JUDGMENT : 1. This order will dispose of both the writ petitions as well as the Interlocutory Application. The writ petitioners are the same in both the writ petitions and the I.A is filed by the respondent No. 100 in WP(C) No. 12(K)/2019 for deletion of his name from amongst the arrayed respondents. 2. Since the grievance expressed and the cause of action alleged are the same in both the writ petitions, the facts projected in WP(C) 12(K)/2019 is being referred to for brevity. Facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner No. 1 is the Nagaland NET Qualified Forum represented by its convener Sh. Luthuk Keyho while the petitioner Nos. 2 to 21 are individuals who claim that their future has been adversely affected by non-advertisement of the posts of Assistant Professors. The petitioner No. 1 is not a registered forum and claims that the name of the forum be reflected in the cause-title to avoid discontentment if the name of individual petitioner is reflected. The petitioners contend that they are Master degree holders with NET and some of them Doctorate degree holders. They are before this Court in individual capacity as their future has been adversely affected by non-advertisement of the posts of Assistant Professors. According to the petitioners, the post of Assistant Professors/Librarians are being occupied by unqualified back-door appointees and those qualified are appointed without making advertisement through Nagaland Public Civil Service (NPSC). The petitioners contend that despite the landmark Judgment of the Apex Court rendered on 10.04.2006 in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors vs. Uma Devi(3) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 declaring that any appointment, if made in violation of the Constitutional scheme of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, would be rendered illegal and void ab initio, the respondent authorities have defiantly issued Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2008 providing regularization to backdoor appointees on completion of 3 years in service. The petitioners, further, contend that the State Government created 110 posts of Assistant Professors but advertised only 37 back-door posts leaving out 68 posts created for the year 2018-19. Being aggrieved, they submitted representation to the respondents on 04.08.2018 for requisitioning 68 posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians inclusive with NPSC Advertisement dated 21.08.2018 and to conduct examinations. However, no action was taken by the State respondents. Being aggrieved, they submitted representation to the respondents on 04.08.2018 for requisitioning 68 posts of Assistant Professors and Librarians inclusive with NPSC Advertisement dated 21.08.2018 and to conduct examinations. However, no action was taken by the State respondents. The petitioners further contend that the State respondents have appointed 175 Assistant Professors/Librarians on contract basis out of which, 87 were appointed after the issuance of O.M dated 06.06.2016 by which appointments on contract basis was banned. 84 persons were appointed without possessing requisite qualification as per UGC Regulations & Service Rules, 75 qualified persons were appointed without advertisement and 16 persons were regularized. Further, out of the 175 respondents, 40 of them were appointed in sanctioned posts and 135 were appointed without vacancy and out of which, 4 are Librarians. All the private respondents were appointed without following due process of law mandating general advertisement and the impugned appointment and regularization of the private respondents being illegal, the same are liable to be set aside and quashed. The petitioners, therefore, have made the following prayer:- (1) To quash and set aside the impugned O.M dated 04.08.2008 providing of regularization to back-door appointees on completion of 3 years in service. (2) To quash and set aside the impugned O.M dated 11.08.2016 validating O.M dated 04.08.2008. (3) To quash and set aside the impugned notifications by which the private respondents have been appointed and regularized. (4) To requisition 40 sanction posts of Assistant Professors held by the private respondents to NPSC for advertisement. (5) To advertise 135 non-sanction posts as prescribed by law for appointments in administrative exigency. (6) To advertise 68 posts created vide Notification dated 09.08.2018 for the year 2018-19. 3. Against the writ petition, the state respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition on 21.10.2019 contending inter alia that the Department concerned had requisitioned the posts of Librarian and Assistant Professors to NPSC and the same were advertised by the NPSC on 11.01.2012, 16.01.2012, 28.02.2012, 13.04.2012, 18.09.2013, 21.09.2013, 13.12.2013, 07.07.2015, 23.06.2016, 01.07.2016, 07.09.2016 & 21.09.2018. The State respondents further contend that most of the petitioners obtained NET from the year 2013 onwards and despite many posts being advertised, the petitioners did not come out successful in the competitive examination conducted and now they have approached this Court alleging that the Department did not advertise the posts. For these reason, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. For these reason, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The State respondents have also contended that the O.M dated 04.08.2008 providing regularization to contract/adhoc appointee on completion of 3 years of service against vacant sanctioned posts is for all the Departments under the Govt. of Nagaland. The Department of Higher Education has constituted a Screening Committee to conduct a suitability test for regularization of Assistant Professors on contract basis. The Screening Committee strictly examines the documents, academic records and Annual Confidential Reports of all the candidates and thereafter, interviews the candidates to test their professional knowledge, experience in teaching, etc. It is only then that a recommendation is made by the Committee and the contract services of the Assistant Professors are regularized. The Department of Higher & Technical Education has never taken advantage of the O.M dated 04.08.2008. The State respondents have also contended that the allegation of the petitioners that some of the respondents, who were qualified, were appointed on contract basis without advertisement due to the emergency situation but in fact, the same was as per the UGC Norms. They were appointed on a fixed pay and against non-sanctioned posts. In respect of those who were regularized as per O.M dated 04.08.2008, the same was done only after conducting suitability test. Further, when such regularization was done, most of the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification and therefore, the do not have the locus standi to challenge the action of the respondent authorities. Apart from the State respondents, all the private respondents have filed their respective affidavit-in-opposition either individually or collectively. 4. The respondent Nos. 90, 93, 112, 114, 124 & 128 have filed a collective affidavit-in-opposition contending inter alia that they were temporarily engaged as Assistant Professors in Botany, Anthropology & Zoology and they all have either NET or a Doctorate Degree. They also contend that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 being an unregistered organization, the writ petition filed by such an organization cannot be maintained. Secondly, the petitioners collectively possess qualifications in subjects such as Commerce, Political Science, English, Geography, Education, Sociology, Economics, Arts, Science & Environmental Science. But none of them possess NET or Doctorate Degree in the subject of Botany, Zoology or Anthropology. Therefore, the petitioners are not or cannot be the persons aggrieved. Secondly, the petitioners collectively possess qualifications in subjects such as Commerce, Political Science, English, Geography, Education, Sociology, Economics, Arts, Science & Environmental Science. But none of them possess NET or Doctorate Degree in the subject of Botany, Zoology or Anthropology. Therefore, the petitioners are not or cannot be the persons aggrieved. Even assuming that there are vacancies in the posts of Assistant Professor in Botany, Zoology, Anthropology and applications invited to fill up such posts, the petitioners will not be eligible to apply as they do not possess the requisite qualification. In other words, the appointment of the respondent cannot be challenged by the petitioners because they do not have the qualification themselves to be appointed as Assistant Professors in Botany, Zoology, Anthropology. As such, they have no locus standi to file the writ petition. Further, the petitioners have sought for a mandamus to terminate appointment of the respondents. However, in doing so, the petitioners have not placed any demand with the respondent authorities that would be commensurate with their prayer in their writ petition and in absence of which, it cannot be said that justice had been denied to them. The respondents concerned also contend that the petitioners have only challenged their initial contractual appointment orders and not the subsequent appointment orders by which such appointment have been continued. Therefore, even on this ground, the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. The respondent Nos. 53 & 125 have also filed a combined affidavit-in-opposition. Making a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition, they contend that they have been appointed temporarily as Assistant Professors in the subject of Statistics and Computer Science. As for the petitioners none of them possess the qualification on the subject of Computer Science and Statistics and that being the position, they cannot aspire to be appointed to the post of Assistant Professor in Computer Science or Statistics even if such posts were advertised. The petitioners therefore are not the persons aggrieved and they do not have any locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondents concerned. The respondent Nos. 102, 150, 155, 159 & 160 have also filed a combined affidavit-in-opposition and they have raised the same preliminary objection. 6. The respondent Nos. The petitioners therefore are not the persons aggrieved and they do not have any locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondents concerned. The respondent Nos. 102, 150, 155, 159 & 160 have also filed a combined affidavit-in-opposition and they have raised the same preliminary objection. 6. The respondent Nos. 12 & 66 have also filed a combined affidavit-in-opposition with the preliminary objection that they are temporarily engaged as Assistant Professors in the subject of Tenyidie and for which, there is no NET, SLET or SET conducted. None of the petitioners possess the requisite qualification in the subject of Tenyidie and therefore, they do not have any locus standi to challenge the appointment of the respondents concerned. The other preliminary objections raised are common to the objections raised by the other private respondents. 7. The respondent No. 17 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition with a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition stating that she is currently serving as Assistant Professor in Education at the State College on Teacher Education (SCTE, Kohima). As per Rule 8(B)(II)(a) of the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2015, the requisite educational qualifications to teach the subject of Education in SCTE are Master Degree in Education and Bachelor of Education and there is no requirement for NET. Therefore, the only petitioners who can assail the initial appointment order of the deponent are the petitioner Nos. 7, 10 & 13. However, in order to be able to legally assail, the appointment of the deponent, the petitioners have to show that they possessed the qualifications of M.A (Education) and B.Ed at the time when the deponent was appointed in SCTE in 2014 and not NET. In the absence of any qualification in B.Ed in 2014, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the initial appointment of the deponent. Besides this objection, the other objections on the maintainability of the writ petition are similar to the other private respondents. 8. The respondent Nos. 33 & 95 individually and respondent Nos. 79 & 113 collectively have also filed their affidavit-in-opposition raising similar preliminary objection as was made by the other private respondents. Besides this objection, the other objections on the maintainability of the writ petition are similar to the other private respondents. 8. The respondent Nos. 33 & 95 individually and respondent Nos. 79 & 113 collectively have also filed their affidavit-in-opposition raising similar preliminary objection as was made by the other private respondents. The respondent No. 108 have also filed an affidavit-in-opposition with the preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition that she is temporarily engaged as Assistant Professor in the subject of Chemistry whereas, none of the petitioners possess such qualification in the said subject. Therefore, they do not have any locus standi to challenge the appointment of the deponent when they themselves are not qualified to be considered for appointment as Assistant Professor in Chemistry. The prayer for seeking a mandamus to terminate her appointment therefore cannot be sustained. The respondent No. 152 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that due to change of circumstance, the writ petition, insofar as, he is concerned has become infructuous. Substantiating this stand, the said respondent contends that he responded to an advertisement issued by the NPSC for the post of Asst. Geology (Class-I Gazetted) under the Geology & Mining Department and after going through the process of selection, he was selected and appointed to the said post vide Notification dated 01.03.2019. 9. The respondent Nos. 167 to 174 have filed a collective affidavit with a preliminary objection that the petitioners had obtained their Master Degrees in English, Political Science, Geology, etc. in the year 2008, 2009, 2012 & 2013. That most of the petitioners obtained the NET qualification on 16.12.2013 and which was the date on which the respondents concerned were regularized in service. Therefore, in respect of those petitioners who had cleared NET examination after 16.12.2013, they do not have the locus standi to challenge the validity of the regularization of the respondents concerned. The respondents have also stated that the petitioners, at no point of time, had submitted any representation against them prior to filing of the writ petition and therefore, they are not the persons aggrieved in the eyes of the law and have no locus standi to file the writ petition. 10. The respondent No. 166 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that the petitioners have not made proper pleadings assailing her appointment order. 10. The respondent No. 166 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that the petitioners have not made proper pleadings assailing her appointment order. In fact, without making any specific averments, they have asked the Court to embark upon a roving exercise which cannot be countenance under the law. The respondent concerned states that she was appointed as Graduate Teacher on adhoc basis and after serving for about 10 years, she was deputed to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor in Education at Nagaland College of Teachers Education (NCTE) which later was changed to SCTE. Her adhoc service was regularized along with 59 others Graduate Teachers vide Order dated 24.03.2012 w.e.f. 01.03.2011. The services of the respondent was absorbed in NCTE after obtaining approval from the Department of School Education, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department (P&AR Department) and the NPSC and thereafter, finally approved by the Cabinet on 01.11.2012. The respondent has availed study leave to pursue Ph.D programme at Nagaland University w.e.f. 01.05.2018 and she has been granted 2 years for the said purpose. The respondent No. 166, on the maintainability of the writ petition, has also stated that in order to be appointed as Lecturer in SCTE, the mandatory educational qualification is B.Ed or M.Ed with Master Degree. The respondent No. 166 was deputed to NCTE on 21.04.2010 and absorbed on 19.11.2012 with all requisite qualifications. Therefore, the petitioners will have to show that they too had the requisite qualification during such period. Unless, the same is shown, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge her appointment and absorption. The respondent No. 166 also contends that as she was absorbed to the SCTE on 19.11.2012 while the writ petition was filed in the year 2019, the writ petition also suffers from delay and laches and for this reason alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as well. Besides this, there is no representation against the appointment and absorption of the respondent No. 166 filed by the petitioners before the respondent authorities and therefore, the petitioners cannot invoke writ jurisdiction without exhausting alternative remedy available. 11. The respondent No. 100 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition with a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition stating that he is a Post Graduate Degree holder in History having qualified in the year 2008. He had also cleared the NET on 28.12.2018. 11. The respondent No. 100 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition with a preliminary objection on the maintainability of the writ petition stating that he is a Post Graduate Degree holder in History having qualified in the year 2008. He had also cleared the NET on 28.12.2018. He had also acquired the NET on 28.12.2018. He responded to the advertisement issued by the Higher & Educational Department vide Notification dated 12.08.2011 for an interview to be held on 23.08.2011 to make contract/casual appointment of Assistant Professor in the subjects of English Literature, History, Political Science, etc. The respondent participated and was declared to be successful for appointment as Assistant Professor. The respondent No. 100 further contends that none of the petitioners possess the qualification in History subject. Also none of the petitioners have M.A and NET qualification as on 12.08.2011 except for the petitioner Nos. 14 & 20. Further, by the Notification dated 12.08.2011, the subjects such as Science & Sociology were not advertised for contract appointment and therefore, the petitioners do not have any locus standi to challenge the contract appointment of the respondent. 12. The respondent No. 108 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition with a preliminary objection stating that she is temporarily engaged as Assistant Professor in the subject of Chemistry while none of the petitioners possess the qualification for being appointed as Assistant Professor in Chemistry. Therefore, they cannot be the persons aggrieved. Assuming that vacancies occurred in the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry and applicants are invited for filling up of the post, none of the petitioners are eligible for the same and therefore, the petitioners do not have any locus standi to file a writ petition against her. Further, while praying for a direction for issuance of a writ of Mandamus to terminate the appointment of the respondent, they have not placed any demand for them to be appointed in the place of the respondent and therefore, the writ petition even on this count is not maintainable. Besides this, the petitioners have only challenged the initial appointment order of the respondent and not the subsequent appointment orders which renders the writ petition as not maintainable. On merits, the respondent contends that she was appointed as Assistant Professor in Chemistry at Phek Government College in a non-sanction post and on contractual basis vide Notification dated 07.07.2014. Besides this, the petitioners have only challenged the initial appointment order of the respondent and not the subsequent appointment orders which renders the writ petition as not maintainable. On merits, the respondent contends that she was appointed as Assistant Professor in Chemistry at Phek Government College in a non-sanction post and on contractual basis vide Notification dated 07.07.2014. Her service was extended thereafter from time to time with the justification that apart from her, there is only one other regular Lecturer manning the Chemistry department, in Phek Government College. The respondent, therefore, submits that she having been appointed in a non-sanction post and due to exigency of service, there is no illegality in her appointment and that none of the rights of the petitioner has been violated. 13. The respondent No. 152 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that he applied for the post of Asst. Geologist (Class-I Gazetted) under the Geology & Mining Department which was advertised. After participating in the selection process, he was selected and he has since joined the said post and the writ petition, insofar as, he is concerned has become infructuous. 14. The respondent No. 106 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that the petitioners have sought for a mandamus for terminating his service but at the same time, they have not sought for any demand from the respondent authorities that would be commensurate with their prayer in the writ petition. As such, it cannot be said that justice has been denied to them. Moreover, the petitioners have only challenged the initial contractual appointment order of the respondent and not the subsequent engagement and for which reason the writ petition is not maintainable. On merits, the respondent No. 106 contends that he was appointed as Assistant Professor in Economics at Phek Government College against a transfer vacancy and his appointment was extended from time to time. The justification for extension of his contractual appointment is that there are only 4 (four) Lecturers in Economics Department in Phek Government College and the services of the respondent is very much needed. The respondent further contends that at present, there are only 3 Lecturers in Economics Department, i.e., one regular and 2 on contract basis, in view of the study leave taken by the regular Lecturers. The respondent further contends that at present, there are only 3 Lecturers in Economics Department, i.e., one regular and 2 on contract basis, in view of the study leave taken by the regular Lecturers. He also contends that he is not occupying a sanction posts as of now, as the post occupied by her has been requisitioned to the NPSC. Therefore, the temporary appointment of the respondent in a non-sanctioned post does not suffer from illegality and that no rights of the petitioners have been affected. Further, as the State Government has not been creating sufficient sanctioned posts commensurate with the requirements in the Economics Department at Phek Government College, the College is compelled to appoint Assistant Professor such as herself on temporary basis and on a meager fixed pay of Rs. 20,000/- for performing equal amount of work, if not more as that of the Assistant Professors appointed through NPSC. 15. The respondent No. 163 has also filed affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that he was initially engaged as lecturer, later re-designated as Assistant Professor in the Department of English at Kohima Science College, Jotsoma on contract basis for a period of 4 months only. His service was extended from time to time until he appeared in the suitability test conducted by the Department of Higher & Technical Education under the Chairmanship of the Commissioner and Secretary of the said Department. As per the Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2008 of the P&AR, contractual employees, who have completed more than 3 years continuous service are eligible for regularization provided that there is a sanctioned post available. The respondent having fulfilled the criteria, his name was recommended by the constituted committee for regularization. The respondents also contend that the Department of Higher & Technical Education vide Notification dated 30.05.2016 granted one time relaxation of Rule 11(a)(II) of the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2003 to 132 College Teachers who were appointed without NET during period between October, 2003 and 24.08.2010 for facilitating the placement/promotion to the immediate higher grade. Therefore, the respondent along with five others submitted a representation to the Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department praying for inclusion of their names in the onetime relaxation of the Rules but their representation has not been considered. Therefore, the respondent along with five others submitted a representation to the Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department praying for inclusion of their names in the onetime relaxation of the Rules but their representation has not been considered. The respondent after serving for nearly 5 years on contract basis, his service as Assistant Professor (English) was regularized vide Notification dated 04.02.2011 as per the O.M dated 04.08.2008 after conducting suitability test. The respondent also states that he fulfills the educational qualification criteria as laid down for appointment of Lecturer under Rule 10(i)(a) of the Higher & Education Service Rules, 2003. Therefore, the question of setting aside his appointment does not arise. 16. The respondent No. 164 has also filed an affidavit-inopposition stating that he was initially appointed as Guest Lecturer and later re-designated as Assistant Professor in the Department of Education at Peren College, Peren on adhoc basis against regular vacancy for a period of 4 months, which was then extended from time to time. Thereafter, she underwent the suitability test for regularization conducted by the competent authority and she was recommended for regularization. Therefore, on the basis of the recommendation, her service was regularized. 17. The respondent No. 165 has also filed his affidavit-in-opposition which is more or less similar to affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent No. 164. Only difference is that he was appointed as a Lecturer, now re-designated as Assistant Professor in the Department of History at Sao Chang College, Tuensang on contract basis till he was regularized on the basis of recommendation of the screening committee. 18. The respondent Nos. 130, 133, 134, 137, 138, 140 & 145 have collectively filed their affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that the reliefs sought in the petition are omnibus in nature. Each of the petitioners must have a specific prayer in respect of his grievance and a roving exercise coupled with excessive prayers beyond entitlement of an individual should not be entertained. She further states that the petition is filed in the guise of persons aggrieved but the same is actually a petition filed in public interest. The petitioners seek the filling up of vacant post in the Department of Higher Education through selection process and in fact, recently on 13.11.2019 an advertisement for a large number of posts in the grade of Assistant Professors was advertised by the NPSC. The petitioners seek the filling up of vacant post in the Department of Higher Education through selection process and in fact, recently on 13.11.2019 an advertisement for a large number of posts in the grade of Assistant Professors was advertised by the NPSC. As such, the grievance of the petitioners otherwise have been effectively addressed. The respondents also contend that they have all qualified the NET and they were appointed as Assistant Professors on contract basis and on a fixed pay of Rs. 30,000/- per month against the newly introduced subjects of Sociology, Commerce, Economics & Psychology under the Department of Higher & Technical Education through a walk-in interview conducted by the said Department. The petitioners, on the other hand, have only made omnibus statements without making any specific challenge. Therefore, the petitioners are not the person aggrieved and they have filed their petition in public interest which under the given facts and circumstances is not maintainable. 19. The respondent No. 47 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that by obtaining NET certificates, the same does not confer an individual the right to challenge those already appointed to a Government post. The University Grants Commission (UGC), in fact, allows candidates who have completed, appeared or pursuing Master Degree or equivalent examination to apply for UGC NET and such candidates must complete their Master Degree examination, within 2 years from the date of the NET result by acquiring the required percentage of marks failing which, they shall be treated as disqualified. The petitioners have failed to produce their Master Degree or equivalent certificates to show that they have actually scored a minimum 50% marks as mandated by the UGC norms to qualify NET and therefore, the writ petition on this ground alone should be dismissed. On merits, the respondent contends that he was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Commerce department in Dimapur Government College on a fixed pay of Rs. 20,000/- per month against the deputation vacancy. His service was extended from time to time and that the contention of the petitioners that he was appointed without being qualified is false. The respondent also contends that the State Government have been advertising various posts totaling to 87 posts of Assistant Professor as on 27.01.2021 and out of which, 4 posts were of the Commerce department. 20. His service was extended from time to time and that the contention of the petitioners that he was appointed without being qualified is false. The respondent also contends that the State Government have been advertising various posts totaling to 87 posts of Assistant Professor as on 27.01.2021 and out of which, 4 posts were of the Commerce department. 20. The respondent No. 49 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition which is more or less similar to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 47. She also contends that she possess the requisite qualification and was appointed through an open interview/suitability test consequent upon the introduction of Commerce subject in Dimapur Government College. 21. The respondent No. 54 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating that she was appointed as Assistant Professor in Psychology at Dimapur Government College against the resignation of one teacher who was engaged on contract basis. The stand taken by the respondent in her affidavit is more or less similar to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 47 & 49. The respondent No. 78 has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition which is more or less similar to the affidavit of respondent Nos. 47, 49 & 54. Only difference is that she was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Department of Environmental Science in Dimapur Government College. She also contends that she holds the Master Degree in Science and qualified NET since 2019 while none of the petitioners have such a qualification. 22. The respondent No. 131 has also filed the affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that she is serving as Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology in Dimapur Government College and that she is NET qualified since 2006. She successfully completed her Doctorate Degree in Sociology from North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Shillong in the year 2013 as well. She further contends that a suitability test was conducted on 01.07.2016 by the Directorate of Higher Education and in consequences thereof, she was selected and engaged on a fixed pay of Rs. 20,000/- per month on contract basis. Therefore, according to her, the stand of the petitioners that she was appointed as Assistant Professor without having the requisite qualification is only false and is denied. The affidavit of respondent No. 131 is also more or less similar to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 49, 54 & 78. 23. The respondent Nos. 20,000/- per month on contract basis. Therefore, according to her, the stand of the petitioners that she was appointed as Assistant Professor without having the requisite qualification is only false and is denied. The affidavit of respondent No. 131 is also more or less similar to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 49, 54 & 78. 23. The respondent Nos. 132, 139, 149 & 156 have all filed their respective affidavits individually and the stand taken by them are also similar to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 54, 78 & 131 amongst others. 24. The respondent Nos. 8, 15, 48, 82, 83, 94, 96, 111, 115, 118, 126, 129, 136, 143, 151, 158 & 162 have together filed one consolidated affidavit-in-opposition contending inter alia that the petitioners can only be aggrieved in relation to their own subject. Each of the petitioners will have to specifically plead and have a prayer in respect of their grievance. Instead, they have filed a joint petition in respect of different subjects and the reliefs sought in the petition are omnibus. Also, the materials facts and particulars in respect of each of the petitioners in relation to their individual grievances is glaringly different. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The further stand taken is that according to the State respondents in their affidavitin- opposition, several advertisements have been issued in respect of the posts and subjects concerning the petitioners. If the petitioners have availed the opportunity, they have no locus standi to file the present petition. Further, if the petitioners have been unsuccessful in their attempt in respect of the posts which were advertised earlier, the petitioners cannot demand that the posts held by answering the respondents should also advertise. Therefore, the petitioners have to disclose as to whether they have availed the opportunities in terms of the advertisement for employment under various Government Colleges. In fact, even after the writ petition was filed, several posts under the Higher Education Department have been advertised through the NPSC such as Advertisement No. NPSC/Advt./EDs/2012 dated 13.11.2019. As such, the grievances of the petitioners have been effectively addressed since they are seeking the filling up of the posts in the Department of Higher Education through selection process. In fact, even after the writ petition was filed, several posts under the Higher Education Department have been advertised through the NPSC such as Advertisement No. NPSC/Advt./EDs/2012 dated 13.11.2019. As such, the grievances of the petitioners have been effectively addressed since they are seeking the filling up of the posts in the Department of Higher Education through selection process. On merits, the respondents states that the respondent No. 21 was appointed as Assistant Professor in Ao language vide notification dated 04.08.2014 on contract basis and on a fixed pay of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2015 provides that NET/SLAT/SET shall not be required for such Master programmes in disciplines for which NET/SLAT/SET is not conducted. There is no dispute to the fact that such test has not been conducted in Ao language and the respondent No. 21 having cleared Ao language proficiency examination in the year 2013, she is eligible for the post of Assistant Professor in Ao language. The respondent No. 48 was appointed as Assistant Professor, Pedagogy in Social Science at Mokokchung College of Teachers Education on a fixed pay of Rs. 20,000/- per month on contract basis. Initially, the appointment was for 1 (one) year but it was extended from time to time. As per the relevant rules, NET or Ph.D is not mandatory for appointment as Assistant Professor in Colleges of Teachers Education. The respondent No. 48 has a 1st Class Master Degree in Sociology and also a 1st Class Degree in B.Ed as well and therefore, eligible to be appointed to the post in question. Likewise, all the other respondents in the consolidated affidavit have also given their respective particulars which may not be necessary to be gone into at this stage. All the other remaining private respondents have also filed their respective affidavit-in-opposition either individually or collectively and one common feature, which is noticed is that the maintainability of the writ petition has been questioned by each of them. 25. As already noticed herein above, the petitioners collectively possess the qualification in subjects such as Commerce, Political Science, English, Geography, Education, Sociology, Economics, Arts, Science and Environmental Science. However, the private respondents have Education qualifications in subjects other than what the petitioners possess such as Botany, Zoology, Anthropology, Ao language, Tenyidie, Chemisty, etc., apart from others. 25. As already noticed herein above, the petitioners collectively possess the qualification in subjects such as Commerce, Political Science, English, Geography, Education, Sociology, Economics, Arts, Science and Environmental Science. However, the private respondents have Education qualifications in subjects other than what the petitioners possess such as Botany, Zoology, Anthropology, Ao language, Tenyidie, Chemisty, etc., apart from others. They have otherwise prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned notifications by which the private respondents have been appointed and regularized. Therefore, without adverting to the merits of the case, the question that cannot be overlooked is as to whether the writ petition can be maintainable under the given facts and circumstances of the case. 26. In the case of Mohd. Shafi Pandow vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors, (2001) 10 SCC 447 , the Apex Court in the given facts and circumstances of that case held that the appellant did not possess the minimum qualification required for direct recruitment namely; TDC (Final) Medical, and therefore, he was ineligible for being considered as a direct recruit. Therefore, he did not have the locus standi to assail the appointment made in favour of others who pursuant to the advertisement did make application and did possess the requisite qualification and were ultimately appointed. 27. In the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan vs. Maharashtra & Ors, (2013) 4 SCC 465 , the Apex Court in the given facts of that case held that it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc., in a court of law. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which, writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Apex Court further held that a legal right means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which, writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Apex Court further held that a legal right means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardised. 28. A Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Baphindali Giri & Ors. vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors., reported in 2006 (4) GLT 503 held that an order of appointment of a person against a post can be challenged by a person who can claim appointment to such post and can be a ‘person aggrieved’ for being denied such appointment. A person who is not qualified be appointed and who did not apply for the post cannot challenge the appointment of any person against the said post. In other words, the person who challenges an order of appointment of another person by filing a writ petition must, therefore, be a person aggrieved by such appointment. 29. The petitioners at paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition have stated that the impugned O.M dated 04.08.2008 was issued in violation of the Constitutional scheme of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India with a specific reference to the Apex Court decision on 10.04.2006 in Uma Devi(3) (supra). Against this averment, the State respondents have contended that the O.M dated 04.08.2008 was issued providing regularization to contract/adhoc appointee on completion of 3 years of service against vacant sanctioned post for the entire Departments under the State Government. The Department of Higher Education has constituted a Screening Committee for suitability test for regularization of Assistant Professor on contract basis. The Screening Committee strictly examined the documents/academic records and Annual Confidence Reports of all candidates. Thereafter, the committee interviewed the candidates one by one and tested their professional experiences in teaching. After going through such process, the teachers concerned were recommended by the Screening Committee and only then, the contract services have been regularized. The Screening Committee strictly examined the documents/academic records and Annual Confidence Reports of all candidates. Thereafter, the committee interviewed the candidates one by one and tested their professional experiences in teaching. After going through such process, the teachers concerned were recommended by the Screening Committee and only then, the contract services have been regularized. The State respondents have also denied that they have taken advantage of the O.M dated 04.08.2008 but has conducted suitability test for the eligible and qualified candidates for the post of Assistant Professor. As regards, the O.M dated 13.01.2010, by which the petitioners contend that the State Government had issued deterrent action against those concerned making irregular appointments, the stand taken by the State respondents in their affidavit is that the Department of Higher Education has never appointed any of its employees by the Head of the Department. In fact, due to shortfall of teachers in different subjects in Government Colleges in the State and there being no sanctioned post, the Department approached the Government for engaging Assistant Professors and Librarians on temporary basis and on a fixed pay as permissible under the Regulation 13 of the UGC Regulations of 2010 and 2018. The appointment of teachers on contract basis under the Higher Education Department is only to meet the urgent requirement of the Colleges. 30. As regards, the O.M dated 21.07.2011 which according to the petitioners was initially issued by the Government to implement the mandatory requirements of requisitioning posts of having grade pay of Rs. 6,000/- per months and above to the NPSC and which was subsequently amended to grade pay of Rs. 2800/- and above as NPSC posts, the respondent Department has contended that appropriate advertisement was accordingly issued by the NPSC on 11.01.2012, 16.01.2012, 28.02.2012, 13.04.2012, 18.09.2013, 21.09.2013, 13.12.2013, 07.07.2015, 23.06.2016, 01.07.2016, 07.09.2016 & 21.09.2018. 31. The further case of the respondent Department is that despite the O.M dated 06.06.2016 banning appointment on contract basis, Regulation 13 of the UGC Regulations 2010 and Regulations 2018 permits appointment on contract basis under the UGC Guidelines for Development Grant to Colleges during the XII Plan (2012-2017), Guidelines C-1 provides for assistance for development of undergraduate education. 31. The further case of the respondent Department is that despite the O.M dated 06.06.2016 banning appointment on contract basis, Regulation 13 of the UGC Regulations 2010 and Regulations 2018 permits appointment on contract basis under the UGC Guidelines for Development Grant to Colleges during the XII Plan (2012-2017), Guidelines C-1 provides for assistance for development of undergraduate education. The UGC will provide assistance for development of under-graduate education only to colleges which fulfils the condition such as single faculty Colleges, offering under-graduate course including Bachelors’ degree in law, physical education, social work, management, home-science, music and dance, fine arts, Sanskrit, teacher’s education, etc. The College should have sanctioned positions of a minimum of 5 full time permanent/regular teaching positions. As such, the Department has to recruit candidates on contract basis on fixed pay for one academic session and after reviewing their academic purposes, extension was given for another session. The ratio of student having increased in Government Colleges and the Government Colleges being upgraded with new subjects, there are shortfalls in different subject teachers. As posts were not created since the year 2017, the Department, therefore, has appointed Assistant Professors on contract basis on a fixed pay so as to meet the urgent requirement and as permissible under Regulation 13 of the UGC Regulation 2010-2018. 32. According to the petitioners, the respondent Nos. 4 to 87 have been appointed without requisite qualifications and to this allegation, the respondent Department has contended that the Department constituted State Level Assurance Coordination Committee (SLACC) and issued Notifications dated 30.01.2018 & 29.08.2018 to all College Principals affiliated in the Nagaland Universities asking the teachers to possess requisite qualifications within 2 to 3 years and without which, further service extension will not be entertained. 33. In respect of the allegation of the petitioners that respondent Nos. 88 to 162 although qualified were appointing on contract basis without advertisement, the Department respondent contends that they were appointed on fixed pay without sanctioned post so as to tide over the emergency situations as per the UGC norms. In respect of the allegation of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 163 to 178 were appointed on contract basis and regularized, the respondent Department contends that their services were regularized as per the O.M dated 04.08.2008 after conducting suitability test. In respect of the allegation of the petitioners that the respondent Nos. 163 to 178 were appointed on contract basis and regularized, the respondent Department contends that their services were regularized as per the O.M dated 04.08.2008 after conducting suitability test. In fact, when the teachers concerned were regularized, most of the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification and therefore, they have no locus standi to challenge the action of the Department. 34. The respondent Department further contends that the State Government sanctioned 110 posts of Assistant Professors and 68 posts are under process for advertisement while 37 backlog posts were advertised through the NPSC. The respondent Department also contends that the Judgment & Order passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 255(K)/2011 on 14.11.2014 (Dr. Atouzo Pienyu & 28 Ors vs. State of Nagaland & 15 Ors) may not be applicable to the Department of Higher Education because since inception, the Department has adopted UGC Regulation 1956 and the latest being UGC Regulation 2018 where appointment on contract basis is permissible under Regulation 13. As such, the Department of Higher Education cannot be compared with the other Departments of the State. 35. Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 90, 93, 112, 114, 124 & 128 in WP(C) 12(K)/2019 submits that in view of the petitioners having not challenged the extension Orders dated 21.06.2019 & 28.07.2021, the writ petition would not be maintainable and in this regard, he relies upon the Apex Court decision in Satish Chandra Anand vs. The Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250 . He submits that the petitioners at best can challenge the appointment of 20 persons but they have impugned the appointment of 175 private respondents. Unless the petitioners can show that they are the persons aggrieved, they cannot seek a writ of Mandamus from a writ Court exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, he refers to the Judgment of the High Court on Himachal Pradesh in Pankaj Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors, (2014) SCC online H.P 5944. He further submits that a writ of Certiorari cannot be issued at the behest of a person who himself is not qualified. In this regard, he relies upon the Apex Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn. He further submits that a writ of Certiorari cannot be issued at the behest of a person who himself is not qualified. In this regard, he relies upon the Apex Court in B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Assn. & Ors., (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II). He also submits that as per Regulation 13 of the UGC Regulation, contract appointments can be made due to exigency of service. On merits, the learned counsel submits that the private respondents were appointed not on substantive vacancies as presumed by the petitioners but against vacancies caused by leave, deputation etc. Although, O.M dated 06.06.2016 imposes a ban on contract appointment but the UGC Regulation permits contract appointment. In terms of the said provision of the Regulation, various institutions under the respondent Department have given ample justifications for continuation and increase in the contract appointment. The petitioners, on the other hand, have only made a sweeping statements by referring to the case of Uma Devi(3) (supra). He submits that as per paragraphs Nos. 12 & 45 of the said decision engagement made on temporary basis is permissible. He submits that no materials have been shown by the petitioners in support of their averment that the private respondents are occupying sanctioned posts. Therefore, when the pleadings are not clear and substantiated with documents particularly before a writ Court, no relief can be granted. He submits that unlike a plaint filed before a Civil Court, the pleadings before the writ Court has to be made specifically and in detail so as to establish the case of the petitioners in view of the fact that cases are decided on affidavits. Therefore, there being no materials to establish their case, the writ petition of the petitioners should not be dismissed. In support of his submission, he relies upon the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors., (2010) 12 SCC 609 . 36. Be it stated herein that a NGO in the name and style “Against Corruption and Unabated Taxation” (ACAUT) filed PIL No. 11(K)/2015 against back-door appointments. When the PIL was pending, the respondents placed before the Court an O.M dated 06.06.2016 by which, a ban was imposed on appointment on contract basis. 36. Be it stated herein that a NGO in the name and style “Against Corruption and Unabated Taxation” (ACAUT) filed PIL No. 11(K)/2015 against back-door appointments. When the PIL was pending, the respondents placed before the Court an O.M dated 06.06.2016 by which, a ban was imposed on appointment on contract basis. In view of the Office Memorandum, the PIL was disposed of by giving liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court again, if so advised. Thereafter, alleging violation of the O.M dated 06.06.2016, ACAUT filed WP(C) No. 145(K)/2017 challenging the O.M dated 04.08.2008 and 11.08.2016 which provide for regularization of contract appointees. The writ petition was disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 03.08.2018 with an observation that the petitioners have made a sweeping challenge to the appointments made in various grades of posts pertaining to an approximately 25 Government Department thereby, trying to brush aside all alleged irregularities and illegalities with one sweep of the broom. The petitioners, in fact, are to show that they are aggrieved by the appointments made. It was therefore difficult for the Court to sit through the facts of their case in the absence of complete material facts in respect to the challenge made to 706 allegedly irregular/illegal appointments. It was therefore observed that the petitioners will have to file separate petition making a challenge to the various appointments by giving specific opportunities as their grievances relate to different appointments in various Departments of the Government of Nagaland and the writ petition cannot be decided in a piecemeal. The petitioners are also required to implead all persons whose rights may be affected by the petition. Therefore, the Court held that the petition was not maintainable in its present form. However, the State respondents were directed not to regularize the services of the contract or adhoc appointees in terms of the O.M dated 11.08.2016 and 04.08.2008. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to make a fresh challenge to the appointments of the impleaded respondents and other persons as per law. 37. The Judgment & Order dated 03.08.2018 was put to challenge by the State respondents in writ appeal No. 16(K)/2018 but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench vide Order dated 07.02.2019. 38. Liberty was granted to the petitioners to make a fresh challenge to the appointments of the impleaded respondents and other persons as per law. 37. The Judgment & Order dated 03.08.2018 was put to challenge by the State respondents in writ appeal No. 16(K)/2018 but the same was dismissed by the Division Bench vide Order dated 07.02.2019. 38. In the present case as well, the petitioners have challenged the O.M dated 04.08.2008 and 04.08.2016 by which the provision for regularization of contract appointees have been provided in the manner stipulated therein. The petitioners have also challenged the respective appointments of the private respondents in both the writ petitions. However, to succeed in making a challenge to the two Office Memorandums, the petitioners will have to show that they are the persons aggrieved and the persons affected by the Office Memorandums and that they are also affected by the appointments and regularization made in favour of the private respondents. As already noticed herein above, the petitioners claim to have the requisite qualification of NET in the subject of Commerce, Political Science, English, Geography, Education, Sociology, Economics, Arts, Environmental Science. However, the fact remains that they have challenged the appointments of 176 Assistant Professors appointed in various Colleges and Institutions in subjects not only in which the petitioners qualify but also in other subjects as well. The private respondents are arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 to 179 in WP(C) No. 12(K)/2019. Similarly, the petitioners have also challenged the appointment and regularization of the private respondents in WP(C) No. 65(K)/2019 who are 31 in numbers and are arrayed as respondent Nos. 4 to 34. There is no dispute to the fact that the present two writ petitions are not PIL. The petitioner No. 1 according to the petitioners is a forum known as Nagaland NET Qualified Forum and that they have admitted to the fact that it is not a registered forum. The law in this regard is well settled that an unregistered association, forum or organization cannot file a writ petition in a representative capacity. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 will have no locus standi to file the writ petition. In respect of the remaining petitioners, i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 to 21, they claimed to have NET qualification and therefore eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in the field of study to which they belong to. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 will have no locus standi to file the writ petition. In respect of the remaining petitioners, i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 to 21, they claimed to have NET qualification and therefore eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor in the field of study to which they belong to. As stated earlier, the private respondents have been appointed as Assistant Professors or Librarians on contract basis and some of them have been regularized. It is also contended by them that some of them are temporarily appointed in a non-sanctioned post, sanctioned post, on leave vacancy, on deputation vacancy, etc,. The petitioners however have again made a sweeping challenge to the appointment made in favour of the private respondents without making a specific claim that each of them are eligible to be considered and have a right to be appointed against a particular post and in a particular subject. Without there being such a specification, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot simply issue a Mandamus or a writ of Certiorari against the authority or party concerned. The petitioners while claiming that they have the NET qualification, they have also not substantiated with appropriate documents to show that they have passed the Master Degree in the subject concerned by obtaining the requisite percentage of marks as stipulated by the UGC. Therefore, if the queries raised are not answered, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no scope of going into the merits of the case. 39. In the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy (supra), the Apex Court held that Certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only at the instance of a person who is qualified to the post and who is a candidate for the post. The Apex Court further referred to the case of Umakant Saran (Dr) vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 485 wherein it was held that appointment cannot be challenged by one who himself is not qualified to be appointed. 40. In the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. The Apex Court further referred to the case of Umakant Saran (Dr) vs. State of Bihar, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 485 wherein it was held that appointment cannot be challenged by one who himself is not qualified to be appointed. 40. In the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti, Sardarshahar & Anr. (supra), the Apex Court held that it is a settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. The Apex Court further referred to the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1988) 4 SCC 534 , wherein it was held that when an appointment which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if his is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. It was further observed that there is a distinction between a pleading under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading i.e., a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleadings, in a writ petition or in the counter-affidavit, not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. 41. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to advertise a certain number of non-sanctioned posts, sanctioned posts created for the year 2018-19 and also requisition a certain number of sanctioned post of Assistant Professors held by some of the private respondents. The law in this regard is well settled. The Apex Court in the case of State of Manipur & Anr. Vs. The law in this regard is well settled. The Apex Court in the case of State of Manipur & Anr. Vs. Takhelmanyum Khelendro Meitei & Ors., reported in (2019) 3 SCC 331 has held that unless the relevant Recruitment Rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. This apart, from a careful perusal of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the private respondents, it can be seen that the petitioners have made their allegations without ascertaining the actual fact first. Thus, unless the petitioners are able to pinpoint their respective individual grievances against a particular action/inaction of the State respondents which they claim their entitlement to, this Court cannot be asked to embark upon a roving enquiry in search of the answers. As already referred to herein above in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samriti, Sardarshahar & Anr. (supra), the parties to a case are bound by the pleadings and particularly in a writ proceeding, pleadings are important since the disputes are decided on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties. 42. Therefore, upon due consideration and under the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no scope for entering into the merits of the case and that the writ petition has to fail on the grounds of maintainability and locus standi. While coming to such a conclusion, this Court is also not unmindful of the fact that there could be some irregularities committed at some level and for which reason, the door is not closed to the petitioners to make appropriate challenge to such illegal or irregular action/actions but by filing appropriate petition, as would be required under the law. 43. In the result, the 2 (two) writ petitions and the Interlocutory Application are dismissed. Interim orders passed, if any, shall stand merged with this order.