2000, she was transferred and appointed as Graduate Teacher. Ms; Chubalemla (the respondent no. 71 in Writ Appeal No. 17(K)/2017 & respondent no. 74 in Writ Appeal No. 16(K)/2017) was appointed as a Teacher in the pay scale of Graduate Teacher on compassionate ground by an order dated 22.08.2003. The respondents. 1 to 269 in Writ Appeal No. 16(K)/2017 belonging to the First Group, are also similarly situated like the respondent No. 1 to 70 in Writ Appeal No. 17(K)/2017. The services of some of these respondents were regularised pursuant to selection through the District Selection Boards. The remaining respondents were directly appointed as PTs/UGTs by the District Selection Board. All these private respondents had acquired Graduate degree while serving as PTs/UGTs before a period prior to 16.01.2004. All these private respondents were granted the pay scale of Graduate Teachers as and when they obtained the Graduate degree and all of them were granted the pay scale of Graduate Teacher prior to 16.01.2004. But prior to such grant of pay scale of Graduate Teacher, their Services were regularised and they, can, thus, for all intents and purposes, be considered to be in the cadre of Primary Teachers/Under Graduate Teachers (PTs/UGTs). 37. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the parties have placed 2 (two) sets of Rules, "the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2002" and "the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2017", in order to emphasize the situation prevailing in respect of recruitment and conditions of service of the Graduate Teachers (GTs) and Primary Teachers/Graduate Teachers (PTs/UGTs). A look at these 2 (two) sets of Rules appears necessary at this point. 38. A look at these 2 (two) sets of Rules appears necessary at this point. 38. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the set of rules, "the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2002" ("the Service Rules, 2002", in short) was framed by the State Government for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Nagaland School Education Service (Class-I and Class-Il Gazetted) ("the Service", in short) and the same was notified by a Notification dated 20.9.2002. Rule 3 of the Service Rules, 2002 had provided that the Service consisted of persons who, at the commencement of the Service Rules, 2002, were holding substantively the posts specified in Schedule-I and recruited to the Service before the commencement of the Service Rules, 2002 and recruited to the Service in accordance with the provisions of the Service Rules, 2002. Schedule-1 to the Service Rules, 2002 had enlisted 24 nos. of posts but the posts of Graduate Teachers (GTs) and Primary Teachers/Under-Graduate Teachers (PTs/UGTs) were not included in the Service. Schedule-III indicates that 30% of postgraduate teachers were reserved to be filled up from amongst regular serving High School Graduate Teachers having requisite post graduate degree with B.Ed. Though mention was made of High School Graduate Teacher in the Service Rules, 2002, it was not part of the Service. The existence of any service rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the GTs and the PTs/UGTs prior to 2002 have neither been mentioned by the State respondents, nor by any of the contesting groups. Thus, submissions have been advanced on the premise that there were no Service Rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of Service of the GTs and the PTs/UGTs until the year 2017. 39. The State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India has formulated the "Nagaland School Education Services Rules, 2017" ("the Service Rules, 2017", in short) for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Service. The Service Rules, 2017 have come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette on 29.11.2017. Rule 3 has provided for constitution of the Service and Rule 4 has provided for gradation and strength of the Service and they state as under: "3. The Service Rules, 2017 have come into force from the date of their publication in the Official Gazette on 29.11.2017. Rule 3 has provided for constitution of the Service and Rule 4 has provided for gradation and strength of the Service and they state as under: "3. Constitution of Service:- The Service shall consist of the following persons:- (i) Persons who at the commencement of these rules are holding regular appointment to the posts specified in Schedule-I. (ii) Persons recruited to the service after the commencement of these rules. 4. Gradation and strength of the service:- The gradation of various posts in the service, the number of posts in each grade, Pay Band and Grade Pay attached thereof, shall be as indicated in the Schedules-I & II. Provided that the Government may, from time to time, add to or reduce the number of posts included in the Service, either on permanent or on temporary basis." The posts of both Graduate Teacher (GT) and the Primary Teacher (PT) have been encadred in the Service, as per Schedule-I, as under:- S. No. Name of the post Pay Permanent Temporary Total Col. (4+5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 13 Sr. Graduate Teacher Graduate Teacher PB – 15200 – 20200 GP – 3400 3361 3361 2. Primary Teacher :- S. No. Name of the post Pay Permanent Temporary Total Col. (4+5) 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 Primary Teacher PB – 15200 – 20200 GP – 2000 9223 9223 Schedule-II has, inter-alia, provided that 30% of the vacancies of Graduate Teachers occurring in a year shall be filled up by recruitment through a selection process from amongst the Primary Teachers, a feeder cadre, having Graduate degree with 50%, relaxable by 5% for SC/ST/differently able candidates, at degree level with PSTE/D.El.Ed/B.Ed and who have rendered a continuous teaching service of 7 (seven) years as a Primary Teacher. From the above, it is, thus, apparent that the cadre of Primary Teacher (PT) as per the Service Rules, 2017 is a feeder cadre for the cadre of Graduate Teacher. The Service Rules, 2017 have repealed the Service Rules, 2002 providing that all orders made or actions taken under the Service Rules, 2002 shall be deemed to have been validly made or taken. The Service Rules, 2017 have repealed the Service Rules, 2002 providing that all orders made or actions taken under the Service Rules, 2002 shall be deemed to have been validly made or taken. It may be note worthy to mention once again that the Service Rules, 2002 did not ex cadre the posts of either the Graduate Teacher (GT) or the Primary Teacher (PT). Non-repealment of any other rules reinforces the fact that there was no service rules for Graduate teacher (GT) or the Primary Teacher (PT) at any point of time prior to 2002. 40. From the above, it is evident that it was only when "the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2017" ("the Service Rules, 2017", in short) are framed and notified, the posts of Graduate Teacher (GTs) and Primary Teacher (PTs) have been encadred in the Nagaland School Education Service ("the Service", in short). On a query by this Court to the learned counsel for the parties, it is submitted by them that the posts held by the appellants and the private respondents are within the 3361 nos. of posts included in the cadre of Graduate Teachers under the Nagaland School Education Service. Thus, there is no dispute to the fact that on and from the date of publication of the Service Rules, 2017 i.e. 29.11.2017, both the members belonging to the "First Group" including the private respondents herein, and the members belonging to the "Second Group" including the appellants herein, have become part of the Service, governed and regulated by the Service Rules, 2017 framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. No material has been placed before the Court by any of the parties including the State respondents, to the effect that the conditions of service of the members belonging to either the "First Group" or the "Second Group" were covered and regulated by any Service Rules, framed either under Article 309 of the Constitution of India or under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India or under any statute, prior to 29.11.2017 i.e. the date of publication of the Service Rules, 2017 in the Official Gazette. If such rules or statutory rules, in a given case, have not been made governing and regularizing the conditions of service of a category of employees, it is open to the appropriate Government to issue executive instructions in that regard. If such rules or statutory rules, in a given case, have not been made governing and regularizing the conditions of service of a category of employees, it is open to the appropriate Government to issue executive instructions in that regard. Once the State Government frames rules, their action in respect of matters covered by the rule, are and shall be regulated by the rules and once they are notified, it is not open for the State to act contrary to such rules. Thus, it is evident that the recruitment and conditions of service of both Graduate Teachers (GTs) and Primary Teachers/Under-Graduate Teachers (PTs/UGTs) prior to 29.11.2017 were used to be regulated through executive instructions, etc. issued and policy decisions taken from time to time. 41. By the notification dated 15.01.2001, the State Government notified the new recruitment policy and the Recruitment Rules, inter-alia, for the Primary Schools under the School Education Department. It provided for the constitution of Selection Boards and the procedure of selection to be followed for recruitment to the post of Primary Teachers (PTs), apart from laying down the minimum essential qualification for the said post. The Notification dated 15.01.2001 had also provided that the Primary Teachers (PTs) with Graduate/Post-Graduate degrees shall be entitled to higher scale of pay as and when they were promoted to the higher category, which shall be regulated by the service rules being framed separately. Thus, from the above, it transpires that there was provision to promote the Primary Teachers (PTs) with Graduate/Post Graduate degrees to the higher category and on being so promoted, they would be also entitled to the higher scale of pay. 42. The State, in its affidavit and additional affidavit filed in the writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 214(K)/2015, had stated that the private respondents were appointed as Primary Teachers/Undergraduate Teachers (PTs/UGTs) initially but subsequently when they obtained Graduate Degrees while in service, they were granted the pay scale of Graduate Teachers (GTs). It has been stated that prior to 2001, the Government adopted a policy and encouraged the in-service teachers (Matriculate/Undergraduate) to pursue higher education in order to improve the quality of their teaching and after completing their Graduate Degrees the Government granted them the pay scale of Graduate Teachers and counted them as Graduate Teachers. It has been stated that prior to 2001, the Government adopted a policy and encouraged the in-service teachers (Matriculate/Undergraduate) to pursue higher education in order to improve the quality of their teaching and after completing their Graduate Degrees the Government granted them the pay scale of Graduate Teachers and counted them as Graduate Teachers. The School Education Department had considered the private respondents as Graduate Teachers by virtue of granting them the pay scale of Graduate Teachers and in view of such treatment, included them in the previous Seniority List of Graduate Teachers as well as in seniority list of Graduate Teachers, 2015. The State Government had further stated that Graduate Teachers can be transferable anywhere to High/Middle/Primary Schools and there used to be no hard and fast rule that Graduate Teachers should be posted only in High Schools/Middle Schools/Primary Schools. The Government had earlier given benefits in the form of special pay per month to the Graduate Teachers who were posted in Lower Primary Schools and the same was notified in the Nagaland Extraordinary Gazette and the provision of granting of such special pay was also incorporated in the ROP Rules, 1984. Later on, such practice of giving special pay to those Graduate Teachers posted in Primary Schools were withdrawn. The policy of the Government regarding treatment of the PTs/UGTs as Graduate Teachers (GTs) after obtaining Graduate degrees while in service, was prior to their notification dated 15.01.2001. We have already noticed that no service rules were framed and notified by the State Government in respect of Primary Teachers (PTs) and Graduate Teachers (GTs) until 29.11.2017. Thus, it is clear that the cadre of Primary Teacher (PT) and cadre of Graduate Teacher (GT) were not statutory cadres until 29.11.2017, meaning thereby, the post of Primary Teachers (PTs) and Graduate Teachers (GTs) were in non-statutory cadre posts until then. 43. The facts that the Department of School Education, Nagaland had a policy of encouraging the Teachers to obtain higher degrees and in terms of the policy, the Department allowed study leave to the Teachers to pursue the higher degrees, are not disputed There were no service rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of the GTs and the PTs/UGTs framed under any statute or under Article 309/proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India prior to 2017. Such policy stood impliedly embodied in the notification dated 15.01.2001. Such policy stood impliedly embodied in the notification dated 15.01.2001. It is in view of such policy, the private respondents when they obtained the Graduate degree were granted the pay scale of Graduate Teachers. The bone of contention raised by the appellants is that such grant of pay scale of Graduate Teachers to the private respondents who were initially not appointed as Graduate Teachers, did not automatically make them Graduate Teachers substantively as there were no orders of promotion/up-gradation. 44. Though the posts held by the private respondents and, for that matter, by the members belonging to the First Group had not been converted as Graduate Teachers by any order, as has been mentioned by the State respondents in its affidavit, but the same have been treated as post of Graduate Teachers as a matter of policy is reflected from the Communication dated 29.04.2015 of the Director of School Education, Nagaland. From the said communication, it is evident that the posts held by the Primary Teachers/Undergraduate Teachers (PTs/UGTs) were converted into posts of Graduate Teachers when the incumbents holding those posts were granted the pay scale of Graduate Teacher on their acquiring Graduate degrees while in service, thus, fulfilling the essential qualification required to bold the post of Graduate Teacher prevailing at that point of time and the matter that was in issue before the State respondents was as to whether seniority of those teachers holding the said posts was to be counted from the date of such conversion. A decision to merge cadres is essentially a matter of policy and the power to regulate recruitment and conditions of service includes the power to constitute the new cadre by merging the existing cadre. Amalgamation/merger of non-statutory cadre post with another category of non-statutory cadre post is permissible, which appears to have been done by the State respondents as a matter of policy. When the benefits of pay scale of Graduate Teachers were granted to the members belonging to the First Group and they have been treated as Graduate Teachers, members belonging to the Second Group including the appellants, were not in the regular cadre of Graduate Teachers as they were serving then only on ad-hoc/contract basis at that point of time. A State Government employee has only the right to claim for safeguarding his rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time. A State Government employee has only the right to claim for safeguarding his rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time. But at and from the time when the members belonging to the First Group were granted the scale of pay of Graduate Teachers (GTs) and were considered to be belonging to the cadre of Graduate Teachers (GTs) by the State respondents with the conversion of their posts, the members belonging to the Second Group were not in the cadre of Graduate Teachers (GTs) so as to effect any of their rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued and in such view of the matter, the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants in this regard cannot be countenanced. 45. From the stand taken by the State respondents themselves, it has emerged that the then existing policy was that once a Primary Teacher/Under-Graduate Teacher (PT/UGT) on his acquiring the Graduate Degree, was granted the scale of pay of Graduate Teachers (GTs) he was liable to be transferred and posted anywhere to High/Middle/Primary Schools also, meaning thereby, with the grant of Graduate Scale of pay on acquisition of Graduate Degree, his nature of duties and responsibilities had also undergone a change and he was liable to be transferred anywhere in the State. On obtaining the Graduate degree, the Primary Teachers/Under Graduate Teachers (PTs/UGTs) had met the essential academic qualification required for the post of Graduate Teacher (GT). It is also found out that the members belonging to the First Group on completion of 10 (ten) years of continuous service in the Graduate scale of pay, were granted senior Graduate scale of pay as per the provisions of the Revision of Pay (RoP) Rules, 1993, etc., on dates much prior to coming into force of the Service Rules, 2017. When a Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers, as on 24.06.2003, was published by an Office Memorandum dated 27.06.2003, the names of 49 nos. of respondents in Writ Appeal No. 16(K)/2017 figured in the said Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers. Before the members belonging to the Second Group were encadred in the cadre of Graduate Teacher (GT), the members belonging to the First Group were already considered to be in the cadre of Graduate Teacher (GT) by the State Government. of respondents in Writ Appeal No. 16(K)/2017 figured in the said Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers. Before the members belonging to the Second Group were encadred in the cadre of Graduate Teacher (GT), the members belonging to the First Group were already considered to be in the cadre of Graduate Teacher (GT) by the State Government. In view of such treatment by the State Government, it can very well be inferred, even in the absence of any specific order, that the State Government had considered the incumbent holding such post as a Graduate Teacher (GT) and it does not stand to reason to accept the submission of the appellants that there was no equivalency of the 2 (two) posts. If one takes into consideration the above facts, it will not be difficult to reach a conclusion that the submission raised as regards locus standi by the appellants is also fallacious. 46. In the light of the above discussions, we are not persuaded to hold that the learned Single Judge had erred in any manner to reach the conclusion that the Final Seniority List of Graduate Teachers (GTs), 2015 was in violation of the Government policy and in setting aside and quashing the letter dated 18.6.2015. The contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants, as noted above, do not deserve acceptance as they are bereft of merits and consequently, both these writ appeals stand dismissed. We hold that the seniority of the members belonging to the First Group including the private respondents herein, is to be counted from the dates they were granted the Graduate scale of pay and the seniority of the members belonging to the Second Group including the appellants herein, is to be counted from the date of regularisation of their services as Graduate Teachers (GTs) i.e. 16.1.2004. As a natural corollary, the State respondents are required to re-arrange the seniority of Graduate Teachers (GTs), in the light of the above observations and as directed by the learned Single Judge in his common judgment and order dated 01.09.2019. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.