JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. T. Khezhie, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Angami, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. Also heard Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 4 & 5. 2. That both the petitioners were appointed as contingency paid sweepers in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat on a monthly wage of Rs. 450/-(fixed). The petitioner No. 1 was appointed by the Order No. SAB-5/161/64(pt), dated 15/05/1992, while the petitioner No.2 was appointed by the order No. SAB-5/427/91(II), dated 24/09/1992. The service of the petitioners has been extended from time to time and the latest extension was effected by the order dated 18/06/2019 for a period of 1(one) year w.e.f. 01/04/2019 to 31/03/2020. 3. That subsequent to the appointment of the petitioners, the Home Department, Secretariat Administrative Branch vide Notification dated 13/07/2001 constituted a Selection Committee for selection of causal employees appointed without post in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat against each categories of the employees as recommended by the High Powered Committee. The Committee in the report dated 10/10/2001 had selected and recommended the numbers of employees against each category of post on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst the employees appointed without post. In the select list in the category of sweeper (casual), the Committee has selected 84 sweepers in which the petitioners has been placed at Sl. No. 38 & 43 of the list. The Committee in the report dated 10/10/2001 in order to safeguard the future of the selected employees has also made the following recommendation which is extracted as follows; “The Committee felt that as a safeguard to the future of the employees selected after the present selection test conducted by this Committee who have put in several years of service as contact employee, some provisions should be made to absorb them in the regular sanctioned posts as and when vacancies arise. Accordingly, it is recommended that the selected employees of all the categories be appointed against the vacancies of regular posts arising in future after following the requisite procedure on the basis of seniority as recommended by the selection committee.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 2(two) regular posts of sweeper fell vacant in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat, Kohima, on account of the promotion of Smti. Neinguzo and the retirement of Smti. Kereisenuo. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that 2(two) regular posts of sweeper fell vacant in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat, Kohima, on account of the promotion of Smti. Neinguzo and the retirement of Smti. Kereisenuo. The respondent authorities however, instead of considering the regularization of the petitioners has appointed 2(two) fresh candidates namely, the respondent No. 4 & 5 in the resultant vacancies by issuing the impugned Order No. SAB-5/390/91(P), dated 30/09/2019, thereby violating the precedence followed in the department of regularizing the contingency paid sweeper selected by the Committee. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in the seniority list of contingency fix paid sweeper as on 31/03/2017, the petitioner No. 1 appears at Sl. No. 9 of the list while the petitioner No. 2 appears at Sl. No. 13 of the said list. It is submitted that the persons named in Sl. No. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 & 7 of the said seniority list have already been regularized by the Government whereas, the persons in Sl. No. 4, 10 & 12 has expired. The persons in Sl. No. 8 & 11 have declined to challenge the impugned order dated 30/09/2019 appointing the respondent No. 4 & 5. In the circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have a right to be considered for regularization in service in the resultant vacancies. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that on earlier occasion too, whenever the Government appointed fresh candidates in the various categories of post in place of the selected candidates in violation of the recommendation of the Selection Committee, the persons aggrieved by such fresh appointment had approached the Court seeking legal redressal and the Court in those writ petition while setting aside and quashing the appointment of the fresh candidates has directed the State respondents to consider the regularization of the petitioners in those cases in the light of the recommendation of the Selection Committee. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court to the order dated 13/06/2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 242(K) of 2011, order dated 18/04/2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 224(K) of 2011 & the order dated 10/04/2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 16(K) of 2015. 7. In support of this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has taken this Court to the order dated 13/06/2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 242(K) of 2011, order dated 18/04/2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 224(K) of 2011 & the order dated 10/04/2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 16(K) of 2015. 7. Lastly, it is submitted that the petitioners have been continuously serving the department as sweeper (casual) for the last 28 years with great expectation that their service would be regularized as per their seniority as and when regular vacancy occurs, however to their utter dismay the Government has instead appointed the respondent No. 4 & 5 in the resultant vacancies when they do not even figure in the list selected by the Committee. It is also the case of the petitioners that they along with the other sweepers (casual) on earlier occasion submitted representations to the Government for regularization of their service but such approach has not yielded any positive results. 8. Mr. K. Angami, learned Government Advocate take this Court to the Office Memorandum dated 17/03/2015 issued by the Government which is the scheme for regularization and absorption of work-charged and casual employees and revision of pay/wages and refers to Sl. No.1(iii) which provides that; “The existing scheme for regularization of work-charged employee against normal vacancy is being modified and the quota for work-charged employees stands enhance from 50% to 67% for the next 5(five) years effective from 01/01/2015. This existing scheme will also be applicable for the casual employees appointed on full time basis.” The learned Government Advocate accordingly submits that the scheme applies to the present petitioners as well and their regularization in service will be considered according to the scheme and under the quota provided to the work-charged and casual employees. 9. The learned Government Advocate submits that during the year 2019, 5(five) vacancies occurred in the post of sweeper in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat. 3(three) of the posts were filled up by regularizing the 3(three) senior most contingency paid sweeper in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat by issuing the Order No. SAB-5/390/91(P), dated 30/09/2019, while in the remaining 2(two) posts, the respondent No. 4 & 5 were directly recruited by the Government by issuing the Order No. SAB-5/390/91(P), dated 30/09/2019. It is submitted that the 5(five) vacant post were filled up as per the quota provided for, under the scheme. 10. It is submitted that the 5(five) vacant post were filled up as per the quota provided for, under the scheme. 10. The learned Government Advocate has also taken this Court to the additional affidavit filed by the State respondents where the seniority list of contingency fixed paid sweeper as on 29/02/2020 is annexed. In the said seniority list, the petitioner No. 1 appears at Sl. No. 1 while the petitioner No. 2 appears at Sl. No. 3. The learned State counsel accordingly submits that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 & 5 has in no way affected the seniority position of the petitioners and the petitioner’s regularization in service will be considered as and when their turn comes according to the scheme. 11. Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the private respondents No. 4 & 5 adopts the line of submissions of the learned State counsel and submits that since the Government has already formulated a policy for regularization of the contingency fixed paid employees as per their seniority in service their regularization will be considered in terms of the said policy framed by the Government and the appointment of the respondent No. 4 & 5 in no way affects the seniority position of the petitioners. The learned counsel further submits that since the appointment of the respondents are temporary in nature subject to condition, the petitioners cannot claim that the appointment of the respondents have infringed the rights of the petitioners for regularization in service. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings exchanged between the parties. The petitioner No. 1 & 2 were appointed as contingency paid sweepers in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat since the year 1992 and is continuing in the post till date. It is an admitted position that that the petitioners were selected as sweepers (casual) after undergoing a selection process conducted by the selection committee constituted by the Government vide notification dated 13/07/2001. It is also not in dispute that the Government has been regularizing the service of those sweepers selected by the Selection Committee on the basis of the seniority in service and in terms of the recommendation made by the committee. It is also not in dispute that the Government has been regularizing the service of those sweepers selected by the Selection Committee on the basis of the seniority in service and in terms of the recommendation made by the committee. It is also not in dispute that in regard to the other categories of employees, whenever fresh candidates were appointed, ignoring the case of the person selected by the committee, the selected candidate had approached the court for redressal and this Court in a series of cases while setting aside and quashing the fresh appointments had directed the State respondents to consider the regularization in service of those persons selected by the Selection Committee. It may be note worthy to reproduce the operative portions of the order passed by this Court in the following cases; (a) Order dated 13/06/2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 242(K) of 2011 “3. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, perusal of the recommendation of the Selection Board at page-8 of the rejoinder affidavit, which speaks as “The Committee felt that as a safeguard to the future of the employees selected after the present selection test conducted by this Committee who have put in several years of service as contract employees, some provisions should be made to absorb them in the regular sanctioned posts as and when vacancies arise. Accordingly, it is recommended that the selected employees of all the categories be appointed against the vacancies of the regular posts arising in future after following the requisite procedures on the basis of seniority as recommended by the Selection Committee.” and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration of the recommendation made by the Selection Board, as quoted above, I hereby direct the respondents/Govt. authorities to consider the case of those contractual workers/casual employees who are already in service for the last long period of time before considering any fresh candidates. After completion of regularization of those who are already in service waiting for consideration of their regularization, Govt. can take steps for fresh appointment.” (b) Order dated 18/04/2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 224(K) of 2011 “Materials on record disclose that the respondent No.4 was appointed without following any due process of law and was appointed solely on the basis of the application submitted by her. can take steps for fresh appointment.” (b) Order dated 18/04/2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 224(K) of 2011 “Materials on record disclose that the respondent No.4 was appointed without following any due process of law and was appointed solely on the basis of the application submitted by her. Such an appointment cannot be countenanced in law and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the appointment of the respondent No. 4 is hereby set aside and quashed. Materials on record unmistakably demonstrate that the recommendations of the Selection Committee has been acted upon and orders of regularization has been issued in respect of contingency paid employees. Sl. No. 1 and 2 in the order dated 06/11/01 have also been regularized by orders dated 14/06/07 and 21/12/07 against existing regular vacancies. There is now a vacant post of regular Mali, which has arisen because of the death of Kraviba Yhome. In view of the discussions above, the respondents, and more particularly, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 will now consider the case of regularization of the petitioner in the manner as was considered in the case of Smti. Vizobeinuo and Smti. Mesi-u, who were at Sl. No. 1 & 2 respectively, in the order dated 06/11/2001. Such consideration shall be made within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” (c) judgment & Order dated 10/04/2015 passed in W.P.(C) No. 16(K) of 2015 “9. This being the admitted position and also considering the order dated 16/11/2001, it is incumbent upon the State respondents to have followed the seniority as given in the order dated 16/11/2001 when the said two regular vacancy of Mali arose in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat. This has not been done by the State respondents and instead has appointed the private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by impugned order dated 30/01/2015. 10. This Court has also notice that the appointment of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has been made through the backdoor i.e. without following the laid down procedure in so far as public employment is concerned. In that view of the matter, the appointment of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by the impugned order 30/01/2015 is interfered with and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. 11. The State respondents are now directed to forthwith take up the case of the petitioner Nos. In that view of the matter, the appointment of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by the impugned order 30/01/2015 is interfered with and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. 11. The State respondents are now directed to forthwith take up the case of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 for consideration of their cases for regularization against the two regular vacant post of Mali in the Home Department, Nagaland. Let such exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment & order.” 13. The present case is similar to the cases earlier decided by this Court in the three writ petitions. The only difference is with regard to the category of post. The earlier case related to the post of Mali in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat while the present case relates to the post of sweeper also in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat. All selections to these categories of post were made by the Selection Committee in its report dated 10/10/2001. This Court therefore, cannot take a view which is contrary to the decision in the three preceding cases more so, when no appeal has been preferred against the said decision and the State respondents has complied with the order(s) passed by this Court. In other words, the said decisions have given finality to the issues raised in the present writ petition. This Court is also unable to accept the contention of the State respondents that the case of the petitioners for regularization in service is covered by the scheme brought out in the Office Memorandum dated 17/03/2015 inasmuch as, the scheme only applies to the existing employees of the various department who are enjoying scale pay and who have completed 30 years or more continuous service as on 01/01/2015. The case of the present petitioners, in the considered opinion of this Court, will be covered by the report of the Selection Committee dated 10/10/2001 and the recommendation made therein which has been consistently followed by the State respondents and also upheld by this Court. 14. This Court has also notice that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 & 5 was made without following any due process of law and in violation of the constitutional scheme as adumbrated in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. This Court has also notice that the appointment of the respondent No. 4 & 5 was made without following any due process of law and in violation of the constitutional scheme as adumbrated in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. On a pointed query as to whether the respondent No. 4 & 5 were appointed after undergoing a proper selection process, the counsel for the respondent’s sought to justify the appointment of the respondents by contending that the appointment is only temporary in nature and therefore, it is not necessary to hold the selection process. I am afraid, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents militates against the settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on temporary or adhoc basis without inviting application from all eligible candidates as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa & Another -versus-Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 . Accordingly, the impugned order No. SAB-5/390/91(P), dated 30/09/2019, issued by the Principal Secretary (Home), appointing the respondent No. 4 & 5 to the post of sweeper in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat, Kohima is hereby set aside and quashed. 15. In the light of the observations and discussions made above, the State respondents more particularly, the respondent No. 2 & 3 shall now consider the case of regularization of the petitioners and others in the vacant post of the sweeper, on the basis of their seniority position as reflected in the seniority list of contingency (fixed) paid sweeper as on 29/02/2020 in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat, Kohima in the manner as was considered in the case of the senior sweepers selected by the Selection Committee in its report dated 10/10/2001. Such exercise for consideration of the regularization of the petitioners and/or the other senior sweepers in the Nagaland Civil Secretariat, Kohima shall be completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 16. The writ petition stands allowed. No cost.