JUDGMENT : N. Kotiswar Singh, J. Heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arnlong, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Imchen, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Ms. V. Soukhrie, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland appearing on behalf of Mr. K. Sema, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Nagaland for respondent Nos. 6, 7 & 8. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the private respondents in the writ petition, WP(C) No. 245(K) of 2017 being aggrieved by quashing of the tentative seniority list by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 02.07.2018 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. 3. The said writ petition was filed by the present respondent Nos.1-5 challenging the O.M. No. HTE/HE/8-91/2017/854 dated 30.08.2017, issued by the Department of Higher and Technical Education, Nagaland by which the tentative inter-se seniority list of Officers working under Nagaland Higher Education was circulated for information of interested persons and submission of objections. In the said tentative seniority list, the writ petitioners were placed below the present appellants. The writ petitioners were direct recruit Assistant Professors in the year 2004 and 2006, whereas the appellants, who were serving in private colleges who were subsequently absorbed as Lecturers/Assistant Professors in the year 2006 and 2009. 4. The appellants were initially serving in 5 (five) private colleges namely, (i) Peren College, Peren, (ii) Zisaji Presidency College, Kiphire, (iii) Kohima College, Kohima, (iv) Yangli College, Longleng and (v) Pfutsero College. The said colleges were provincialised w.e.f. 01.02.2006 and 01.04.2009 and consequently, the services of the employees including the appellants were absorbed in the years 2006 and 2009. As per the orders of provincialisation, the employees working in the erstwhile private colleges were given certain benefits with which we are not concerned in this proceeding except relating to the issue of seniority. 5. As per the provincialisation notification dated 01.02.2006 of private colleges, the inter-se seniority of the teachers was to be determined in the following manner: “1. As per the orders of provincialisation, the employees working in the erstwhile private colleges were given certain benefits with which we are not concerned in this proceeding except relating to the issue of seniority. 5. As per the provincialisation notification dated 01.02.2006 of private colleges, the inter-se seniority of the teachers was to be determined in the following manner: “1. In the matter of fixing seniority the Principles/Lecturers serving in the four (4) private colleges, their inter seniority will be determined by the number of years arrived at by the application of the formula for extending benefit in years of service to the Principals and Teachers of the other colleges taken over earlier i.e. one year to be counted to Government service for every three (3) years of service rendered in the Private College for a Lecturer having fifty percent (50%) marks and above. A Lecturer having below fifty percent (below 50%) marks will qualify for one year service benefit for every four (4) years of service rendered in the private college being taken over. However, their present scale and status will not be protected.” 6. The said provincialiation order of the private colleges was followed by formal absorption order of the lecturers/librarians as notified under notification dated 07.04.2006. In terms of the provincialisation order, the inter-se seniority of the lecturers/librarians of the colleges taken over by the State Government, was to be determined on the basis of the date of joining in private colleges subject to the condition that they have put in continuous service. Further, those lecturers with the requisite qualifying marks are to be given one year service benefit for every three years of continuous service in the private colleges and those who do not have the qualifying marks would be given one year service benefit for every four years of continuous service in the private colleges. The relevant parts of the absorption notification dated 07.04.2006 providing for determining inter se seniority are reproduced hereinbelow: “3. Their seniority shall be regulated as under:- (a) Those Lecturers with the requisite qualifying marks may be given one year service benefit for every 3(three) years of continuous service in the private college. (b) Those without qualifying marks may be given one year service benefit for every 4(four) years of continuous service in the Private College. Their seniority shall be regulated as under:- (a) Those Lecturers with the requisite qualifying marks may be given one year service benefit for every 3(three) years of continuous service in the private college. (b) Those without qualifying marks may be given one year service benefit for every 4(four) years of continuous service in the Private College. (c) The inter-se seniority among the Lecturers/Librarian of the taken over Colleges shall be determined on the basis of date of joining the Private College subject to the condition that they have put in continuous service in the colleges.” 7. Subsequently, the Government issued the impugned tentative seniority list. The said tentative seniority list was not only in respect of the employees whose services were provincialised as mentioned above but also for those employees including the writ petitioners who were appointed by way of direct recruitment on the recommendation of the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC). 8. The writ petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 were appointed in the year 2004 to the posts of Assistant Professor on the recommendation of the NPSC whereas, the writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 5, who were also recommended by the NPSC in 2004, were belatedly appointed in the year 2006 because of certain pending litigation. 9. It short, all the writ petitioners are direct recruits appointed in the year 2004 and 2006 having been regularly appointed as per rules. On the other hand, the present appellants, who were private respondents in the said writ petition were employees who were absorbed subsequently in the year 2006 and 2009 as mentioned above. In other words, these appellants were not regular employees of the State Government till their services were absorbed in 2006 and 2009 as mentioned above. On the other hand, the writ petitioners were already regular employees of the State Government before the appellants were absorbed as Govt. employees. In the said tentative seniority list which was challenged by the writ petitioners, the appellants were placed above the said writ petitioners purportedly by giving seniority benefits, as provided in the absorption notification dated 07.04.2006 referred to above. 10. employees. In the said tentative seniority list which was challenged by the writ petitioners, the appellants were placed above the said writ petitioners purportedly by giving seniority benefits, as provided in the absorption notification dated 07.04.2006 referred to above. 10. Accordingly, the writ petitioners being aggrieved by the said tentative seniority list, challenged the same by filing the writ petition contending, inter-alia, that the private respondents in the writ petition (the present appellants) could not have been given seniority from a date before they were borne in the cadre and the criteria evolved by the State Government for determining inter se seniority amongst the absorbed employee provided in the absorption order, is confined only to the absorbed employees only and not to be applied while fixing seniority with others who were already regularly appointed. 11. According to the writ petitioners, the present appellants became regular Government employees only after provincialisation of their services in the year 2006 and 2009 and they could not have been given seniority from an earlier date, even by granting the seniority benefit as contemplated under the notifications dated 01.02.2006 and 07.04.2006. Thus, the dispute is confined to fixation of seniority between the petitioners who are direct recruits appointed on the recommendation of the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) and the present appellants, who were provincialised employees. 12. The law relating to fixation of seniority is well settled. Ordinarily, seniority is to be counted only from the date one enters service on regular basis and not before one is borne in the regular cadre. The petitioners were direct recruits having been appointed on regular basis in the year 2004 and 2006 vide orders dt. 30.09.2004 and 20.12.2006 respectively, of which there is no dispute. As such, their seniority will be counted from the date they were appointed on regular basis on 30.09.2004 and 20.12.2006. Similarly, as far as the appellants are concerned, their seniority is to be counted only from the date when they became regular Government employees when they were absorbed as Government employees w.e.f. 01.02.2006 and 01.04.2009 and not from any date prior to becoming the Government employees, as their services were provincialised in the year 2006 and 2009. They cannot be given the benefit of seniority prior to the date of provincialisation as they were not borne in the regular cadre under the State Government. 13. They cannot be given the benefit of seniority prior to the date of provincialisation as they were not borne in the regular cadre under the State Government. 13. As far as the benefit of seniority granted to the provincialised employees by granting one year for every three or four years service rendered in the private colleges as mentioned in the notifications dated 01.02.2006 and 07.04.2006, is concerned, which is the linchpin of the submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, the said benefit is confined to the provincialised employees only. As per the aforesaid criteria, those provincialised employees who had a longer tenure of service in the private colleges would be correspondingly placed higher in seniority amongst themselves, provided they fulfill the qualifying marks. It is also to be noted that it is nowhere mentioned in the notifications dated 01.02.2006 and 07.04.2006 for provincialisation and absorption that the seniority of the provincialised employees will be counted from the date of initial appointment in the private colleges or from an earlier date prior to the date of provincialisation. The criteria evolved for granting benefit of one year of service for every three or four years continuous service in the private colleges is for fixing the inter-se seniority amongst the provincialised employees only. The said principle will be applicable intra group consisting of the provincialised employees and cannot be applied qua other category of employees including the writ petitioners who were already appointed in regular basis on the basis of the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Thus, if there be any employee who was regularly appointed in the Government service before the private college teachers were absorbed in the Government service, such regular employee will be senior to the absorbed employee. 14. In view of the above, the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that taking into account the service rendered by the persons before their absorption would adversely effect the interest of those persons already appointed on regular basis against sanctioned post in Government colleges before these private colleges were provincialised, cannot be said to suffer from any illegality. 15. Similarly, application of the principle in the present case, as laid down in the Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Association (Direct Recruit) and Others Vs. 15. Similarly, application of the principle in the present case, as laid down in the Uttaranchal Forest Rangers' Association (Direct Recruit) and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 346 that a Government servant’s seniority cannot be given from a retrospective date when he or she was not even borne in the cadre, as this would adversely effect the direct recruits who have been already appointed earlier in time, cannot be said to be improper. 16. Accordingly, we are of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge that as the writ petitioners were appointed ahead in time to the private respondents, appellants herein, the Government could not have issued the impugned notification dated 30.08.2017 to give advantage to the appellants over the petitioners does not warrant any interference from this Court. 17. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the quashing of the said tentative seniority list by the learned Single Judge as contained in the impugned notification dated 30.08.2017. 18. The present appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed as being devoid of merit. However, before parting with the record, we deem it appropriate to clarify that the observations and findings recorded in this order are only pertaining to the question of legality and validity of the impugned judgment and order dated 02-07-2018, recorded on the basis of the materials available on record. We are conscious of the fact that the final inter-se senioritylist is yet to be published. Therefore, it is made clear that once the final seniority list is published by the authorities, it would be open for all the parties, including the present appellants, to assail the same in accordance with law, by taking up all such plea, as may be permissible under the law.