JUDGMENT : N. KOTISWAR SINGH, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Dey, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.J. Kapil, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. K. Sema, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland assisted by Ms. Livika, learned Govt. Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 & 5 and Mr. A Zhimomi, learned senior counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. The present case has a chequered history, having made several forays before this Court on earlier occasions, and as such, it may be necessary to refer to certain background facts for a proper perspective of the issues raised in this petition. 3. The present petitioners are all employees of the Department of Planning and Coordination, Government of Nagaland, holding different posts of Assistant Development Commissioners, Planning Officers, Assistant Planning Officers and Planning Assistants. 4. In the aforesaid Department, the service rules or the recruitment rules for these various posts are yet to be finalized, which perhaps is also one of the reasons for the disputes which have arisen from time to time in this Department As per pleadings, it is seen that certain draft service rules for various posts in the Department were notified on 06.02.1982, pending finalization of the service rules, which, were to be valid only upto 31.03.1982. It seems that the said notification however, was not extended. The said notification laid down certain qualifications and methods of recruitment, which seem to have been adopted more or less in the subsequent draft service rules, which appear to be the basis for claim made in this writ petition as well as in the earlier petitions. These subsequent service rules, however, were also never notified. 5. As per the aforesaid notification dated 6.2.1982, the qualifications and methods of recruitment in respect of 4 (four) posts, viz., Research Assistant, Research Assistant Officer, Research Officer and Assistant Development Commissioner were provided. The post of the Research Assistant seems to be the entry level post for which the qualification prescribed was Bachelor's Degree with Economics, Statistics, Commerce or Mathematics as one of the subjects of a recognized University and vacancies in the post of Research Assistant are to be filled up by direct recruitment only. The next higher post, viz, Assistant Research Officer was to be filled-up by promotion (75%) and by direct recruitment (25%). The next higher post, viz, Assistant Research Officer was to be filled-up by promotion (75%) and by direct recruitment (25%). For appointment by direct recruitment, the qualification prescribed was Post-Graduate with Economics/statistics/Commerce or Mathematics or Bachelor's Degree with Honours in Economics, Statistics, Commerce or Mathematics of a recognized University with preference given to those who have experience in line. As regards promotion, the post of Research Officer is to be filled up entirely by promotion from amongst the confirmed Assistant Research Officers having 3 years of continuous service in the grade etc. Similarly, the next higher post of Assistant Development Commissioner, is also to be filled up exclusively by promotion from amongst the confirmed Research Officers having 3 years of continuous service. 6. Problems seem to have been started when the Respondent No. 4, who was serving as an Assistant Professor in the Nagaland University was inducted as an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) (Skill Development) by way of deputation in the Monitoring and Evaluation Cell of the Planning Department sometime in the year 2010, as per desire expressed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State to accommodate the respondent No. 4 as an OSD in the said Department. For the aforesaid purpose, the Cabinet took a decision for creating a post of OSD/Ex-cadre, (Skill Development) in the Pay Band of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- with Grade pay of Rs. 6,600/- per month for a period of 2 years under Planning Department vide Cabinet decision taken on 26.05.2011. It may be mentioned that though the aforesaid Cabinet decision did not specifically mention that the said post of OSD was equal in rank and status to Assistant Development Commissioner (ADC) in the Planning and Coordination Department, it was so mentioned in the Cabinet Memorandum prepared for taking the said decision by the Cabinet. 7. Subsequently, the Planning and Coordination Department, Govt. of Nagaland issued a Notification in August, 2011 framing the service rules in exercise of the power conferred under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed in the Planning Machinery Department, known as "Nagaland Planning Machinery Service Rules, 2010." The said Rules were to come into force w.e.f. the date of notification. However, said Rules were never notified. However, said Rules were never notified. Under the aforesaid unnotified Rules, various posts were re-designated and reorganized with the post of Planning Assistant as the lowest entry point level post. This post of Planning Assistant is to be filled by direct recruitment only and the eligibility qualification prescribed is Graduate in Economics/Statistics/Mathematics/Commerce/Development Studies/Agriculture etc. Above the post of Planning Assistant is the post of Assistant Planning Officer, 25% of which is to be filled up through direct recruitment and remaining 75% through promotion. For direct recruitment, the qualification prescribed is Post Graduate in Economics/Statistics/Mathematics/Commerce/Development Studies/Agri and preference is to be given to M.Phil and Ph.D in any of the above subjects. All the other higher posts, namely, Planning Officer/Statistician, Assistant Development Commissioner/Joint Development Commissioner, Addl. Development Commissioner are promotional posts, to be filled-up by promotion only from the respective lower feeder posts with certain service period specified under the rules. 8. It was after the aforesaid rules were framed, though yet not notified, that the Respondent No. 4 came to be appointed by way of deputation as OSD (Skill Development), Class I (Gazetted) under the Planning and Coordination Department, Nagaland, Kohima under the pay band of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- per month against the post created on 12.07.2011 for a period of 2 years vide order dated 16.11.2011. 9. As the foresaid appointment of the Respondent No. 4 by deputation would have a bearing on the issue raised in this petition, the same is reproduced hereinbelow: Planning and Co-ordination Department Nagaland: Kohima Order Dated Kohima the 16.11.2011 No. PLN/M-424/10 : The Governor of Nagaland is pleased to appoint Ms. I. Sino Phom to the post of OSD (Skill Development) Class-I (Gazetted) under Planning & Co-ordination Department, Nagaland, Kohima in the Pay Band of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- P.M. plus all other allowances as are admissible under rules from time to time in Nagaland with effect from the date of her joining the Post. 1. The appointment is made against the post created vide No. PLN/M-424/10 dated 12.7.2011. 2. The appointment is purely on deputation basis for a period of 2 (two) years. 3. This issues with the approval of P&AR (OM Cell) U.O. No. 807 dated 08.10.10 and Finance Department clearance No. RFC/Estt./No. 27/37 dated 09.11.2011 with the approval of Cabinet vide O.M. No. CAB-2/2008(Pt.) dated 31.05.2011. Sd/- Alemtemshi Jamir Addl. 2. The appointment is purely on deputation basis for a period of 2 (two) years. 3. This issues with the approval of P&AR (OM Cell) U.O. No. 807 dated 08.10.10 and Finance Department clearance No. RFC/Estt./No. 27/37 dated 09.11.2011 with the approval of Cabinet vide O.M. No. CAB-2/2008(Pt.) dated 31.05.2011. Sd/- Alemtemshi Jamir Addl. C.S. & Development Commissioner No. PLN/M-424/10 Dated Kohima, the 16.11.2011 Copy to......." 10. After the Respondent No. 4 was appointed as OSD (Skill Development), a proposal was put up for absorbing her service under the Planning and Coordination Department The purported reason for the said proposal for absorption was for setting up a State Skill Development Mission as per the policy decision taken by the Central Government under the "National Coordinated Action on Skill Development" which was necessary to address specific problems of multiple interfaces required for securing approval for both Central and State Schemes relating to Skill Development in the State. Accordingly, it was proposed that since skill development was identified as an important priority under the 12th Plan, the aforesaid post of OSD (Skill Development) created as an ex-cadre post was proposed to be made a permanent post under the Planning and Coordination Department and it was also proposed that the Respondent No. 4 who was on deputation from Nagaland University be allowed to continue on deputation for another 2 years. 11. In terms of the said proposal, the Cabinet took a decision on 18.12.2012 approving the absorption of the Respondent No. 4 as OSD (Skill Development) under Planning and Coordination Department and the Cabinet also decided that the post of OSD (Skill Development) under Planning and Coordination Department be continued on a permanent service. The aforesaid Cabinet decision taken 18.12.2012 reads as follows: "Agenda No. 13: Absorption of deputation service of Smti. Sino Phom, OSD (Skill Development). The Cabinet approved the proposal of Planning Deptt (for absorption of deputation service of Smti. Sino Phom, OSD (Skill Development) under Planning & Coordination Department. The Cabinet also decided that the post of OSD (Skill Development) under Planning & Coordination Department may be continued on a permanent service." 12. After the said Cabinet decision was taken, there was a query from the Planning and Coordination Department as regards the nature of the post of OSD (Skill Development) which was to be continued on permanent basis, as to whether it was an ex-cadre post or not. After the said Cabinet decision was taken, there was a query from the Planning and Coordination Department as regards the nature of the post of OSD (Skill Development) which was to be continued on permanent basis, as to whether it was an ex-cadre post or not. The said query was clarified by the Government vide letter dated 27.02.2013 that the post of OSD (Skill Development) shall continue on a permanent basis (regular cadre).The absorption of the Respondent No. 4 to the post of OSD (Skill Development) on a permanent basis (regular cadre) was approved also on the ground that she hailed from a backward tribe. 13. Pursuant to the aforesaid Cabinet decision taken, the order dated 25.03.2013 was notified by which the ex-cadre post of OSD (Skill Development) in the Planning and Coordination Department was converted to a regular cadre w.e.f. 19.12.2012 and the Respondent No. 4 was permanently absorbed in the aforesaid post w.e.f. 19.12.2012. The aforesaid Notification dated 25.3.2013 reads as follows: "Notification Dated Kohima, the 25.11.2013 No. PLN/PF-401/2011: In pursuance to this Department Sanction No. vide No. PLN/M-424/2010 dated 12.07.2011, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to convert the Ex-cadre Post of O.S.D. (Skill Development) in the Planning & Co-ordination Department, Nagaland, Kohima into a regular Cadre w.e.f. 19.12.2012. 2 Further, in the interest of public service, the service of Smi. I. Sino Phom, OSD (Skill Development) is hereby absorbed permanently to the existing post in the same Pay Band of Rs. 15,600-39,100/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 6,600/- P.M. plus all other allowances as are admissible under rules from time to time in Nagaland w.e.f. 19.12.2012. 3. All other terms and conditions which are not covered by this notification will be governed by the existing rules and regulations applicable to the State employees of Nagaland. This has the approval of the Cabinet vide O.M. No. CAB-2/2008 (Pt) dated 19.12.2012." 14. After the absorption of the Respondent No. 4 as OSD (Skill Development) in the Planning and Coordination Department, the Government again framed another set of service rules called, "Nagaland Planning Machinery Service Rules, 2013" in exercise of power conferred under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which were to be given effect from the date of publication in the Nagaland Gazette. It is also a fact that the aforesaid service rules framed in 2013 also have not been published in the official Gazette. It is also a fact that the aforesaid service rules framed in 2013 also have not been published in the official Gazette. Not much changes were affected in new service rules of 2013 from the earlier service rules framed in 2011. 15. It was in the aforesaid background that the first writ petition, WP(C) No. 53(K)/2013, was filed by some of the employees of the Department challenging the Cabinet decision taken on 18.12.2012 approving the absorption of the deputationist Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 25.03.2013 with the prayer that the said permanent post of OSD (Skill Development) should be filled up by way of promotion and not by deputation. The said writ petition was dismissed on 30.06.2014 on the grounds, inter alia, that the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 against the post of OSD (Skill Development) pertains to a policy decision of the State. 16. In the said writ petition, the plea of the petitioners were that the service conditions of the officers/employees are governed by the draft service rules known as "Nagaland Planning Machinery Service Rules, 2010" under which the posts of Assistant Development Commissioner (ADC) or the equivalent posts are to be filled up by promotion alone, and that too, from the feeder posts mentioned in the aforesaid draft rules and there is no provision for appointment to the post of ADC by deputation. As such the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 by deputation to an equivalent post of ADC is illegal. 17. It was also pleaded in the said writ petition that absorption of the Respondent no. 4 was illegal as it was in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 21.07.2004 which deals with matters pertaining to deputation. It was provided under Clause 2 and Clause 9 thereof that Departments should fill up vacancy on deputation only if there is provision for this in the Service Rules and only if personnel with required qualification and seniority within the Department are not available. It has been further provided in the aforesaid OM that any proposal to absorb any candidate would require prior clearance of the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) and the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P&AR) and the Cabinet stating that no suitable candidates are available from the feeder cadre for promotion to that post. It has been further provided in the aforesaid OM that any proposal to absorb any candidate would require prior clearance of the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) and the Personnel and Administrative Reforms (P&AR) and the Cabinet stating that no suitable candidates are available from the feeder cadre for promotion to that post. It has been also provided that the consent of the person concerned and the lending Department will be mandatory before considering for permanent absorption, which processes were never undertaken. 18. The stand taken by the State Government in the aforesaid writ petition was that since there was no regular service rules put in place, it cannot be said that the post of OSD (Skill Development), an ex-cadre post when converted to a regular post becomes a cadre post in the Department in the rank of ADC and since the petitioners could not establish that the OSD (Skill Development) is a cadre post and as the petitioners also failed to show that the incumbents to the posts of ADC and OSD are inter-transferable, the said petition was liable to be dismissed. 19. In the said petition, the State Government also took the plea that as the Department did not have qualified and competent Officer to man such post, to deal with the situation related to skill development in the State, the State Government identified the Respondent No. 4 for discharging the said responsibility initially for a period of 2 years, though she was then working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Mass Communication in the Nagaland University. Subsequently, it was made permanent as her service was considered to be essential and indispensible. 20. It was further pleaded by the State respondent in the said petition that the duties, responsibilities and functions assigned to OSD (Skill Development) and to ADC are fundamentally different and they are not posts belonging to the same cadre. It was also stated by the State respondent that as there were no notified service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Department had the authority and prerogative to issue executive orders to implement certain decisions in the exigency of service. 21. It was also stated by the State respondent that as there were no notified service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Department had the authority and prerogative to issue executive orders to implement certain decisions in the exigency of service. 21. It was further pleaded by the State Government that the OM of 2004 which deals with deputation is not applicable, since the deputation was made to an ex-cadre post created for a limited period and at the relevant time and there was no regular service rules in the Department. It was also claimed by the State Government that the petitioners were not the aggrieved persons and only the aggrieved persons can approach the Court challenging certain decisions before the Court. 22. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) No. 53(K)/2013 after hearing the parties and considering the materials on records including the Cabinet Memorandum came to the conclusion that the functions, duties and responsibilities assigned to the OSD (Skill Development) are completely different from the functions, duties and responsibilities assigned to Assistant Development Commissioner (ADC) and these posts are not inter-transferable, which would indicate that these two posts are not in the same cadre. 23. The Court also rejected the contention of the petitioners therein that since the post of ADC is an exclusively promotional post and since the post of OSD is in the same cadre of ADC, it cannot be filled up by deputation. The Court held that since the contention that the posts of ADC and OSD are of the same cadre was found to be fallen through, the claim that the posts of ADC/OSD are to be filled up only through promotion is also found to be without any substance. 24. This Court in the aforesaid writ petition also held that since there were no regular service rules but merely draft service rules, the said OM of 2014 relating to deputation will not be applicable. This Court also held that the dispute in the said proceeding was a matter pertaining to policy of the State and as such, unless such a decision suffers from arbitrariness of extraordinary proportion, it ought not be interfered by the Court. 25. The Court also held that it could not be said that the petitioners had suffered any legal injury and as such, they could not file the said petition. 25. The Court also held that it could not be said that the petitioners had suffered any legal injury and as such, they could not file the said petition. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the said writ petition by making the following observations: "78. Since the recommendation requiring the State respondents to appoint the respondent No. 7 against the post of OSD (Skill Development) or the Notification appointing the respondent No. 7 against the post aforesaid pertain to Policy matters since such policy matters fall in exclusive domain of the executive, since this Court could not notice any infirmity in the impugned recommendation or Notification, this Court is of the opinion that there is no scope for judicial review, the scope of which over matters in questions is otherwise very limited." 26. It may be mentioned that, thereafter, the Cabinet took certain decision on 12.8.2015 for taking appropriate action by the Planning and Coordination Department in terms of the earlier decision of the Cabinet taken on 18.12.2012 and the decision of this Court. Pursuant to the said Cabinet decision, an order was issued on 22.12.2015 for continuing the post of the Officer on Special Duty (OSD) (Skill development) on permanent basis in the Planning and Coordination Department as an ex-cadre post with immediate effect. 27. The said notification dated 22.12.2015 was immediately challenged by the Respondent No. 4 on the ground that the aforesaid notification dated 22.12.2015 was issued in violation of the principles of natural justice and was contrary to the earlier Cabinet decision by filing writ petition being, WP(C) No. 10 (K)/2016, which was allowed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.03.2017 by holding that there was no change of circumstances necessitating issuance of the aforesaid Notification dated 22.12.2015 and accordingly, set it aside. 28. The net result was that, the service condition of the Respondent No. 4 was to be in terms of the notification issued on 25.3.2013 by which the ex-cadre post of OSD (Skill Development) in the Planning and Coordination Department was converted into a regular cadre to which the Respondent No. 4 was permanently absorbed. 29. After the aforesaid decision, the Planning and Coordination Department constituted a Committee to examine and to make recommendation pertaining to the service rules of the State Planning Machinery, Planning and Coordination Department consisting of the Chief Secretary, Addl. 29. After the aforesaid decision, the Planning and Coordination Department constituted a Committee to examine and to make recommendation pertaining to the service rules of the State Planning Machinery, Planning and Coordination Department consisting of the Chief Secretary, Addl. Chief Secretary & Development Commissioner, Home Commissioner, Secretary(P&AR) and Secretary (Justice and Law) vide order dated 23.03.2017. The Committee submitted its report and made the following recommendations, "4.1. Keeping in the view the background of the issue and the analysis above, the Committee recommends that the post of OSD (Skill Development) may be treated as regular post in the cadre in the rank and pay of Assistant Development Commissioner and entered in the proposed Service Rules of State Planning Machinery of the Planning and Coordination Department. 4.2 Smt. I. Phom may be given promotion to Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC) by upgrading her post after completion of five years from the date of notification of Service rules of the State Planning Machinery. 4.3 The Committee is of the opinion that the proposed notifications of Draft Service Rules would be in line with the Notification dated 25.03.2013, which has been upheld in two judgment and orders of the High Court as well as inconformity of the findings and observation of the Court with regard to the attributes of the post of OSD(Skill Development) and also would address to some extent the issues raised by the tribal and social organization of Eastern Nagaland with regard to the existence of low representation of the officers from the Mon, Tuensung, Longleng and Kiphire in the Planning Department." 30. A dissenting note was given by the Addl. Chief Secretary &Development Commissioner. 31. The Cabinet after examining the report and recommendations made by the Committee on 11.09.2017, approved that, "(i) The post of OSD (Skill Development) shall be treated as a regular post in the rank and pay of Assistant Development Commissioner, and included in the proposed Draft Service Rules of the State Planning Machinery in Planning and Coordination Department. (ii) Smt. I. Sino Phom shall be eligible for promotion to the post next Deputy Development Commissioner. (iii) The draft Service Rules of the State Planning Machinery shall be submitted before the Cabinet at the earliest after incorporating approval by the Planning & Coordination Department." 32. The said decisions of the Cabinet were notified on 12.9.2017 by an Office Memorandum. (ii) Smt. I. Sino Phom shall be eligible for promotion to the post next Deputy Development Commissioner. (iii) The draft Service Rules of the State Planning Machinery shall be submitted before the Cabinet at the earliest after incorporating approval by the Planning & Coordination Department." 32. The said decisions of the Cabinet were notified on 12.9.2017 by an Office Memorandum. It is those aforesaid Cabinet decisions as notified on 12.09.2017 which have been challenged in this writ petition. 33. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court in the earlier writ petition, W.P.(C) No. 53(K) of 2013 had already given a judicial finding that the post of OSD (Skill Development) and the post of ADC are different and are not in the same cadre and as such, contrary to such a judicial finding, the Cabinet or the State Government could not have taken such a decision to the effect that the post of OSD shall be treated as a regular post in the rank and pay of Assistant Development Commissioner, which is impermissible in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the State of Tamil Nadu Vs. State of Kerala & Anr., (2014) 12 SCC 696 , in which it has been held that no statute can be enacted which would nullify the judgment of the Court. In the aforesaid case of State of Tamil Nadu Vs. State of Kerala (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows, "149. This Court in Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum 1, after hearing the State of Kerala, was not persuaded by Kerala's argument that Mullaperiyar Dam was unsafe or storage of water in that dam cannot be increased. Rather, it permitted Tamil Nadu to increase the present water level from 136 ft. to 142 ft. and restrained Kerala from interfering in Tamil Nadu's right in increasing the water level in Mullaperiyar Dam to 142 ft. Thus, a judgment has been given by this court in contest between the two States in respect of safety of Mullaperiyar Dam for raising water level to 142 ft. The essential element of the judicial function is the decision of a dispute actually arising between the parties and brought before the court. Necessarily, such decision must be binding upon the parties and enforceable according to the decision. The essential element of the judicial function is the decision of a dispute actually arising between the parties and brought before the court. Necessarily, such decision must be binding upon the parties and enforceable according to the decision. A plain and simple judicial decision on fact cannot be altered by a legislative decision by employing doctrines or principles such as 'public trust doctrine', 'precautionary principle' 'larger safety principle' and, 'competence of the State legislature to override agreements between the two States'. The Constitutional principle that the legislature can render judicial decision ineffective by enacting validating law within its legislative field fundamentally altering or changing its character retrospectively has no application where a judicial decision has been rendered by recording a finding of fact. Under the pretence of power, the legislature, cannot neutralize the effect of the judgment given after ascertainment of fact by means of evidence/materials placed by the parties to the dispute. A decision which disposes of the matter by giving findings upon the facts is not open to change by legislature. A final judgment, once rendered, operates and remains in force until altered by the court in appropriate proceedings. 150. 2006 (Amendment) Act plainly seeks to nullify the judgment of this court which is constitutionally impermissible. Moreover, it is not disputed by Kerala that 2006 (Amendment) Act is not a validation enactment. Since the impugned law is not a validating law, it is not required to inquire whether in making the validation the legislature has removed the defect which the Court has found in existing law. The 2006 (Amendment) Act in its application to and effect on Mullaperiyar Dam is a legislation other than substantially legislative as it is aimed at nullifying the prior and authoritative decision of this Court. The nub of the infringement consists in Kerala legislator's revising the final judgment of this Court in utter disregard of the constitutional principle that the revision of such final judgment must remain exclusively within the discretion of the court. .................... .................... .................... 157. The question whether or not the legislature has usurped the judicial power or enacted a law in breach of separation of powers principle would depend on facts of each case after considering the real effect of law on a judgment or a judicial proceeding. .................... .................... .................... 157. The question whether or not the legislature has usurped the judicial power or enacted a law in breach of separation of powers principle would depend on facts of each case after considering the real effect of law on a judgment or a judicial proceeding. One of the tests for determining whether a judgment is nullified is to see whether the law and the judgment are inconsistent and irreconcilable so that both cannot stand together. In what we have already discussed above, it is abundantly clear that on the one hand there is a finding of fact determined by this Court on hearing the parties on the basis of the evidence/materials placed on record in the judgment of this Court in Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum v. Union of India, (2006) 3 SCC 643 and on the other in 2006 (Amendment) Act, the Kerala legislature has declared the dam being an endangered one and fixed the water level in the dam at 136 ft. If the judgment of this Court in Mullaperiyar Environmental Protection Forum 1 and the 2006 (Amendment) Act are placed side by side insofar as safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam for raising the water level from 136 ft. to 142 ft. is concerned, it is obvious that the judgment of this Court and the law enacted by Kerala State legislature cannot stand together and they are irreconcilable and inconsistent. The impugned law is a classic case of nullification of a judgment simpliciter, as in the judgment of this Court the question of safety of dam was determined on the basis of materials placed before it and not on the interpretation of any existing law and there was no occasion for the legislature to amend the law by altering the basis on which the judgment was founded. When the impugned law is not a validation law, there is no question of the legislature removing the defect, as the Court has not found any vice in the existing law and declared such law to be bad." 34. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied on the decision in S.R. Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. When the impugned law is not a validation law, there is no question of the legislature removing the defect, as the Court has not found any vice in the existing law and declared such law to be bad." 34. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied on the decision in S.R. Bhagwat & Ors. Vs. State of Mysore, 1995 6 SCC 16 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that binding judicial proceedings between the parties cannot be made ineffective with the passage of any legislative power by enacting a provision which in substance over-rules such judgment and is not within the realm of a legislative enactment which displaces the basis of foundation of the judgment and uniformly applies to a class of persons concerned with the entire subject sought to be covered by such enactment having retrospective effect. In S.R. Bhagwat (Supra) it was held as follows: "12. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that a binding judicial pronouncement between the parties cannot be made ineffective with the aid of any legislative power by enacting a provision which in substance over-rules such judgment and is not in the realm of a legislative enactment which displaces the basis or foundation of the judgment and uniformly applies to a class of persons concerned with the entire subject sought to be covered by such an enactment having retrospective effect. We may only refer to two of these judgments. 13. A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1993) Supp. (1) SCC 96(II) had to pronounce on the validity of Karnataka Kauvery Basin Irrigation Protection Ordinance, 1991 by which an interim order passed by a statutory Tribunal supported by the decision of this Court dated 26th April 1991 which had ruled that the Tribunal had power to consider the question of granting interim relief since it was specifically referred to it, was sought to be displaced. Sawant, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench held that the said provisions were unconstitutional and ultra vires. In paragraph 76 of the Report the following observations were made: "The principle which emerges from these authorities is that the legislature can change the basis on which a decision is given by the Court and thus change the law in general, which will affect a class of persons and events at large. In paragraph 76 of the Report the following observations were made: "The principle which emerges from these authorities is that the legislature can change the basis on which a decision is given by the Court and thus change the law in general, which will affect a class of persons and events at large. It cannot, however, set aside an individual decision inter partes and affect their rights and liabilities alone. Such an act on the part of the legislature amounts to exercising the judicial power of the State and to functioning as an appellate court or tribunal." In the case of G.C. Kanungo Vs. State of Orissa (JT 1995 (4) SC 589) a Division Bench of this Court speaking through Venkatachala, J., had to consider the validity of Arbitration (Orissa Second Amendment) Act, 1991 which sought to nullify the awards made by the Special Arbitration Tribunals constituted under the 1984 Amendment Act, in exercise of the power conferred upon them by the Act itself. Striking down the provisions as ultra vires and illegal Venkatachala, J., made the following observations in paragraph 28 of the Report: "Thus, the impugned 1991 Amendment Act seeks to nullify the awards made by the Special Arbitration Tribunals constituted under the 1984 Amendment Act, in exercise of the power conferred upon them by that Act itself. When, the awards made under the 1984 Amendment Act by the Special Arbitration Tribunals in exercise of the State judicial power conferred upon them which cannot be regarded as those merged in Rules of Court or judgments and decrees of Courts, are sought to be nullified by 1991 Amendment Act, it admits of no doubt that legislative power of the State Legislature is used by enacting impugned 1991 Amendment Act to nullify or abrogate the awards of the Special Arbitration Tribunals by arrogating to itself, a judicial power. [See Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1991) Supp. 2 SCR 497]. From this, it follows that the State Legislature by enacting the 1991 Amendment Act has encroached upon the judicial power entrusted to judicial authority resulting in infringement of a basic feature of the Constitution - the Rule of Law. [See Re: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (1991) Supp. 2 SCR 497]. From this, it follows that the State Legislature by enacting the 1991 Amendment Act has encroached upon the judicial power entrusted to judicial authority resulting in infringement of a basic feature of the Constitution - the Rule of Law. Thus, when the 1991 Amendment Act nullifies the awards of the Special Arbitration Tribunals, made in exercise of the judicial power conferred upon them under the 1984 Amendment Act, by encroaching upon the judicial power of the State, we have no option but to declare it as unconstitutional having regard to the well settled and undisputed legal position that a legislature has no legislative power to render ineffective the earlier judicial decisions by making a law which simply declares the earlier judicial decisions as invalid and not binding, for such powers, if exercised, would not be legislative power exercised by it, but judicial power exercised by it encroaching upon the judicial power of the State Vested in a judicial Tribunal as the Special Arbitration Tribunals under 1984 Amendment Act. Moreover, where the arbitral awards sought to be nullified under the 1991 Amendment Act are those made by Special Arbitration Tribunals constituted by the State itself under 1984 Amendment Act to decide arbitral disputes to which State was a party, it cannot be permitted to undo such arbitral awards which have gone against it, by having recourse to its legislative power for grant of such permission as could result in allowing the State, if nothing else, abuse of its power of legislation." 35. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners also relied on the decision of the Gopal Singh Vs. State Cadre Forest Officers ' Association, (2007) 9 SCC 369 to the same effect. 36. Learned senior counsel has also referred to the decision of the then Imphal Bench of this Court in Loyalakpa Wahengbam Ananta Vs. State of Manipur & Ors., 2010 (3) GLT 150, which has set aside the order of re-designation of appointment dehors the rules. Further reliance was made on the decision of Hugie Zeliang & Anr. Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., 2006 (4) GLT 143 in which it has been held by this Court that Government cannot take a decision ignoring its own policy decisions and as such, a Cabinet decision by ignoring its own policies would be impermissible. Further reliance was made on the decision of Hugie Zeliang & Anr. Vs. State of Nagaland & Ors., 2006 (4) GLT 143 in which it has been held by this Court that Government cannot take a decision ignoring its own policy decisions and as such, a Cabinet decision by ignoring its own policies would be impermissible. Relying on the aforesaid decision of Hugie Zeliang(supra), learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that it is settled that the Court can set aside a Cabinet decision if it is found to be illegal. 37. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has also referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors., 1980 4 SCC 1 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court interfered with the Cabinet decision by holding that in a democracy governed by rule of law, the governmental action must be within the law. If there is a transgression, the Court must be ready to condemn it. 38. It has been submitted that in the present case, the aforesaid Cabinet decision is contrary to the judicial decision rendered in W.P. (C) No. 53 (K) of 2013 as regards the issue that the post of OSD (Skill Development) and Assistant Development Commissioner (ADC) are not transferable and do not belong to the same cadre. To that extent, it would be impermissible for the Cabinet to take a decision contrary to the aforesaid judicial finding. 39. In response, learned senior Addl. AG has submitted that this writ petition is premature and not maintainable for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow. Firstly, it has been submitted that the foundation for filing the writ petition by the petitioners is the draft service rules by contending that the petitioners' rights will be adversely effected if the Cabinet decision is to be acted upon. However, as there are no approved service rules as on date and the service rules referred to by the petitioners and relied on, have not yet been implemented by notifying in the official gazette, the question of violation of the rights of the petitioners does not arise. Secondly, OM dated 21.07.2004 which deals with appointment on deputation will apply only when there are approved service rules which provide for deputation and since there are no approved service rules to act upon, the question of acting upon the aforesaid OM does not arise. Secondly, OM dated 21.07.2004 which deals with appointment on deputation will apply only when there are approved service rules which provide for deputation and since there are no approved service rules to act upon, the question of acting upon the aforesaid OM does not arise. Thirdly, most of the petitioners themselves had entered service in a similar manner. They were initially appointed on temporary basis and subsequently, regularized in their respective posts. The draft service rules on which they have placed reliance were not followed even in their appointments. Fourthly, as no rules have been framed yet till now, the petitioners cannot have any grievance and as such, their apprehension is merely speculative and hence, the petition is premature and not maintainable. 40. Learned Senior Addl. AG has also submitted that the Cabinet had taken the decision for framing the service rules, as the same have not yet been framed and as such, if the plea of the petitioners is to be accepted, it would amount to preventing framing of service rules. According to the Learned Sr. Addl. A.G., therefore, the question that arises for consideration is, as to whether the petitioners can oppose framing of service rules which they are seeking so by filing this writ petition. Learned Sr. Addl. A.G. submits that the petitioners cannot do so. 41. Learned Senior Addl. AG has submitted that though the Legislature cannot invalidate any judicial decision, Legislature can certainly change the basis of such decision. It has been submitted that in the present case, what was sought to be done by the Cabinet was to make a change of the basis of appointment of the Respondent No. 4 by holding that the posts of OSD and ADC are in the same rank. It has been further submitted by learned Sr. Addl. AG that the State Government is not at all going against the decisions rendered by this Court on earlier occasions. What the Cabinet has decided is to direct the authorities to frame the service rules under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and it cannot be said that such decision is contrary to the judgments of this Court. It has been submitted that when the foresaid two judgments were rendered by this Court in connection with the appointment on deputation of the respondent No. 4, there were no service rules in operation. It has been submitted that when the foresaid two judgments were rendered by this Court in connection with the appointment on deputation of the respondent No. 4, there were no service rules in operation. In view of the above, the Cabinet had taken the decision for framing of service rules. In other words, the Cabinet's decision is merely a step towards finalizing the service rules. Accordingly, it has been submitted that till such service rules are framed and necessary orders issued with regard to the appointment of the Respondent No. 4, it cannot be said that the Government has taken any administrative decision and till such administrative decision is taken, the petitioners can have no right to challenge the Cabinet decision, as Cabinet decision yet to be translated into any actionable order. 42. Referring to the Rules of Executive Business of the Government of Nagaland as notified on 14.09.2016, it has been submitted that necessary steps are yet to be taken in terms of Rules 11 and 12 and till such order is issued by following the Rules of Executive Business, it cannot be said that any effective order has been passed. It has been further submitted by learned Sr. Add. AG that in any event, a Cabinet decision cannot be challenged in the writ proceeding for the simple reason that till necessary executive order has been issued based on it, Cabinet decision will be merely at the stage of proposal and as such, it cannot be said that the State Government has issued any order which could be challenged in a writ proceeding. 43. Learned Sr. Addl. AG submits that in the present case, what the Cabinet had decided was to bring the post of OSD within the ambit of the service rules. If that is so, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the rights of the petitioners had been adversely affected. 44. In support of his contentions learned Sr. Addl. AG has relied on the following decisions: 1. Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SCC 395 wherein it has been held that the Cabinet decision is merely provisional in character and as such, it is not amenable to judicial review. 2. It has been held in State of Kerala Vs. In support of his contentions learned Sr. Addl. AG has relied on the following decisions: 1. Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SCC 395 wherein it has been held that the Cabinet decision is merely provisional in character and as such, it is not amenable to judicial review. 2. It has been held in State of Kerala Vs. A. Lakshmikutty & Ors., (1986) 4 SCC 632 , that whatever decision the Council of Ministers take with regard to any particular matter, does not become the action of the State Government till the advice of the Council of Ministers is accepted or deemed to have been accepted by the Head of the State. Before the advice of the Council of Ministers amounts to an order of the State Government, there are two requirements which are to be fulfilled, namely, (i) The order of the State Government has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required under Articles 166 (1) and (2) of the Constitution; and (ii) It has to be communicated to the person concerned. Accordingly, it has been submitted that till such appropriate order is passed pursuant to the Cabinet decision, as regards encadrement and appointment of the Respondent No. 4, no writ would lie challenging the aforesaid Cabinet decisions. In the said case of A. Lakshmikutty (supra), it was held as follows: "41. There was quite some discussion at the Bar as to whether the Council of Ministers could have reviewed their earlier decision and decided not to appoint anybody from the panel of names forwarded by the High Court and to issue a fresh notification inviting applications. The answer to the question is self-evident. Merely because the Chief Minister briefed the press on January 31, 1985 as regards the decision taken at the meeting of the Council of Ministers held on the previous day and the news of the press conference was published in the Mathrubhoomy and other Malyalam newspapers to the effect that the Government had decided to fill up four posts of District Judges, it could not be said that there was an order of the State Government in the manner required by Article 166(1). What the news item conveyed was that the Council of Ministers had taken a decision to advise the Governor to appoint Respondents 3-6 as District Judges. What the news item conveyed was that the Council of Ministers had taken a decision to advise the Governor to appoint Respondents 3-6 as District Judges. The Governor has to act with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers as required by Article 163(1). Whatever the Council of Ministers may say in regard to a particular matter, does not become the action of the State Government till the advice of the Council of Ministers is accepted or deemed to be accepted by the Head of the State. Before an advice of the Council of Ministers amounts to an order of the State Government, there are two requirements to be fulfilled, namely: (1) The order of the State Government has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Article 166(1), and (2) It has to be communicated to the persons concerned. See: State of Punjab v. Sodhi Sukhdev Singh : AIR 1961 SC 493 and Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR 1963 SC 395 . It must therefore follow that unless and until the decision taken by the Council of Ministers on January 30, 1985 was translated into action by the issue of a notification expressed in the name of the Governor as required by Article 166(1), it could not be said to be an order of the State Government. Until then, the earlier decision of the Council of Ministers was only a tentative one and it was therefore fully competent for the High Court (sic State Government) to reconsider the matter and come to a fresh decision." 3. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JP Bansal Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 5 SCC 134 it has been submitted that no mandamus would lie for enforcing a Cabinet decision. 4. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa Vs. MESCO Steels Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 340 , it has been submitted that present writ petition is premature and as such, no writ would lie. 5. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.U.C.L. Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399, learned senior Addl. MESCO Steels Limited, (2013) 4 SCC 340 , it has been submitted that present writ petition is premature and as such, no writ would lie. 5. Further, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.U.C.L. Vs. Union of India, (2003) 4 SCC 399, learned senior Addl. AG has submitted that it is settled law that the legislature can remove the defect which is the cause for invalidating the law by the Court by appropriate legislation if it has power over the subject matter and competence to do so under the Constitution and as such, it has been submitted that what the Cabinet did was to merely remove the defect and as such, it cannot be said that the decisions of the Cabinet are wrong. 6. Further relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhikhubhai Vithlabhai Patel Vs. State of Gujarat, 2008 4 SCC 144 , learned Sr. Addl. AG has submitted that the decision taken by the Cabinet was for consideration by the Cabinet of the service rules which may be framed/prepared by the Department for further consideration by the Cabinet. It has been submitted that the Cabinet decision is merely to consider the draft service rules and as such, the said act of consideration cannot be challenged as sought to be done by the petitioners by filing the present writ petition. 45. Mr. Zhimomi, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 has submitted that the decision of the Government to make OSD (Skill Development) a regular cadre post and absorb her against the said post vide Notification dated 25.03.2013 was already challenged in WP(C) No. 53 (K)/2013. The aforesaid challenge was primarily based on the ground that there were service rules which were in force and by making the post of OSD (Skill Development) equivalent the post of Assistant Development Commissioner (ADC), the promotional prospects of the petitioners had been adversely effected. It has been submitted that the contention of the petitioners in the said writ petition that since the post of Assistant Development Commissioner (ADC) is to be filled up only by way of promotion and hence could not have been filled up by way of deputation, had been already rejected by this Court. It has been submitted that the contention of the petitioners in the said writ petition that since the post of Assistant Development Commissioner (ADC) is to be filled up only by way of promotion and hence could not have been filled up by way of deputation, had been already rejected by this Court. It has been submitted that this Court had already held in the said petition that there were no approved service rules and the post of OSD and the Assistant Development Commissioner are different posts and accordingly, the Court held that petitioners therein had no locus standi to challenge the said deputation of the Respondent No. 4. Accordingly, after the aforesaid decision in WP(C) No. 53(K)/2013, the Respondent No. 4 has become an appointee in a regular cadre post in the Department, which cannot now be reopened in this proceeding. 46. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 further submits that it is at the instance of the petitioners that the effect of the earlier judgment passed in WP(C) No. 53 (K)/2013 was sought to be nullified by influencing the State Government. The Government accordingly took a Cabinet decision, on the basis of which the Notification dated 22.12.2015 was issued by notifying that the post of OSD (Skill Development) will be continued on a permanent basis in the Planning and Coordination Department as an ex-cadre post. The aforesaid Notification was promptly challenged by the Respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 10 (K)/2016, which was allowed on 17.03.2017 by this Court by setting aside the aforesaid Notification dated 22.12.2015. As a result, the Respondent No. 4 is now holding the post of OSD in a regular cadre post and in ex-cadre post. It has been accordingly, submitted that if the Respondent No. 4 is presently holding a regular cadre post in the Department on the strength of the decisions of this Court, the petitioners cannot challenge her continuation in the Department in a regular post and accordingly, cannot challenge the Cabinet decisions, which were in terms of earlier decisions of this Court. 47. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 4 further submits that the appeal filed against the decision in the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) No. 10(K)/2016 had been withdrawn on 27.10.2017, which would clearly indicate that the petitioners have accepted the position of the Respondent No. 4 as a regular employee of the Planning Department. 47. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent No. 4 further submits that the appeal filed against the decision in the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) No. 10(K)/2016 had been withdrawn on 27.10.2017, which would clearly indicate that the petitioners have accepted the position of the Respondent No. 4 as a regular employee of the Planning Department. If that is so, the petitioners cannot now have any grievance if the State Government seeks to make the service rules by taking into account the appointment of Respondent No. 4 as an OSD on regular basis. 48. It has been submitted by learned counsel for respondent No. 4 that what the petitioners are seeking is to reopen the issues already settled in the two previous writ petitions and also prevent the Government from framing the service rules. According to the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4, what the petitioners are seeking is to compel the State government to frame certain service rules to suit their interests based on the earlier draft service rules which were never notified. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 4 submits that by filing the present writ petition, the petitioners are, in fact, interfering with the legislative process of framing the service rules. 49. It has been submitted that now it is a fact that the Respondent No. 4 is a regular employee encadred in the Department which fact has not been challenged in the present petition also. If that is so, they cannot challenge the proposal of the State Government to frame the service rules to include the post held by the respondent No. 4. Accordingly, it has been submitted that the present writ petition is premature and on that ground alone, it is liable to be dismissed. 50. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 also has questioned the bonafide of the petitioners in filing this petition. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 that most of the petitioners themselves were appointed on contractual basis and subsequently regularized. It has been submitted that as many as 23 of the 49 petitioners had entered service without following the selection process having entered service on ad hoc, contract or on deputation etc. Thus, their appointments were in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, they have no right to challenge the absorption of the Respondent No. 4. Thus, their appointments were in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, they have no right to challenge the absorption of the Respondent No. 4. It has been also pointed out that the present Head of the Department is the Additional Development Commissioner. The incumbent Additional Development Commissioner was initially working as an UDA in the Office of the Director General of Police, Nagaland, who was brought on deputation as Superintendent to the Department by Notification dated 2.7.1991 and thereafter, was absorbed in the Department by Notification dt. 9.12.2013 and as such, it has been submitted that the motive of the petitioners in filing the present writ petition is not bonafide and is for oblique purposes. 51. It has been further submitted that the entire writ petition is based on the premise that the service rules had been operative, but the fact remains that there were and are no service rules in operation and these are yet to be framed by the Department for which the Cabinet took the decision for preparing the same and for consideration and as such, it has been submitted that there is no merit in the writ petition and same is liable to be dismissed. 52. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 4 has relied on the following decisions: i. All Assam Middle English Teacher's Assn. Vs. State of Assam, 2017 (2) GLT 702, in which it has been held that cadre restructuring being a policy decision, scope of judicial view is limited. ii. P.U. Joshi Vs. Accountant General, (2003) 2 SCC 632, in which it has been held conditions of service, alteration thereof, including avenues of promotion pertain to field of policy which is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State/employer, and as such Courts do not interfere with such matters. iii. State of Jharkhand Vs. Bhadey Munda, (2014)10 SCC 398 , in which it has been held that mere chance of promotion is not a condition of service and possibility of promotion being adversely affected is not a legitimate ground for challenge. iv. J. Kumar Vs. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 116 , in which it has been held that service conditions pertaining to seniority and future promotion prospects can be altered by framing new Rules. v. Panchraj Tiwari Vs. iv. J. Kumar Vs. Union of India, (1982) 2 SCC 116 , in which it has been held that service conditions pertaining to seniority and future promotion prospects can be altered by framing new Rules. v. Panchraj Tiwari Vs. M.P. Seb, (2014) 5 SCC 101 , in which it has been held that once a service gets merged with another, the employee has a right to get positioned appropriately and negation of chance of promotion will be infraction of Art. 14 and 16. vi. Kunda S. Kadam Vs. Dr. K.K. Sonam, (1980) SCC 355, 678, Dr. G. Sarana Vs University of Lucknow (1976) 3 SCC 585 , Ulagapa Vs. Divisional Commr., Mysore (2001) 10 SCC 639 . In these cases, it has been held that premature writs are not maintainable. vii. Fida Hussain Vs. Moradabad Development Authority, (2011) 12 SCC 615 , in which it has been held that issues settled by the Court are binding and cannot be reopened. viii. K.D. Sharma Vs. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481, in which it has been held that a petition is liable to be dismissed, if there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or if the petition is guilty of misleading the Court. In the present case, it has been submitted that the petitioners have not come with clean hands and have not disclosed all the relevant materials including their mode of entry in service, withdrawal of the writ appeal mentioned above etc. 53. From the rival contentions as discussed above, the following legal issues are also required to be considered by this Court while deciding the other co-related issues. (i). Whether a cabinet decision can be challenged before the Court and be interfered by the Court? (ii). Whether the cabinet can take a decision contrary to a judicial finding arrived at by the Court on any issue? 54. As submitted on behalf of the learned Sr. Addl. A.G. normally, a Cabinet decision, till it is translated into an actionable judicial order in terms of Articles 166 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India, may not be challenged in a Court of law and to that extent challenging a cabinet decision may not be maintainable. 54. As submitted on behalf of the learned Sr. Addl. A.G. normally, a Cabinet decision, till it is translated into an actionable judicial order in terms of Articles 166 (1) and (2) of the Constitution of India, may not be challenged in a Court of law and to that extent challenging a cabinet decision may not be maintainable. In the present case, what is found is that the cabinet took the decisions on 11.09.2017 declaring that the post of OSD (Skill Development) is to be treated as a regular post in the rank and pay of Assistant Development Commissioner and the said post is to be included in the proposed draft service rules and that the proposed draft service rules are to be submitted for consideration by the Cabinet at the earliest. However, it cannot be said that the aforesaid decisions are merely at the stage of proposal only. The fact remains that certain specific findings of fact have been already given by the Cabinet as regards the status of the post of OSD(Skill Development) and also about the eligibility of the Respondent No. 4 for promotion to the next level post of Deputy Development Commissioner. Therefore, even if the aforesaid decisions of the Cabinet are yet to be converted to any executive order, the Cabinet has taken certain crucial decisions of fact which cannot be altered in any subsequent executive order that may be issued in this regard. Executive orders have to be issued definitively by the Department as the service rules cannot otherwise, be finalised, in terms of the aforesaid decisions of the Cabinet. There is no option on the part of the Department but to implement the said Cabinet decisions while framing the service rules. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Department also cannot delay framing of the service rules also. 55. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that they are not going to act upon the aforesaid Cabinet decisions taken on 11.09.2017. Considering the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Department also cannot delay framing of the service rules also. 55. It is not the case of the respondent authorities that they are not going to act upon the aforesaid Cabinet decisions taken on 11.09.2017. The only plea is that the aforesaid Cabinet decisions are merely a part of the process towards framing of the service rules which are yet to be considered by the Cabinet in terms of the decision No. (iii) of the Cabinet under which the draft service rules of the State Planning Machinery are to be submitted for consideration of the Cabinet at the earliest after incorporating the decisions No. (i) and (ii) of the Cabinet by the Planning and Coordination Department. 56. It may be noted that though the petitioners cannot be said to be aggrieved by the aforesaid third decision of the Cabinet to the extent of preparation and submission of the draft service rules for consideration of the Cabinet, they can be certainly said to be aggrieved by the earlier two decisions of the Cabinet taken on 11.09.2017, i.e., treating the post of OSD (Skill Development) to be in the rank and pay of Assistant Development Commissioner and also for declaring that the Respondent No. 4 shall be eligible for promotion to the next level of Deputy Development Commissioner. 57. As mentioned above, as regards the aforesaid two Cabinet decisions, there is nothing more to be considered at the administrative level while implementing the Cabinet decisions. The framing of the service rules has to be done in terms of the aforesaid Cabinet decisions. The first two decisions of the Cabinet essentially determine the status of the post of OSD (Skill Development) as well as the status of the Respondent No. 4. 58. The question, which arises for consideration is whether the aforesaid two Cabinet decisions taken on 11.09.2017 as regards the status of the post of OSD (Skill Development) as well as the Respondent No. 4 for promotion to a higher post can be challenged by the petitioners or not. 59. It is now well settled that a Cabinet decision cannot be challenged unless it violates any statutory or Constitutional provision, as normally cabinet decisions pertain to policy matters of which the scope of judicial review is limited. 59. It is now well settled that a Cabinet decision cannot be challenged unless it violates any statutory or Constitutional provision, as normally cabinet decisions pertain to policy matters of which the scope of judicial review is limited. However, there is no settled law that a Cabinet decision can never be challenged and is beyond the scope of the judicial review. If the Court finds that the same is contrary to law or any statutory or legal provisions, the Court certainly can examine and if necessary, interfere with the same, more so, if it violates any Constitutional provision. 60. It was held in Balco Employees' Union Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2002) 2 SCC 333 , that policy decisions taken by the Government unless contrary to statutory provision or to Constitutional are not to be interfered by the Court. It was further held in State of UP. Vs. Choudhury Ranvir Singh, (2008) 5 SCC 550 , that in the matter of policy decision of the Government, so long as infringement of fundamental right is not shown, the Court will have no occasion to interfere. Similarly, it was so held in Federation of Railway Association Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2003) 4 SCC 289 that Cabinet decision taken by the Government unless inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational or amounts to abuse of power, is not subject to judicial review. 61. From the above, what can be clearly inferred is that a policy decision taken by the State would normally not interfered by the Courts. However, if the same is in violation of any statutory provision or of the Constitution, more particularly any fundamental right, certainly it would be subject to judicial review, and these can be challenged before the Court of law. 62. Keeping the aforesaid legal position in mind, in order to appreciate the core issues involved in this petition, at the cost of repetition it may be necessary to marshal the relevant facts and rival submissions, in brief, as follows:- (i) The dispute is confined to the Department of Planning and Coordination, Government of Nagaland. 62. Keeping the aforesaid legal position in mind, in order to appreciate the core issues involved in this petition, at the cost of repetition it may be necessary to marshal the relevant facts and rival submissions, in brief, as follows:- (i) The dispute is confined to the Department of Planning and Coordination, Government of Nagaland. The dispute arose after the Respondent No. 4, who was earlier serving in the Nagaland University as an Assistant Professor, was brought in by deputation as an Officer on Special Duty, on the expressed desire of the Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State in the State Department for which the process was initiated in 2010. The Cabinet took a decision for creating a post of OSD (Skill Development) under the Planning Department on 26.05.2011 for a period of 2 (two) years with the pay-band equivalent to the post of Assistant Professor to which post the petitioner was appointed on deputation for a period of 2 (two) years on 16.11.2011. (ii) Subsequently, the Cabinet took a decision on 18.12.2012 for keeping the post of OSD (Skill Development) in the Department as a permanent post and for absorbing her. Accordingly, on 25.3.2013, she was permanently absorbed as OSD (Skill Development). (iii) The said absorption of the respondent No. 4 was challenged before this Court in WP(C) No. 53 (K)/2013 which was dismissed on 30.06.2014. The Court while repelling the contentions of the petitioners therein observed that the functions, duties and responsibilities assigned to the OSD (Skill Development) are completely different from that of the post of Assistant Development Commissioner in the Department and they are not inter transferrable, which would indicate that these two posts are not in the same cadre. (iv) The Respondent No. 4 is now functioning as OSD (Skill Development) on regular basis in the Department. (v) There are no service rules as on today for the hierarchy of posts in the Department. (vi) The present dispute has been triggered by the Cabinet decision taken on 11.09.2017 by which the post of OSD (Skill Development) was treated to be in the rank and pay of Assistant Development Commissioner and be included in the proposed draft service rules of the State Planning Machinery in the Planning and Coordination Department. (vi) The present dispute has been triggered by the Cabinet decision taken on 11.09.2017 by which the post of OSD (Skill Development) was treated to be in the rank and pay of Assistant Development Commissioner and be included in the proposed draft service rules of the State Planning Machinery in the Planning and Coordination Department. Further, it was decided that the Respondent No. 4 shall be eligible for promotion to the next level of Deputy Development Commissioner and the draft service rules of the State Planning Machinery are to be submitted for consideration of the Cabinet at the earliest by incorporating the above two decisions of the Cabinet. (vii) As mentioned above, the plea of the petitioners in this petition in short, is that this Court in the earlier occasion in WP(C) No. 53(K)/2013 had already held that the post of OSD (Skill Development) and the post of Assistant Development Commissioner (ADC) are different and are not interchangeable and do not belong to the same cadre. Accordingly, it would be impermissible for the Cabinet to take a decision contrary to the judicial finding or conclusion already arrived at earlier. (viii) On the other hand, the stand of the State Respondents is that a Cabinet decision cannot be challenged before the Court and also the petition is premature as the service rules are yet to be framed in terms of the Cabinet decision and only when the petitioners are aggrieved by the service rules so framed, they would have a right to challenge the same after the same are finalised and not prior to it. (ix) The Respondent No. 4 initially joined the Department in the capacity of OSD (Skill Development) on deputation and as such, was holding the ex-cadre post in the Department. Her absorption and regular appointment in the Department as mentioned above, was put to challenge, but was negatived by this Court on an earlier occasion. (x) This Court has now to proceed with this fact that the Respondent No. 4 is at present a regular employee of the Planning and Coordination Department. Since the finding and decision of this Court in WP(C) 53(K)/2013 has attained finality, it will not be permissible to re-examine the issues related to her absorption and regular appointment in the Department. (x) This Court has now to proceed with this fact that the Respondent No. 4 is at present a regular employee of the Planning and Coordination Department. Since the finding and decision of this Court in WP(C) 53(K)/2013 has attained finality, it will not be permissible to re-examine the issues related to her absorption and regular appointment in the Department. (xi) The core related issue which requires to be examined by this Court is the status of the Respondent No. 4 in the light of the decision of this Court in WP(C) No. 53(k)/2013 and as to the power and authority of the State Government in making decisions effecting the service of the employees. 63. In order to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners, we may first understand the actual meaning and scope of the impugned decisions taken by the Cabinet. On close examination, the aforesaid decision of the Cabinet consists of the following three parts: (i) The post of OSD (Skill Development) shall be treated as a regular post. (ii) The post of OSD (Skill Development) is to be treated in the rank and pay of Assistant Development Commissioner. (iii) The post of OSD (Skill Development) shall be included in the proposed draft service rules of the State Planning Machinery in the Planning and Coordination Department 64. In order to appreciate the contention of the petitioners that the aforesaid decisions, consisting of three parts, are contrary to the decision of the Court in WP(C)53 (K)/2013, it may be necessary to re-examine the aforesaid decision of this Court as to what the Court actually meant and decided. If any observation or conclusion arrived at by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition is contrary to any of the aforesaid components of the Cabinet decision, the petitioners would have a justifiable and justiciable claim. 65. Accordingly, this Court would like to analyse submissions advanced, materials relied upon, the issues and the conclusions arrived at by the Court in the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) No. 53(K) of 2013. 66. The absorption of the service of the Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 25.3.13, who was holding the post of OSD (Skill Development) on deputation in the Planning and Coordination Department vide Office Memorandum dated 18.12.2012 in terms of earlier decision of the Cabinet was put to challenge by some of the employees including some of the petitioners in the present writ petition. As mentioned above, the Respondent No. 4 was initially brought in by way of deputation to the ex-cadre post of OSD (Skill Development) vide Notification dated 25.03.2013. The said Notification was challenged by the petitioners in the said writ petition being WP(C) No. 53(K)/2013. 67. As mentioned above, the contentions of the petitioners therein against the absorption of Respondent No. 4 was that it was illegal and made in total violation of cardinal principles of service jurisprudence and also that the Cabinet Memo never suggested for the absorption of Respondent No. 4 on permanent basis. 68. It was also contended by the petitioners therein that the said absorption was in complete violation of OM dated 25.07.2004 which deals with deputation, as mentioned in para Nos. 10 and 11 of the aforesaid judgment, which are reproduced hereinbelow: "10. It has, now, been contended that absorption of respondent No. 7 against the post of the OSD (Skill Development) which was made permanent with effect from 19.12.2012 on the strength of Notification dated 25.03.2013 was entirely illegal since such absorption was made in total violation of the cardinal principles of service jurisprudence. In that connection, it has been pointed out that the Cabinet Memo never suggested the Cabinet to absorb the respondent No. 7 on permanent basis against the post of OSD which was so made permanent on the strength of Office Memo dated 25.03.2013. 11. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the absorption of respondent No. 7 was also illegal since it was done in complete violation of O.M. dated 21.07.2004 which deal with the matters pertaining to filing up of post by way of deputation/absorption, more particularly, Clause-2 and Clause-9 thereof." 69. The other contention of the petitioners therein was, as mentioned in para No. 13 of the judgment, that the post of OSD (Skill Development) is equivalent in rank, status and pay to the post of ADC and was made a cadre post in the Department and these posts are inter-transferable, and as such, filling up of the said post of OSD (Skill Development) by the Respondent No. 4 by way of absorption is violative of the service rules and as the post of OSD (Skill Development) has to be a promotional post being equivalent to ADC, which is a promotional post. The aforesaid para 13 of the said decision reads as follows. "13. The aforesaid para 13 of the said decision reads as follows. "13. It is also the case of the petitioners that the post of OSD (Skill Development) is equivalent in rank, status and pay to the post of ADC and was made a cadre post of the Department. This clearly signifies that the incumbents in the post of the ADC and the incumbent in the post of OSD are inter-transferable. Since the post of the ADC is a 100% promotional post in terms of Service Rules, 2010 and since the incumbents in the post of ADC and the incumbent in the post of OSD are inter-transferable, the filling up such a post by the respondent No. 7 by way of absorption is violative of the Service Rules, 2010." 70. Though there were other contentions advanced by the petitioners therein, this Court is referring to only such submissions which are directly relevant to the issues at hand and as such, this Court is not referring to those submissions. 71. The stand of the State authorities in the said writ petition, on the other hand, was that the duties, responsibilities and functions assigned to the post of OSD (Skill Development) and ADC are fundamentally different and as such, it cannot be said that these posts belong to the same cadre. 72. In the light of above, this Court would hold that it was the stand of the petitioners in the said writ petition that this post of OSD (Skill Development) is equivalent to the post of ADC. Though the Government tacitly admitted to the aforesaid contention, the dispute centred around the issue as to whether these two posts are same, inter-transferrable, inter-changeable and whether they belong to the same cadre. According to the petitioners therein these were identical and since the post of ADC was a promotional post, the post of OSD (Skill Development) which is same in rank and status of the ADC has to be also filled up only by way of promotion and not by deputation. 73. The aforesaid contentions were repelled and this Court which gave the finding that these two posts are different, having different duties, responsibilities and not inter-transferrable and do not belong to the same cadre. The conclusions arrived by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition WP(C) No. 53(K)/2013 as reflected para nos. 73. The aforesaid contentions were repelled and this Court which gave the finding that these two posts are different, having different duties, responsibilities and not inter-transferrable and do not belong to the same cadre. The conclusions arrived by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition WP(C) No. 53(K)/2013 as reflected para nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 54 and 55 of the aforesaid judgment, in the opinion of this Court are relevant for considering the issues raised in this petition, and are accordingly, reproduced hereinbelow: "50. When the Cabinet Memo dated 3.2.2011 and the Cabinet Memo dated 18.12.2012 is read together with the order dated 24.10.2012, it would appear more than clear that the functions, duties and responsibilities assigned to OSD (Skill Development) is completely different from the functions, duties and responsibilities, assigned to ADC, otherwise with the initiation of aforesaid policies and programmes, the department would have gone for the creation of the post OSD (Skill Development) or it would not have made a search for someone to execute the functions, duties and responsibilities which stood entrusted to the Department under the aforesaid policies and programmes. 51. Inter-transferability between the posts is one important criterion to ascertain if two posts are of same cadre. We have already found that the functions, duties and responsibilities, assigned to the post of ADC and OSD, are fundamentally different. This coupled with the fact that the department had to search for an officer to man the post of OSD (Skill Development) as well as the fact that there is no mention whatsoever in the Draft Service Rules about the OSD (Skill Development) clearly serve to show that the incumbent in the post of OSD (Skill Development) and incumbent in the post of ADC are not inter-transferable. 52. Once it is found that the functions, duties, responsibilities, assigned to the incumbent in the post of OSD and ADC are different and once it is found that the incumbents in the post of OSD and the post of the ADC are not inter-transferable, they being some very vital criteria which determine if two posts are of same cadre, there cannot be any escape from the conclusion that the post of OSD (Skill Development) and the post of ADC are not the post of same cadre. 53. 53. One may note here that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that when the post of OSD was created, any one from the Department had volunteered to be considered for appointment to the post aforesaid. Rather, all available materials reveal that the Department had to make vigorous search for an officer capable enough to man the post of OSD (Skill Development) effectively and efficiently, Why no one from the Department volunteered to work as OSD? Why did the Department have to make an all out search to find an officer to man the post aforesaid? 54. Reasons are not far to find. The only answer to the above queries is that the department did not have the officer with necessary resources to handle the post of OSD (Skill Development) effectively and efficiently. These are, in my firm opinion, more and more testimonies to the fact that the functions, duties and responsibilities, entrusted to the incumbent in the post of OSD and the functions, duties and responsibilities, commended to the incumbent in the post of ADC are different which again establishes that those two posts are not the posts of same cadre. 55. One may note here that the order under which the post of OSD stood created says that such a post was created in the rank and status of ADC with similar pay scale, yet, it did not speak anything about the mode of filling up of such post. Nor does it speak about the qualification experience etc. necessary for vying for such a post. Such disclosure, in the fact and circumstances of the present case, only serves to show that the post of OSD (Skill Development) and the post of ADC are not the post of same cadre. 56. The petitioners strenuously contend since that the post of ADC is 100% promotional post and since the post of OSD is also a post in the cadre of ADC, it cannot be filled up by deputation. The only mode of filling up of such post is by promotion from the feeder channel. Since, the contention that the post of ADC and post of OSD are of same cadre has found to have fallen through, the claim that the post of ADC/OSD are to be filled up only by promotion is also found to be without any substance." 74. Since, the contention that the post of ADC and post of OSD are of same cadre has found to have fallen through, the claim that the post of ADC/OSD are to be filled up only by promotion is also found to be without any substance." 74. From the above, it can be said that this Court in the aforesaid writ petition held that these two posts are not in the same cadre. But there was no finding given by this Court that they are not in the same rank, which was the decision of the Cabinet challenged in this petition. In fact, as also can be seen from above, it was always the case of the petitioners that the post of OSD (Skill Development) is equivalent in rank and status with the post of ADC. 75. If that is so, this Court is of the view that the decision taken by the Cabinet that the post of OSD (Skill Development) is in the same rank and pay of Assistant Development Commissioner cannot be said to be unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal. It cannot be also said that this decision is contrary to the conclusion and judicial finding made by this Court in the aforesaid WP(C) 53(K)/2013. In fact, no decision at all was taken or made by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition to the effect that these two posts are not in the same rank. It may be mentioned that even if the two posts have different roles, functions and responsibilities, they can still be of the rank. What this Court had concluded in the said writ petition was that these two posts are not in the same cadre. Equivalence of post and being in the same cadre are two separate aspects though they are inter-linked. Merely because the Court held that these two posts do not belong to the same cadre, does not necessarily mean that they cannot be at the same rank which is that what the Cabinet had decided. 76. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid Cabinet decision treating the post of OSD (Skill Development) to be in the same rank as the post of ADC cannot said to be contrary to the decision of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) 53(K)/2013. 77. 76. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the aforesaid Cabinet decision treating the post of OSD (Skill Development) to be in the same rank as the post of ADC cannot said to be contrary to the decision of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, WP(C) 53(K)/2013. 77. The other issue is about the decision by the Cabinet that the Respondent No. 4 shall be eligible for promotion to the next level post of Deputy Development Commissioner. This is a decision about which the petitioners certainly can have genuine grievance. This decision actually amounts to putting the cart before the horse. How can a person beforehand be declared eligible for promotion to the higher post even before service rules are framed, approved and operationalised? Whether a person will be eligible for promotion or not can be ascertained only with reference to the service rules. But, when the service rules are yet to be framed and given effect to, how does the Cabinet make such a decision? Thus, it is a decision which begs the question. The Cabinet seems to have arrived at a conclusion before finalising the premises. Can the Respondent No. 4 be declared to be eligible for promotion to the next level of Deputy Development Commissioner even before the service rules have been prepared and approved? This Cabinet decision presupposes certain fact situation, before the foundation of such supposition is even laid. To that extent, it is arbitrary and discriminatory. The exercise of preparing the service rules is yet to be concluded, which was directed to be done so by the Cabinet as per its third decision. Hence, it would not be wrong to say that aforesaid second decision of the Cabinet is arbitrary and unreasonable and it certainly violates the mandate of the Article 14. 78. By the aforesaid decision of the Cabinet in declaring the Respondent No. 4 to be eligible for promotion to the next higher post, the Cabinet had identified a specific individual as a class apart, who is distinct from the rest of the employees in the Department. What was the basis for it? Even if there be some basis, it must be reasonable and rational, not irrational and must have some relation with the said purpose of classification. What was the basis for it? Even if there be some basis, it must be reasonable and rational, not irrational and must have some relation with the said purpose of classification. In absence of any rational basis for the same, which is not forthcoming before this Court, this would clearly amount to class discrimination and be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Any such class discrimination must be based on intelligible differentia, which does not seem to exist in the present case. There is no rational basis for picking up the case of the petitioner only, for declaring her to eligible for promotion to the next higher post. 79. One may only attempt to find the plausible reason in the report of the Committee, which was considered by the Cabinet, before it took the decisions. 80. A perusal of the Committee's report, a copy which has been annexed to the writ petition, however, does not disclose any such reason, except for the observation made by the Committee that the Respondent No. 4 has been working for a long period and the circumstances in which she was brought from Nagaland University and that there has been low representation from the backward tribes of Mon, Tuensung, Longleng and Kiphire districts in the Officer cadre in the Planning Department and that the Respondent No. 4 had rendered service in the Department for some years. The Committee made the following recommendations. "4. Recommendations 4.1. Keeping in view the background of the issue and the analysis above, the Committee recommends that the post of OSD (Skill Development) may be treated as a regular post in the cadre in the rank and pay of the Assistant Development Commissioner and included in the proposed Draft Service Rules of State Planning Machinery of the Planning & Coordination Department. 4.2. Smt. I. Sino Phom may be given promotion to Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC) by upgrading her post after the completion of five years from the date of notification of the Service rules of the State Planning Machinery. 4.3. 4.2. Smt. I. Sino Phom may be given promotion to Deputy Development Commissioner (DDC) by upgrading her post after the completion of five years from the date of notification of the Service rules of the State Planning Machinery. 4.3. The Committee is of the opinion that the above proposed modifications in the Draft Service Rules would be in line with the notification dated 25.03.2013 which has been upheld in two judgment orders of the High Court as well as in conformity with the findings and observations of the Court with regard to the authorities of the post of OSD (Skill Development) and also would address to some extent the concerns raised by the tribal and social organizations of the Eastern Nagaland with regard to the existence of low representation of officers from the districts of Mon. Tuensang, Longleng and Kiphire in the Planning Department." 81. If low representation of officers from these backward districts is one of the reasons for the Cabinet decisions, did the State Government also consider other officers from these backward districts from other departments to be brought to the Planning and Coordination Department? There is nothing on record to suggest so. 82. Further, though the concern of the State in ensuring proper representation of smaller tribes may be laudable and also may be necessary, yet that cannot be the reason to decide before hand, the eligibility of a candidate even before the services rule have been framed. Whether the Respondent No. 4 will be eligible for promotion to the next level of higher post can be ascertained only after the service rules have been framed, finalized and approved, that too by the competent Selection Committee. 83. As regards the third Cabinet decision by which it was directed that the draft service rules of the State Planning Machinery be submitted for consideration of the Cabinet after incorporating the above two decisions by the Planning and Coordination Department, this Court is of the view that the same is liable to be interfered with to the extent that the draft service rules cannot contain the aforesaid second decision taken for the reason that the aforesaid second decision of the Cabinet declaring the Respondent No. 4 to be eligible has been held to be not valid. However, the Planning and Coordination Department would be at liberty to frame appropriate service rules for consideration by the Cabinet by incorporating the first decision of the Cabinet. 84. In this regard, this Court would like to observe that though creation of posts and framing of service rules would be within the exclusive domain of the State, yet, the same has to be done within the Constitutional norms and limitations. As far as the service conditions of the employees of the State are concerned, the same will be governed by Article 309 of the Constitution which provides that recruitment and service conditions of persons serving in the State will be regulated by the appropriate Acts enacted by the Legislature. However, such Acts and statutes shall be subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Article 309 begins with the expression "Subject to the provisions of this Constitution," thereby meaning that any such Act or law made by the State legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the State will be subject to the provisions of the Constitution which would include provisions of Articles 14, 16 etc. of the Constitution of India. 85. Proviso to Article 309 provides that in absence of such statutory enactment by the Legislature of the State, the Governor of the State can make rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service. However, as mentioned above, such power of the Governor to make rules regulating the service conditions will be also subject to the provisions of the Constitution. If the Legislative enactments relating to service conditions are subject to the provisions of the Constitution, the regulation made by the Governor will also certainly be subject to the provisions of the Constitution. 86. Therefore, even if the State Government may have a wide discretionary power to make rules to regulate the mode of appointment and conditions of service, nevertheless, it must be subject to other provisions of the Constitution including Article 14 of the Constitution of India which mandates equality of opportunity to all citizens. The mandate of Article 14 or 16 is not confined to idea of equal opportunity, but is also about absence of arbitrary or discriminatory actions on the part of the State. The mandate of Article 14 or 16 is not confined to idea of equal opportunity, but is also about absence of arbitrary or discriminatory actions on the part of the State. Therefore, if the action of the State is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, such action in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India would be liable to be interfered with by the Court. 87. While the decision of the State Government to bring any employee from any other department or organisation to any State department on deputation cannot normally be questioned nor such decision to absorb such deputationist in the borrowing department, such deputation and absorption are to be made in a manner which is not arbitrary, discriminatory or by way of extending any undue favour to anybody. However, as mentioned above, this Court is not examining the aforesaid issues as regards the deputation and absorption of the Respondent No. 4 in the Planning and Coordination Department for the reason that it had been already decided by this Court in WP(C) 53(K) of 2013. Yet, if the subsequent actions of the State in respect of any employee including the Respondent No. 4 is found to be discriminatory, unreasonable or arbitrary within the scope of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India, it may be liable to be interfered by this Court. 88. Of course, once the Respondent No. 4 has been absorbed regularly in the Department, obviously, she has to be assigned certain ranking in the Department. However, while doing so, it has to kept in mind that the post of Assistant Development Commissioner (ADC) and the post of OSD (Skill Development) cannot be treated to be in the same cadre for the simple reason that this Court on the earlier occasion held that the post of OSD (Skill Development) and the Assistant Development Commissioner (ADC) are different, not inter transferrable and do not belong to the same cadre. 89. 89. It may be also mentioned that unlike in the political or economic sphere, where the State or the Executive would normally have a very wide discretion to take policy decisions, in the matter relating to appointment and determining the service conditions, the same, however, shall be subject to certain norms in view of the specific provision of Article 309 of the Constitution of India As discussed above, Article 309 of Constitution of India contemplates that the mode of appointment and service conditions are to be regulated by the appropriate Acts of the Parliament or the Legislature of the State as the case may be. As such, the mode of appointment and service conditions have to be in conformity with such statutory enactments. It is only when such statutes and enactments have not been made by the Parliament or the Legislature as the case may be, the State Government can frame rules to govern the mode of appointment and service conditions of the employees, which also will be subject to the provisions of the Constitution. Appointment and service conditions of the employees are accordingly, to be governed by the rules framed by the State Government in that regard. However, merely because rules are yet to be made by the State Government, it does not give a carte blanche authority to the State Government to act in any manner as it pleases. Such decisions ultimately have to conform to the Constitutional provisions as clearly mentioned in Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It cannot be arbitrary, discriminatory or guided by any favouritism. 90. As mentioned above the report prepared by the Committee constituted to examine the draft service rules of the State Planning Machinery was considered by the Cabinet while taking the aforesaid decisions. While this Court is appreciative of the concern shown by the authorities to redress the genuine grievances of backward tribes and certainly, the State Government took certain decisions in this regard, yet, it must be done in a fair and non-discriminatory manner and also by keeping in mind the Constitutional mandate. While the service of the Respondent No. 4 may be protected and necessary promotional avenues may be created, it cannot be an individual specific approach by the State and the State must keep in mind the interest of all the employees based on well established norms. 91. While the service of the Respondent No. 4 may be protected and necessary promotional avenues may be created, it cannot be an individual specific approach by the State and the State must keep in mind the interest of all the employees based on well established norms. 91. This Court has noted that the controversy and attending disputes have been going on after the Respondent No. 4 was inducted into the Department as OSD (Skill Development) by way of deputation. Though the State seems to have taken keen interest in the service condition of the Respondent No. 4, from the series of Cabinet decisions taken to not only create the post for her appointment in the Department but also for her absorption, there does not seem to be any endeavour on the part of the authorities to finalise the service rules though certain draft service rules were notified on 06.02.1982 for a limited period of about a month pending finalisation of the service rules, which were valid up to 31.3.1982. However, after 31.3.1982 nothing is on record to indicate as to the steps the authorities had taken to finalise the service rules. Since 1982 till date, the service rules have not been finalised, leading to much heart burning and disputes in the Department. 92. Though a set of service rules were framed known as Nagaland Planning and Machinery Service Rules, 2010, the said rules were never notified. Subsequently, another set of service rules known as "Nagaland Planning and Machinery Service Rules, 2013 were framed but they were also not finalised. The effect of such non-finalisation of the service rules would be that there could not be any direct appointment or promotion to the various posts including the post of Assistant Development Commissioner on regular basis. On the other hand, the Respondent No. 4 who was inducted initially as an OSD (Skill Development) on deputation was fully protected by creating a post and absorbing to the post and subsequently by the latest Cabinet decision, the said post has been declared to be equivalent to the post of ADC and also made her eligible for promotion to higher post. 93. From the above, while one can see certain favourable actions being taken in favour of the Respondent No. 4, because of the non-finalisation of service rules with other employees of the Department, their service conditions seem to have remained stagnant. 93. From the above, while one can see certain favourable actions being taken in favour of the Respondent No. 4, because of the non-finalisation of service rules with other employees of the Department, their service conditions seem to have remained stagnant. This is a matter of concern. The State as a guardian is expected to take care of the welfare of all the employees and cannot be perceived to be adopting a pick and choose method for the benefit of a single individual. 94. It may be mentioned that the claim of the petitioners in WP(C) 53(K)/2013 was for filling up the post of OSD by way of promotion on the ground that all the higher posts including the post of ADC which has been equated to the post of OSD is to be filled up by way of promotion. The said plea of the petitioners were negated by the State and the Court on the earlier occasion only on the ground that there were no such service rules applicable. 95. The challenge to the initial appointment of the Respondent no. 4 on deputation on the ground that it was against the OM dated 21.7.2004 was also contested by the State Government and also negated by the Court only on the ground that there were no notified service rules in the Department. Had the service rules of 2010 and 2013 been notified, there was a possibility of the deputation of the Respondent no. 4 being interfered by the Court, as one of the grounds for non interference with the appointment of the Respondent no. 4 on deputation and absorption was that there were no service rules in existence at the relevant time. 96. If the claims of others for promotions were not entertained on the ground that service rules were yet to be finalised, under what circumstances can the State continue to issue favourable orders in respect of the Respondent No. 4 only, except by giving the impression that she is the favoured employee in the Department. 97. In the opinion of this Court, there should not be any occasion for any employee in the Department to entertain the feeling that the State is concerned with the welfare of only one individual and not of the others. 98. 97. In the opinion of this Court, there should not be any occasion for any employee in the Department to entertain the feeling that the State is concerned with the welfare of only one individual and not of the others. 98. The other issue which may arise for consideration also is, if the Respondent No. 4 is held to be eligible for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Development Commissioner, did the authorities also give sufficient promotional avenues to other employees of the Department to be eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Development Commissioner? Had the authorities provided level playing field to all the employees by providing adequate promotional avenues by framing/finalising the service rules? Why should the State be concerned only about the Respondent no. 4? These are some of the concerns which permeate these proceedings even if not specifically pleaded in the present proceeding before this Court, which need to be addressed by the State while framing the service rules. The States is expected to treat all the employees equally. The overarching spirit of Article 14 which requires the State to act with fairness, reasonableness without discrimination is one of the abiding principles of our Republic governed by rule of law, which has to be kept in mind while framing the service rules. 99. As per the draft Nagaland Planning and Machinery Service Rules, 2010 as well as Nagaland Planning and Machinery Service Rules, 2013, the post of Assistant Development Commissioner is to be filled up by way of promotion from the lower feeder post of Planning Officer or Statistician. If the said service rules had been finalised and perhaps, there would have been more eligible Assistant Development Commissioners by this time who could be considered for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Development Commissioner. However, because of non-finalisation of the aforesaid service rules, it is not certain whether there are sufficient eligible officers in the grade of Assistant Development Commissioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Development Commissioner, other than the Respondent no. 4 in terms of the aforesaid Cabinet decisions. 100. As evident from the pleadings, the petitioners no. 1 to 7 are all serving as Assistant Development Commissioners (ADCs) in the Department. What about their eligibility for promotion to the post of Deputy Development Commissioner? Why the Cabinet has not taken any decision as regards their eligibility? 4 in terms of the aforesaid Cabinet decisions. 100. As evident from the pleadings, the petitioners no. 1 to 7 are all serving as Assistant Development Commissioners (ADCs) in the Department. What about their eligibility for promotion to the post of Deputy Development Commissioner? Why the Cabinet has not taken any decision as regards their eligibility? These are pertinent questions which would normally arise, as the service rules are being framed. The respondent No. 4 who has been absorbed as OSD in the rank of Assistant Development Commissioner, has been proposed to be eligible for promotion to the higher post of Deputy Development Commissioner, if the said Cabinet is to be acted upon. 101. As per the decision of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 53(K) of 2013, the posts of OSD (Skill Development) and the Assistant Development Commissioner do not belong to the same cadre. In that event, these two posts will form separate cadres. How, the seniority position of these two posts are to be determined for the purpose of considering promotion to the higher post of Deputy Development Commissioner? These are all attending issues which will crop up. 102. Accordingly, upon finalisation of the service rules, if any party is aggrieved and is able to make out a case that the Respondent No. 4 has been given undue favour, and mandate of Article 14 had been violated, he would be at liberty to challenge such acts and service rules in accordance with law. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held in Shayara Bano Vs. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 that, "100. To complete the picture, it is important to note that subordinate legislation can be struck down on the ground that it is arbitrary and, therefore, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." 103. It is in this context also that this Court does not find favour with the decision of the Cabinet that the respondent No. 4 is eligible for promotion to higher post. 104. It is in this context also that this Court does not find favour with the decision of the Cabinet that the respondent No. 4 is eligible for promotion to higher post. 104. This Court would also like to observe that the common contention raised by the counsel for the State respondents as well as the private Respondent is that the petition is premature and hence not maintainable as the decisions of the Cabinet are yet to be translated in executive orders and the respondent authorities are already in the process of preparing the draft service rules which would ultimately be submitted to the Cabinet again for approval, which cannot be done without incorporating the decisions of the Cabinet. As far as framing of service rules is concerned, though it may be said that till such process is finalized, the petitioners would not have any locus standi to challenge the said process, the fact remains that in terms of the aforesaid two decisions of the Cabinet equating the post of OSD with ADC and also holding the private Respondent No. 4 to be eligible for promotion to the higher post, there is nothing much to be done by the Department concerned and these two decisions of the Cabinet had to be incorporated in the draft service rules as directed by the Cabinet and this Court has already held one of these to be illegal. In that view of the matter, it can be said that the petitioners would have a right to challenge the said decisions of the Cabinet which are proposed to be incorporated in the service rules, though this Court has found fault with the second decision to make the respondent No. 4 eligible for higher post in advance, and not with the first decision to make the post of OSD (Skill Development) in the rank as the post of ADC. 105. Accordingly, this Court would hold that the writ petition is maintainable and cannot be rejected as premature. This is not a matter relating only to preparation of service rules simpliciter, but also involves other issues as already discussed above. 106. 105. Accordingly, this Court would hold that the writ petition is maintainable and cannot be rejected as premature. This is not a matter relating only to preparation of service rules simpliciter, but also involves other issues as already discussed above. 106. As regards the contention of the respondents that the petitioners themselves had entered service in a similar manner without facing regular selection process, this Court is of the view that it does not have much merit for the reason that the State authority had never framed the service rules and even if they had entered service in the aforesaid fashion, this will not justify any action on the part of the authority vis-à-vis the Respondent No. 4, if such action is not in accordance with law. 107. For the reasons discussed above, the present petition is partly allowed by declaring the aforesaid second Cabinet decision to make the Respondent no. 4 eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Development Commissioner in advance to be illegal, and as regards the third Cabinet decision, the same is modified to the extent that the authorities will be at liberty to frame the necessary draft service rules in respect of all the posts in accordance with law without any specific reference to the second decision of the Cabinet. 108. It goes without saying that the petitioners would be at liberty to challenge the service rules, if the same are found to be arbitrary, discriminatory and the issues not specifically decided in this petition are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings.