Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 256 (GAU)

Vibizuonuo Ndang v. State of Nagaland

2021-03-12

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2021
JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. These six writ petitions have been taken up together since all the petitioners belong to the same Department i.e. Tourism Department, Government of Nagaland and the issues involved are similar. 2. W.P.(C) No. 21/2019 and W.P.(C) No. 190/2020 are filed by the same person namely, Kevingutuo Sekhose. In the first writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 21/2019, the petitioner is challenging the termination order of his service as Tourism Officer and in the second writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 190/2020 he is praying for a direction directing the respondents to release his pay and allowance from the date of his joining the service till date. From the record it appears that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Tourist Officer (Class-II Gazetted) with a scale of pay and all allowances admissible from time to time on temporary basis against sanctioned post vide order No. TRSM-01/01/2009/441, dated 04/06/2016, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Tourism Department and his service was regularized by another order vide No. TRSM/ESTT-2/11/2009, dated 06/12/2017, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Tourism Department. However, his service was terminated vide termination order No. TRSM/ESTT-1/1/2019, dated 29/01/2019 without being given any notice or a chance of being heard. The termination order reads as follows; "GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND TOURISM DEPARTMENT NAGALAND: KOHIMA No. TRSM/ESTT-1/1/2019 Dated Kohima the 29th January, 2019 To Shri Kevingutuo Sekhose WHEREAS you were appointed as Tourist Officer under the Department of Tourism vide Order No. TRSM-1/1/2009, dated 4th June, 2016. AND WHEREAS, your appointment as Tourist Officer have been investigated by the Vigilance Commission, Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Police, Nagaland, and found out that you have been illegally appointed by Tourism Department in gross violation of established Government norms and procedures. AND WHEREAS, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel 'A' Branch) has conveyed the decision of the Government to terminate your service vide letter No. PAR-A/13/13-AIS, dated 16th January, 2019. NOW, therefore, the appointment order No. TRSM-1/1/2009, dated 4th June, 2016 is hereby nullified and your service stands terminated with immediate effect. Sd/- (T. MHABEMO YANTHAN) Secretary to the Government of Nagaland" Aggrieved by the termination order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 21/2019 and it was moved on 13/03/2019. This Court, in the interim stayed the operation of the termination order till the next returnable date. Sd/- (T. MHABEMO YANTHAN) Secretary to the Government of Nagaland" Aggrieved by the termination order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 21/2019 and it was moved on 13/03/2019. This Court, in the interim stayed the operation of the termination order till the next returnable date. Thereafter, the interim order was allowed to continue. While the above stated writ petition was still pending, the petitioner filed the second writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 190/2020 stating that inspite of the interim stay of the termination order, he has not been paid his salary and allowances, therefore, the respondents may be directed to pay the same. 3. W.P.(C) No. 11/2019 is also filed by a similarly situated person like the petitioner in the earlier writ petition. The petitioner in this writ petition was also appointed as Tourism Officer by order No. TRSM-1/1/2009/440, dated 04/06/2016, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Tourism Department on the same terms and conditions as the first writ petitioner and her service was also regularized in the same way as the earlier writ petitioner vide order No. TRSM/ESTT-2/10/2009, dated 06/12/2017, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Tourism Department. The service of this writ petitioner was also terminated in the same manner and with the same language used in the case of the earlier writ petitioner vide order No. TRSM/ESTT-1/1/2019, dated 29/01/2019, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Tourism Department. Being aggrieved that her service was terminated without being given any notice and a chance of being heard she is also here before this Court by filing this writ petition. 4. The other three writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No. 24/2019, W.P.(C) No. 41/2019 and W.P.(C) No. 42/2019 are filed by persons who were appointed as Tourist Assistant but in the same manner on temporary basis making their regularization subject to their performance in their official duties. There are 2(two) petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24/2019 and their appointments were issued by the Director of Tourism, Government of Nagaland on the same day i.e. 06/12/2017 but by different orders being No. TOUR/ESST-1(Pt)/96-97 and order No. TOUR/ESST(Pt)96-96 respectively. Their appointment were against resultant vacancies caused by promotion of 2(two) individuals to higher post. There are 2(two) petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24/2019 and their appointments were issued by the Director of Tourism, Government of Nagaland on the same day i.e. 06/12/2017 but by different orders being No. TOUR/ESST-1(Pt)/96-97 and order No. TOUR/ESST(Pt)96-96 respectively. Their appointment were against resultant vacancies caused by promotion of 2(two) individuals to higher post. They were also terminated in the same manner as the earlier 2(two) writ petitioners issued on the same day i.e. 29/01/2019 by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Tourism vide order No. TRSM/ESTT-1/1/2019 and order No. TRSM/ESTT-1/1/2019 respectively. The termination orders reads as follows; "GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND TOURISM DEPARTMENT NAGALAND: KOHIMA No. TRSM/ESTT-1/1/2019 Dated Kohima the 29th January, 2019 To A. Tongpangnokdang Ao WHEREAS you were appointed as Tourist Assistant under the Department of Tourism vide Order No. TRSM-1/7/2009(Pt), dated 6th December, 2017 and Directorate of Tourism appointment order No. TOUR/ESTT-1(Pt)/96-97, dated 6th December, 2017. AND WHEREAS, your appointment as Tourist Officer have been investigated by the Vigilance Commission, Directorate of Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Police, Nagaland, and found out that you have been illegally appointed by Tourism Department in gross violation of established Government norms and procedures. AND WHEREAS, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Personnel 'A' Branch) has conveyed the decision of the Government to terminate your service vide letter No. PAR-A/13/13-AIS, dated 16th January, 2019. NOW, therefore, the appointment order No. TRSM-1/7/2009(Pt), dated 6th December, 2017 and Directorate of Tourism appointment order TOUR/ESTT-1(Pt)/96-97, dated 6th December, 2017 is hereby nullified and your service stands terminated with immediate effect. Sd/- (T. MHABEMO YANTHAN) Secretary to the Government of Nagaland" W.P.(C) No. 41/2019 is filed by one petitioner who was also appointed as Tourist Assistant against a sanctioned post vide order No. TOUR/ESTT-1(pt)/96-97, dated 19/04/2018, issued by the Addl. Director, Tourism Department under the same terms and conditions as the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24/2019. The service of the petitioner was also terminated by the order No. TRSM/ESTT-1/1/2019, dated 29/01/2019, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Tourism Department. The termination order was issued in the same manner and with the same language as that of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24/2019. W.P.(C) No. 42/2019 is filed by a petitioner who was also appointed as Tourist Assistant against a sanctioned post vide order No. TOUR/ESTT-1(pt)/96-97, dated 19/04/2018, issued by the Addl. The termination order was issued in the same manner and with the same language as that of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24/2019. W.P.(C) No. 42/2019 is filed by a petitioner who was also appointed as Tourist Assistant against a sanctioned post vide order No. TOUR/ESTT-1(pt)/96-97, dated 19/04/2018, issued by the Addl. Director, Tourism Department under the same terms and conditions as the petitioners in the earlier writ petitions. The service of the petitioner was also terminated by the order No. TRSM/ESTT-1/1/2019, dated 29/01/2019, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Tourism Department. The termination order was issued in the same manner and with the same language as that of the petitioners in the earlier writ petitions. 5. The submissions of the three learned counsels appearing for the petitioners are more or less the same except some addition here and there by either of them in the form of supplementary to each others submissions. 5(1). The first submission of the learned counsels is that from the orders appointing the petitioners it would be seen that they were issued by the competent authority by following all the procedures, therefore, there is no illegality in the orders. As such, they are government employees and they are entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. 5(2). The second submissions of the learned counsels is that the Nagaland Tourism Service Rule, 2004 has no provision for termination of the employees of the department, therefore, before termination of the services of the petitioners the department or the authority concerned should have resorted to the provisions of the Nagaland Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 wherein it is provided that termination is a major punishment, therefore, before imposing such penalty notice or a chance of being heard must be given to the government employee. 5(3). The third submission of the learned counsels is that from the orders terminating the service of the petitioners it is apparent that they were terminated on the basis of an enquiry conducted by Vigilance Commission whereas at the time the termination order were issued the Vigilance Commission had not even concluded their enquiry, therefore, the termination order is without any basis. 5(4). 5(4). Fourthly, but more importantly the learned counsels submitted that the impugned termination orders termed the appointments of the petitioners as "illegal appointments" and made that the basis for termination of their services, therefore, they are (termination orders) stigmatic. As such, before such orders are issued a chance of being heard ought to have been given to the petitioners. But since that has been given a go by-by the respondents while issuing the impugned termination orders interference of this Court is necessary in the interest of justice. It has also been submitted that in case the impugned orders are not interfered with chances of the petitioners getting job in future is bleak. 6. Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submitted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11(K) of 2019 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21(K) of 2019 who were working as LDA-cum-Computer Assistant in the establishment of General Manager, NST and as Para Medical Worker in the Health & Family Welfare Department respectively applied for appointment to the post of Tourism Officer (Class-II Gazetted) in the Department of Tourism on deputation but while their applications were under process they were appointed as Tourism Officers by back dated appointment orders since, at that time, all temporary appointments were banned by the Government vide O.M. dated 06/06/2016. This happened because they belong to influential families working in the department (the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11(K) of 2019 being the daughter of the then Commissioner & Secretary, Tourism department and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21(K) of 2019 being the son of the then Director of Tourism department). The learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate also submitted that the petitioners in the two writ petitions, are not eligible for the post of Tourism Officer since the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11(K) of 2019 is only a graduate in Arts and the petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 21(K) of 2019 is also only Bachelor in Business Management whereas, the required qualification for the post of Tourism Officer is; university degree in Hotel Management, catering or any other tourism related subject or university degree in any subject with diploma in Hotel Management, catering, or any other tourism related subject and 3(three) years experienced in any organization dealing with the matters related to tourism. Therefore, their appointments were illegally issued. The learned Addl. Sr. Therefore, their appointments were illegally issued. The learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate cited Rule-7(1) of the Nagaland Tourism Service Rules, 2014. The learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate also submitted that the post of Tourist Officer is Class-II (Gazetted) as per Rule-3(B)(ii) of the Nagaland Tourism Service Rules, 2014 and the method of recruitment to that post as per Rule-5(ii) of the same Service Rule is 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by departmental promotion of the lower grade in the department. The learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate submitted that the direct recruitment has to be conducted by NPSC as per the Rule-6(ii) of the same Rules. However, in the case of the petitioners they were appointed directly on temporary basis and regularized thereafter without any involvement of NPSC and without following the prescribed procedure. Therefore, their appointments were in violation of the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India hence, they are illegal. 7. Regarding the two petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 24((K) of 2019, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 41(K) of 2019 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 42(K) of 2019, the learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate submitted that they were appointed through back door without issuing any advertisement and without conducting any interview. The learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate further submitted that the post of Tourist Assistant is Class-III (Non Gazetted) and the method for recruitment to such post as per the Rule-5 of the said Rule is 100% by direct recruitment and the recruitment process has to be conducted as per (2) of Rule-6 by the NPSC, and the process of the recruitment as per (iv) of the same rules includes written examination and interview. Therefore, the appointment of the petitioners which was done without issuing any advertisement and conducting of any interview by NPSC has violated the Nagaland Tourism Service Rules, 2014 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, and hence, their appointment orders are illegal. 8. There is no dispute on the fact that the department of Tourism of Nagaland has a service rule called Nagaland Tourism Service Rules, 2014 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the services in question are governed by the same rules. Rule-1 of the Nagaland Tourism Service Rules, 2014 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as Rules of 2014) provides as follows; "1. Short title and commencement. Rule-1 of the Nagaland Tourism Service Rules, 2014 (which shall hereinafter be referred to as Rules of 2014) provides as follows; "1. Short title and commencement. i) These Rules may be called the Nagaland Tourism (Cl-I, Cl-II and Cl-III Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 2014. ii) These Rules shall apply to the personnel appointed to the Class-I, Class-II (Gazetted) and Class-III (Non Gazetted) Service Rules, 2014. (iii) These Rules shall apply to the personnel appointed to the Class-I, Class-II (Gazetted) and Class-III Non-Ministerial posts in the Department of Tourism of the Government of Nagaland. iv) These Rules shall come into force with effect from the date of the notification." Further, Rule-3(B)(ii) & (iii) of the Rules of 2014 provides as follows; "3. Constitution and classification of the service. B. Junior Grade: This grade shall consist of the Post of the Assistant Director. (ii) Nagaland Tourism Service (Class-II Gazetted) (iii) Nagaland Tourism Service (Class-III Non-Gazetted). This grade shall include the post of Caretakers, Tourist Guides, Tourist Assistant and Receptionist. The members of the lower grade shall not have any right or claim to the next higher Grade except to the extent as indicated in these rules". 9. On perusal of the above two rules, it is clear that the Nagaland Tourism Services consist of 3(three) Class i.e. Class-I, Class-II and Class-III and the post of Tourism Officer belongs to Class-II (Gazetted) and the post of Caretaker, Tourist Guide, Tourist Assistant and Receptionist belong to Class-III (Non-Gazetted). Further, Rule-5 of the Service Rules of 2014 provides the methods of recruitment to all the categories of the Nagaland Tourism Service. Rule-5 reads as follows; "5. Method of recruitment. Recruitment to various grade in the service after commencement of these rules shall be made by the following methods; (i) By promotion of members of the lower grade in respect of Class-I Gazetted posts. (ii) 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by Departmental promotion of the lower grade in respect of Tourism Officers and any other equivalent Class-II Gazetted posts as shown in schedule-II. (iii) 100% by direct recruitment in respect of Caretaker, Tourist Guide, Tourist Assistant, Receptionist Class-III Non-Gazetted posts who possess the requisite qualification. (iv) There will be a common seniority list of Caretakers, Tourist Guides, Tourist Assistant and Receptionists. (iii) 100% by direct recruitment in respect of Caretaker, Tourist Guide, Tourist Assistant, Receptionist Class-III Non-Gazetted posts who possess the requisite qualification. (iv) There will be a common seniority list of Caretakers, Tourist Guides, Tourist Assistant and Receptionists. (v) The quota for direct recruitment and promotion to various posts is indicated as in Schedule-II which will be determined on the basis seniority cum merit. (vi) All order relating to reservation of posts for the backward Tribes issued by the Government of Nagaland from time to time shall be implemented in letter and spirit." Careful perusal of the above rules reveals that recruitment to various grades in the Tourism Services of Nagaland would be as provided therein. Therefore, for recruitment to the post of Tourism Officer (Class-II Gazetted), it would be through direct recruitment and departmental promotion i.e. 25% direct and 75% by departmental promotion from the lower grade of the service. It is also clear from the above provisions that as for the recruitment to the Class-III (Non-Gazetted) post it should be 100% through direct recruitment. 10. Rule-6 of the Rules of 2014 provides how the direct recruitment should be conducted and who will conduct the same and the kind of examinations candidates has to go through etc. Rule-6 is reproduced here below; "6. Direct Recruitment Direct recruitment after commencement of these rules shall be made as follows; (i) Direct recruitment to various posts in the service shall be made in accordance with the executive instructions and guidelines issued by the Govt. on this behalf from time to time. (ii) Subject to the proviso of sub-rule 3 and Rule 5 whenever it is decided to fill a post or posts in any grade of the service by direct recruitment, the Head of Department shall send a requisition, in duplicate, to the commission through the Govt. in the form prescribed by the Commission. The Commission shall advertise the post(s) specifying the terms and conditions of these Rules. (iii) A candidate must apply on or before such date, in such manner and in such form as the Commission may prescribe. (iv) A written examination and interview for selection to the service shall be held at such time and place as may be prescribed in the notice issued by the Commission for the purpose. (iii) A candidate must apply on or before such date, in such manner and in such form as the Commission may prescribe. (iv) A written examination and interview for selection to the service shall be held at such time and place as may be prescribed in the notice issued by the Commission for the purpose. Every notice shall, as far as possible, specify the number of vacancies to be filled on the results of examination or interview or both as the case may be." On careful reading of the above rules, it is clear also that the direct recruitment is to be conducted by the NPSC as and when the department shall send the requisition but after issuing advertisement, and the recruitment process has to be consisted of written examination and interview. There is no other method of recruitment prescribed under the Rules of 2014 and there is also no other commission or body other than NPSC who is authorized to conduct the recruitment. Further, under the Rules of 2014, other than what has been stated above no other method has been prescribed for recruitment to the post of Tourism Officer or to the Tourism Service Class-III (Non-Gazetted). 11. Lastly, the minimum educational qualification for eligibility to the post of Tourism Officer (Class-II Gazetted) as prescribed under Rule-7 is university degree in Hotel Management, Catering or any other tourism related subject or university degree in any subject with diploma in Hotel Management and 3 years experience in any of the organizations dealing with matters relating to tourism. And, for eligibility to the post of Tourist Assistant (Class-III Non-Gazetted) a candidate must have university degree in any discipline with at least a diploma in Hotel Management and Catering technology. 12. Now coming to the case of the petitioner in W.P (C) No. 11(K) of 2019 and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21(K) of 2019; both the petitioners did not have the minimum educational qualification for the post of Tourism Officer. Because, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 11(K) of 2019 is stated to be only a graduate in Arts and the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 21(K) of 2019 is stated to be only a Bachelor in Business Management. Besides not possessing the required minimum educational qualifications the two petitioners did not also have the required 3(three) years experience in any of the organizations dealing with the matters relating to tourism. Besides not possessing the required minimum educational qualifications the two petitioners did not also have the required 3(three) years experience in any of the organizations dealing with the matters relating to tourism. Any Government under a democratic set up creates post and appoints people to such post to serve the public interest and nothing else. Therefore, to serve public interest efficiently and effectively appropriate qualifications are prescribed for the post created. Some post requires special knowledge or expertise in some subjects without which the purpose for creating such post and appointment to such post or the public interest would not be served. Tourism is also such a department where such knowledge of particular subjects and field experience is required. It was by, keeping this in view that, the minimum qualifications for eligibility to the post of Tourism Officer were prescribed after due consideration. Therefore, to appoint persons without such qualifications would not be for serving public interest but the interest of some individuals only, and that cannot be allowed at the cost of public exchequer. Furthermore, the service rules which governed the Tourism Services of the State including the post of Tourism Officer is in place. Therefore, it cannot be just brush aside or ignored, that too, for no justified reason or reasons. 13. As stated already, the Service Rules of 2014 also provides the method of recruitment i.e. 25% by direct recruitment and 75% by departmental promotion from lower grade. It is also provided that the direct recruitment has to be conducted by the NPSC and the same would consist of written examination and interview. However, in the case of the petitioners though they were appointed directly the method of recruitment was not followed and the recruitment was not through NPSC. Secondly, they are neither from the lower grade of the department that they can be promoted. Therefore, the method of recruitment and the manner in which the same should be conducted as prescribed in the Rules of 2014 has been completely brushed aside in the case of the petitioners. As such, I find no ground or reason to uphold such appointment orders or to protect them even for a moment for the sake of issuing a show cause notice or for giving a chance of being heard. Because, doing that would at best, amount only to serve formalities. 14. As such, I find no ground or reason to uphold such appointment orders or to protect them even for a moment for the sake of issuing a show cause notice or for giving a chance of being heard. Because, doing that would at best, amount only to serve formalities. 14. Further, Article-14 and Article-16 of our Constitution provides for equality or equal opportunity in public employment. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution. Therefore, Courts would certainly be disabled from passing such order upholding a violation of the Article-14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirement of that Article read with Article-16 of the Constitution of India. (paragraph-43 of the State of Karnataka -versus-Uma Devi). In the two cases no advertisement which would have afforded equal opportunity to everyone who are eligible and interested for the job was issued. It appears from the facts and circumstances that the process for appointment was done in a hush-hush manner only to facilitate few but by denying the same opportunity to others. Therefore, it is a clear case of violation of Article-14 and Article-16 of our Constitution. In the case of State of Manipur & Others -versus- Y. Token Singh & Others, reported in (2007) 5 SCC 65 , it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph-22 of the judgment that where the facts are admitted the principle of natural justice were not required to comply with, particularly when the same would result in futility. Assuming for a moment that a chance of being heard is given to the petitioners there is no chance that the petitioners would be able to bring any change to the facts and circumstances and character or colour of the appointment orders since the basic facts and circumstances are admitted and are before this Court. Therefore, it would be an exercise in futility to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It has been urged strongly by the 3(three) learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that since the petitioners were appointed by the competent authority with due approval of the Government they deserve to be given a chance of being heard. I am not inclined to accept this submission of the learned counsels for the reasons stated above. 15. It has been urged strongly by the 3(three) learned counsels appearing for the petitioners that since the petitioners were appointed by the competent authority with due approval of the Government they deserve to be given a chance of being heard. I am not inclined to accept this submission of the learned counsels for the reasons stated above. 15. Now coming to the case of the petitioners in the 3(three) writ petitions i.e. W.P.(C) No. 24(K) of 2019, W.P.(C) No. 41(K) of 2019 and W.P.(C) No. 42(K) of 2019, I must say, the only difference between them and the first 2(two) writ petitions is that the first 2(two) writ petitions were appointed to Officer Grade and they were regularized, whereas in the case of the petitioners in the 3(three) writ petitions they were appointed to Assistant Grade and they have not been regularized. However, the way how they were appointed are all the same. There was no advertisement and there was no written examination and interview conducted by the NPSC for their appointment as required under the Service Rules of 2014. Their appointments orders, as rightly claimed in their writ petitions were in the form of regular appointment though the word "temporary" was used. Because their regularization was made only subject to their performance. To put on record one of the appointment orders is reproduced herein below; "GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND DIRECTORATE OF TOURISM NAGALAND: KOHIMA ORDER Dated Kohima the ......... April, 2018 No. TOUR/ESTT-1(pt)/96-97/:: Kumari. Evuzeno Vizol is hereby temporarily appointed as Tourist Assistant, Grade-III (Non-Gazetted) under the establishment of Directorate of Tourism, Nagaland, Kohima in Pay Scale of Rs. 5200-20200/- per month with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- plus all other allowances as are admissible to the said post under Nagaland Revision of Pay Rules 2010 with effect from the date of she joins to the post. 2. The appointment is made against the creation of post approval and issued vide Cabinet Approval No. CAB-2/2013 dated Kohima the 24th May, 2016. 3. The appointment is made on temporary basis and regularization is subject to her performance satisfaction in her official duties. 4. Kumari. Evuzeno Vizol, Tourist Assistant is directed to produce Antecedent Criminal record and Medical fitness Certificate from respective District HQ. 5. In the interest of public service, Kumari. Evuzeno Vizol, Tourist Assistant is posted at the Directorate of Tourism, Nagaland, Kohima till further order. Sd/- (AKHALE VIZOL) Addl. 4. Kumari. Evuzeno Vizol, Tourist Assistant is directed to produce Antecedent Criminal record and Medical fitness Certificate from respective District HQ. 5. In the interest of public service, Kumari. Evuzeno Vizol, Tourist Assistant is posted at the Directorate of Tourism, Nagaland, Kohima till further order. Sd/- (AKHALE VIZOL) Addl. Director (HoD)" At the cost of repetition, it may be stated that their appointments were also in violation of the service rules and Article-14 and Article-16 of our Constitution. Therefore, for the same reasons stated in the case of the petitioners in the earlier two writ petitions, this Court cannot uphold their appointment orders. It would also be an exercise in futility even if they are given a chance of being heard since the character or colour of their appointment orders can never be changed. In the case of M.C. Mehta -versus- Union of India, reported in (1999) 6 SCC 237 , the Apex Court had also stated as follows at paragraph-22 of the judgment; "We may, however, point out that even in cases where the facts are not all admitted or beyond dispute, there is a considerable unanimity that the courts can, in exercise of their "discretion", refuse certiorari, prohibition, mandamus or injunction even though natural justice is not followed." In these cases, the nature of the appointment orders and the way how they were issued are not in dispute and they are in clear violation of the recruitment rules and principles of Article-14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, keeping in view all that has been stated above, I am of the view that the prayers of the petitioners cannot be conceded to. 16. Lastly but not the least, the petitioners must first proof existence of legal rights in their favour if their prayers are to be conceded to. It is indeed for them to establish existence of legal rights in their favour and corresponding legal duty in the respondents to continue in employment. To establish their legal rights they must establish that their appointment orders were issued by following the constitutional mandate given in Article-14 and Article-16 of the Constitution of India and the Service Rules of 2014. They have not been able to show that any advertisement had been issued inviting applications from eligible candidates and that the service rules were followed when they were appointed. They have not been able to show that any advertisement had been issued inviting applications from eligible candidates and that the service rules were followed when they were appointed. Therefore, this Court has no reason to concede to their prayers. 17. In view of the facts and circumstances, the discussions and the reasons given herein above, I am of the view that the writ petitions are devoid of any merit. Accordingly, they are dismissed. 18. As for the W.P.(C) No. 190(K) of 2020 and regarding the pay and allowances of the petitioners, it appears that the petitioners were not allowed to join their Offices in spite of their appointment orders but, they were allowed to join only after the interim stay order was granted. Therefore, the respondents shall verify their attendance in the attendance registers of their respective Offices and pay them only for the days they attended Office. This writ petition is also disposed of accordingly.