JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in the batch of writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. K. N. Balagopal, the learned Advocate General of the State of Nagaland who is assisted by Mr. T. B. Jamir, the learned counsel and Ms. T. Khro, the learned Additional Advocate General. The learned counsels representing the private Respondents have also been heard. 2. In the instant batch of writ petition, the Petitioners who meets the eligibility criteria and are unemployed youth of the State of Nagaland have assailed the appointments of 935 constables who were appointed vide various orders by the State of Nagaland and its functionaries. 3. The challenge made in the batch of writ petitions are to the appointments made in favour of the private Respondents of each of the writ petition to the respective posts wherein they were appointed and the relevant appointment orders which were enclosed to the writ petitions as Annexures are detailed herein under: 1. WP(C) No.189/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #6-11 Constable B-B5 # 12-18, 20, 22-26, 28-31, 33-58 Constable (GD) B6-12, 14, 16-20, 22-25, 27-47, 49-52 # 19 and 32 Constable (Driver) B13 & 26 # 21, 27 & 54 Constable (Cook) B15, 21 & 48 2. WP(C) No.190/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #8-66 Constable (Operator) B-B58 # 67-124, 127-135, 138-155 Constable (GD) B59-113, 116-125, 127-144 # 125, 126 NCE (Water Carrier) B114, 115 # 136, 137 Constable (Driver) B125, 126 # 156 Constable (Petrol Mechanic) B145 3. WP(C) No.191/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #5-25 Constable B-B20 # 26 Constable (Welder) B21 # 27-86 Constable (GD) B22-81 # 87 Constable (Driver) B82 4. WP(C) No.192/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #5-91, 93 & 94 Constable (GD) B-B86, 88, 89 # 92 Constable NCE (barber) B87 5. WP(C) No.193/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #7-22, 24-54 Constable (GD) B-15, 17-32, 33, 47 # 23 Constable (driver) B16 6. WP(C) No.194/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #6-47, 49-119 Constable (GD) B-B41, 43-113 #48 Constable NCE (cook) B42 7. WP(C) No.195/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #8-64, 66-77, 79, 91-94 Constable (GD) B-B56, 58-69, 71-80, 83-86 # 65 Constable (Welder) B57 # 78, 89, 90 Constable (NCE) B70, 81, 82 8. WP(C) No.196/2022 Respondent Nos. WP(C) No.194/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #6-47, 49-119 Constable (GD) B-B41, 43-113 #48 Constable NCE (cook) B42 7. WP(C) No.195/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #8-64, 66-77, 79, 91-94 Constable (GD) B-B56, 58-69, 71-80, 83-86 # 65 Constable (Welder) B57 # 78, 89, 90 Constable (NCE) B70, 81, 82 8. WP(C) No.196/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #6-53 Constable B-B47 # 54-109 Constable (GD) B48-103 9. WP(C) No.197/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #6-37, 42-69 Constable (GD) B-B31, 36-53 # 38-41 Constable B32-35 10. WP(C) No.198/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #6-10, 12-63 Constable (GD) B-B4, 6-57 # 11 Constable (Handyman) B5 11. WP(C) No.199/2022 Respondent Nos. Name of post Annexure #7-41, 48-53, 55-67, 69-76, 78-101 Constable (GD) B-B34, 37-42, 44-56, 58-65, 67-90 #42-46 Constable B35 (Common order) # 47 Constable (Driver) B36 # 54 Constable (Tailor) B43 # 68 Havildar (GD) B57 # 77 Constable (CO) B66 4. It is relevant to mention herein that all these appointments were made during the period from January, 2018 to October, 2019 much prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. 5. The case of the Petitioners in the instant batch of writ petition are that they are indigenous unemployed Naga youth possessing requisite qualifications and eligibility to the various posts wherein the private Respondents have been appointed on regular basis without any advertisement. The Petitioners referred to an Office Memorandum bearing No.AR-8/8/74 dated 07.07.1976 wherein it is mandated that no direct recruitment shall be made by the Departments without publicly inviting application in the prescribed procedures. 6. The Petitioners on filing applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 came to learn that out of 1140 posts of Constables, only 206 posts were filled up through open recruitment vide advertisement No. PHQ(B-I)1/Recruitment.Constables/2019 dated (nil) August, 2019 and the remaining 935 constables were appointed without any advertisement. It is the basic case of the Petitioners that all the 935 appointments to the post of Constables on regular basis were made through backdoor thereby denying opportunities to the Petitioners and thousands of unemployed Naga youths in general who are eligible to apply to the posts of Constables and as such, the appointments so made in favour of the private Respondents in the batch of writ petition are illegal appointments and liable to be interfered with by this Court. It is relevant to mention that all the writ petitions were filed in the year 2022. 7. The State of Nagaland filed their affidavit-in-opposition to the writ petitions. The contents of the said affidavit-in-opposition in all the writ petitions were similar. In the affidavit-in-opposition, a preliminary objection was raised as regards the maintainability of the writ petitions. It was contended that the appointments so made to the private Respondents are governed by Part III of the Nagaland Police Manual (for short “the NP Manual”). The said N.P. Manual was made in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution. The said NP Manual was published in the Nagaland Gazette on the 31.08.2018. It was contended that in terms with Rule 6(2) of Part III of the NP Manual, the Appointing Authorities for the Ministerial appointments and Menial Establishments have been stipulated. In terms with Rule 20, the manner of Enlistment of Constables have been mentioned. It was therefore the categorical stand that as Rule 20 of the NP Manual did not envisage any advertisement as a prerequisite for recruiting to the post of constables/non-commissioned employees, therefore, the non-issuance of advertisement cannot be a ground to challenge the appointments made in favour of the private Respondents that too, without challenging the vires of Rule 20 of Part III of the NP Manual. 8. On merits, it was mentioned that the appointments of the private Respondents were made as per the mandate of Rule 20 of Part III of the NP Manual and thereupon it was followed by training imparted to the said private Respondents. It was the specific stand taken on merits that the selection was made properly by a Selection Committee and as such, merely because there was no advertisement, the selection and appointment of the private Respondents cannot be said to be bad in law. In addition to that, it was stated that the Office Memorandum dated 07.12.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms of the Government of Nagaland stipulated the procedure for filling up of Grade-III and Grade-IV posts in the Departments. In the said Office Memorandum also, there is no mention that there is a requirement for issuance of an advertisement. In the said Office Memorandum also, there is no mention that there is a requirement for issuance of an advertisement. Insofar as the Office Memorandum dated 07.07.1976, which was relied upon by the Petitioners, it was stated that the said Office Memorandum though stipulated that without publicly inviting applications, no appointment should be carried out but the said Office Memorandum was only an executive instruction whereas the NP Manual is a statutory Rule in view of the same being made in exercise of the powers under Article 309 of the Constitution. 9. The private Respondents have also filed their affidavit-in-oppositions in each of the writ petitions wherein their stand appears to be similar to the stand taken by the State Respondents. 10. It is also seen that an additional affidavit was filed by the State Respondents stating that all these private Respondents who were duly selected and appointed had undergone the training as per the requirement. 11. The record reveals that on 06.06.2024, this Court had heard the parties. On the said date, this Court made certain queries upon the learned counsel representing the State Respondents as to whether there was any Selection Committee constituted; did the Selection Committee formulate any procedure; did the Selection Committee record any minutes; did the Selection Committee keep any records of the physical characteristics of the candidates who have been appointed prior to making recommendations as well as did the Selection Committee make recommendation to the Respondent Authorities and if so, to whom and when. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Respondents in view of the said queries raised sought for time and accordingly the matter was directed to be listed on 11.06.2024. 12. On 13.06.2024, this Court was informed that the learned Advocate General would appear on behalf of the State and as such, the writ petitions were fixed on 14.06.2024. On 14.06.2024, the instant batch of writ petition was heard. During the course of hearing, the learned Advocate General expressed the desire of the State of Nagaland to file an affidavit to bring on record the stand of the State Respondents in view of the queries made. This Court fixed the matter on the 25.07.2024. 13. On 25.07.2024, the hearing was taken up. An affidavit was filed by the Respondent Authorities on 25.07.2024. This Court fixed the matter on the 25.07.2024. 13. On 25.07.2024, the hearing was taken up. An affidavit was filed by the Respondent Authorities on 25.07.2024. In the said affidavit so filed, the stand of the State Government in respect to the appointment so made without advertisement was brought on record. Taking into account its relevance, this Court finds it pertinent to reproduce paragraph No.2 along with its sub paragraphs of the said affidavit which are as herein under: “2. That this Affidavit is being filed in connection with W.P.(C) No. 189/2022 and linked cases pending before this Hon’ble High Court, to bring on record as under : A. That the Writ petitions are filed challenging the legality and validity of the appointment of private respondents to the post of Constables/Driver/Cooks on the ground that the appointments were made without any advertisement. B. That the Writ Petition was heard on 11/06/2024 and upon hearing the parties, this Hon’ble Court has given a liberty to file a short affidavit. That the various options were discussed. C. Therefore, the deponent humbly submits that, the Office of the Director General of Police, Nagaland had sent a proposal to the Home Commissioner, Nagaland for regular appointment by advertising 935 posts of in-service Constables appointed in the year 2018 - 2019 coupled with some necessary set of relaxations on the account that these in-service constables are already in service and have undergone full fledged basic training. D. During the troubled times not only in the State of Nagaland but also outside the State too and earned laurels for their exemplary dedication during conduct of election duty in various States in the country. E. That the deponent humbly submits that taking into consideration their past experiences in field operations, a small latitude of relaxation is being contemplated in their favour both in terms of physical criteria and in qualifying marks. F. That the deponent most humbly submits that considerable concession in qualifying marks is being contemplated taking into consideration the several years they have put in the field successfully in different assignments. G. That the deponent most humbly undertakes that due prescribed procedures shall be adhered to in all future appointments including advertisement of the post as per the prescribed rules and regulations.” 14. G. That the deponent most humbly undertakes that due prescribed procedures shall be adhered to in all future appointments including advertisement of the post as per the prescribed rules and regulations.” 14. From the above reproduced paragraphs of the affidavit filed on 25.07.2024 by the State Respondents, it appears that the State of Nagaland had also taken a decision to set aside all the appointments made to 935 posts during the period from 2018 to 2019 and go ahead with a fresh recruitment by making advertisement of the 935 posts. However, taking into account that these private Respondents have rendered their service, the Government of Nagaland contemplated of giving some latitude of relaxation in their favour both in terms of physical criteria and qualifying marks. 15. It is relevant to mention that the hearing of the instant batch of writ petitions were again re-fixed on 08.08.2024. On 08.08.2024, the learned Advocate General submitted that there is a requirement of granting some concessions in view of the fact that some of the private Respondents may have crossed the age bar in view of the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment Act, 1991 (for short the Act of 1991”) and further the State was of the view that certain concessions/relaxations are required to be granted to the private Respondents in view of the services rendered by them, more particularly during the COVID period. In view of the lack of clarity in respect to the concessions/relaxation to be granted to the private Respondents in the proposed fresh selection process, this Court enquired with the learned Advocate General as to what form of relaxation/concession the Government of Nagaland was contemplating in favour of the private Respondents. The learned Advocate General submitted that he would revert back to this Court after taking it up with the Government of Nagaland and place its decision by filing an affidavit. This Court accordingly fixed the matter on 20.08.2024 thereby directing the State of Nagaland to file the affidavit bringing on record the decision of the Government of Nagaland by 19.08.2024. In terms with the said directions, an affidavit was filed on 20.08.2024. Paragraph Nos.2 to paragraph No.7 of the affidavit dated 20.08.2024 is relevant and as such the same is reproduced is herein below: “2. That this affidavit is being filed pursuant to this Hon'ble Court's direction dated 08th August, 2024. In terms with the said directions, an affidavit was filed on 20.08.2024. Paragraph Nos.2 to paragraph No.7 of the affidavit dated 20.08.2024 is relevant and as such the same is reproduced is herein below: “2. That this affidavit is being filed pursuant to this Hon'ble Court's direction dated 08th August, 2024. At the outset, it is humbly submitted that the minimum age for recruitment is 18 years, and the maximum age is 35 years. That in terms of the amended Section 3 of the Nagaland Retirement from Public Employment (Amendment) Act, 2007, the existing entry shall be substituted by the following: "Section 3(1): Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule or orders for the time being in force, a person in public employment shall hold office for a term of 35 years from the date of joining public employment or until he attains the age of 60 years, whichever is earlier. Section 3(2): A person under public employment shall retire on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of 60 years, or In which he completes 35 years of public employment, whichever is earlier.” 3. Many of the constables were appointed during the period 2017 to 2020. Out of 935 constables those who seek relaxation being beyond the age of 35 years is approximately 93 (Ninety-Three). That in respect of those persons who have crossed the age barrier appropriate relaxation may be granted to them in respect of age so that they are permitted to participate in the prospective selection. 4. That about 270 constables are in the age of about 30-35 years while about 533 constables are about an average of 25-30 years. It may be noted that many of the prospective candidates may apply immediately after crossing the age of only 18 years while many of the serving constables will be at least 10 years elder to them and at least about 10% of the police constables will be double their age. Therefore, to participate in physical activities with such a huge age gap, certain relaxations are being sought which are more aptly described in Annexure-A to this Affidavit, as otherwise, they will be no match to the younger prospective candidates. 5. Therefore, to participate in physical activities with such a huge age gap, certain relaxations are being sought which are more aptly described in Annexure-A to this Affidavit, as otherwise, they will be no match to the younger prospective candidates. 5. The younger candidates nowadays are more tech savvy and have long hours to prepare for the written examination while the serving constables spent sleepless nights virtually working day and night in very sensitive and tense areas both within the State and often throughout the length and breadth of the country to control delicate situations so as to ensure law and order is maintained. That the concessions that are being sought in the outdoor activities and written test may be balanced by the fruitful experience of 4-7 years, on the fields during various operations even at the risk of their life which the other younger candidates will take many more years to achieve. All the constables are combat ready and huge amounts have been incurred for their training so as to serve the State/Nation. Their priceless contributions during Covid cannot be lost sight off and during the said period their selfless contributions was well recognized and appreciated by the suffering people. 6. Except for the fact that the advertisement was not done they are otherwise qualified for the post and appointed by competent authorities which are not in dispute. 7. Taking into consideration all these facts it may be in the interest of Justice to consider their so many years of meritorious service and the deponent is humbly seeking the indulgence of this Court to consider the concessions sought for in this prayer. Accordingly, a latitude is sought even in the Written Test to the extent of 10% of the total marks of 40 for the in-service personnel. It may be mentioned that as per the existing provisions, the basic minimum academic qualifications for applying for the post of police constables in Nagaland Police is Class VIII while for backward tribes it is Class VI.” 16. From the above quoted paragraphs of the affidavit filed on 20.08.2024, it would show that one of the relaxations which the State of Nagaland had in their mind was age relaxation. Apart from that, it is also seen that the State of Nagaland would like to relax the physical criteria and grant certain additional marks for rendering service by the private Respondents. Apart from that, it is also seen that the State of Nagaland would like to relax the physical criteria and grant certain additional marks for rendering service by the private Respondents. The said relaxations which the State of Nagaland proposed were detailed out in the form of an enclosure to the said affidavit and marked as Annexure-A. The said Annexure-A is reproduced herein under: CRITERIA FOR CONDUCTING RECRUITMENT TEST 1. RUNNING MALE FEMALE Department Criteria Proposed Criteria Department Criteria Proposed Criteria 3 KM 3 KM Marks 2 KM 800 M Marks 10 MIN 14 MIN 20 10 MIN 11 MIN 20 11 MIN 15.5 MIN 15 11 MIN 12 MIN 15 12 MIN 17 MIN 10 12 MIN 1 MIN 10 2. PULL-UP MALE FEMALE Department Criteria Proposed Criteria Marks Department Criteria Proposed Criteria Marks 12 Times 6 Times 15 8 Times 3 Times 15 10 Times 5 Times 10 5 Times 2 Times 10 8 Times 4 Times 8 3 Times 1 Times 8 3. HIGH JUMP MALE FEMALE Department Criteria Proposed Criteria Department Criteria Proposed Criteria 4 FT 3.5 FT Marks 3 FT 1 FT Marks 1st Attempt 1st Attempt 5 1st Attempt 1st Attempt 5 2nd Attempt 2nd Attempt 3 2nd Attempt 2nd Attempt 3 3rd Attempt 3rd Attempt 1 3rd Attempt 3rd Attempt 1 4. LONG JUMP MALE FEMALE Department Criteria Proposed Criteria Department Criteria Proposed Criteria 12 FT 9 FT Marks 10 FT 2.5 FT Marks 1st Attempt 1st Attempt 5 1st Attempt 1st Attempt 5 2nd Attempt 2nd Attempt 3 2nd Attempt 2nd Attempt 3 3rd Attempt 3rd Attempt 1 3rd Attempt 3rd Attempt 1 5. Written Test : 40 Marks (4 Latitude marks for in-service personnel) 6. Oral : 12.5 Marks 7. In-Service performance : 2.5 Marks Dy. Inspector General of Police (Admn) Nagaland, Kohima CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: 17. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court therefore take note of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties. 18. Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners in the instant batch of petitions submitted that appointments so made in favour of the private Respondents are illegal appointments and not irregular appointments. 18. Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners in the instant batch of petitions submitted that appointments so made in favour of the private Respondents are illegal appointments and not irregular appointments. She submitted that as the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution have been violated by granting appointments to the private Respondents without any advertisement, all the appointments so made in favour of the private Respondents are required to be set aside and quashed. In that regard, the learned counsel referred to the following judgments: (i) State of Bihar and Others Vs. Chandreshwar Pathak reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232 [Paragraph Nos. 11 and 12] (ii) Renu and Others Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi and Another reported in (2014) 14 SCC 50 [Paragraph Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 17] (iii) Suresh Kumar and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others reported in (2003) 10 SCC 276 [Paragraph Nos. 4 and 5] 19. Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel for the Petitioners further submitted that as regards the age relaxation, the Petitioners have no objection if granted to the private Respondents. However, if the private Respondents are granted age relaxations, the Petitioners herein who at the time when the writ petitions were filed were eligible and on account of the delay in disposal, have crossed the age limit, such petitioners should also be granted the benefit of age relaxation. However, the learned counsel objected to any other relaxation as stated in the affidavit filed on 20.08.2024 including the parameters mentioned in Annexure-A. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that as the appointments of the private Respondents are illegal appointments, the question of they being granted any other relaxation would be in violation to the well settled principles of law. 20. Per contra, Mr. K. N. Balagopal, the learned Advocate General of the State of Nagaland fairly submitted that the State ought to have gone for advertisement prior to making the selection and appointment of the private Respondents. He, however, submitted that it is not the case that the private Respondents were not otherwise qualified or did not meet the eligibility criteria. K. N. Balagopal, the learned Advocate General of the State of Nagaland fairly submitted that the State ought to have gone for advertisement prior to making the selection and appointment of the private Respondents. He, however, submitted that it is not the case that the private Respondents were not otherwise qualified or did not meet the eligibility criteria. The selections were held strictly in terms of the selection criteria and pursuant to the appointment of the private Respondents, they have rendered their due service to the State in particular as well as also to various other States during the election process. The learned Advocate General further submitted that the private Respondents have excelled in their services. 21. He submitted that in the present facts merely because of the fact that there was no advertisement, the appointment of the said private Respondents ought not to be looked simply as illegal appointment but taking into account the law and order situation of the State of Nagaland, there is requirement of moulding the reliefs. The learned Advocate General therefore submitted that the State of Nagaland in all fairness have agreed to the case of the Petitioners that the appointments of the private Respondents are required to be interfered with in view of there being no advertisement but at the same time, the said private Respondents who have crossed the age bar are required to be given age relaxation. The learned Advocate General further submitted that 935 Constables if removed immediately without completion of selection process would cause a law and order situation in the State of Nagaland. He submitted that on a reasonable estimate at least five months would be required for filling up the posts of the Constables. In that view of the matter, as these private Respondents would be working during this period while fresh candidates would be preparing, some latitude is required to be given in the form of relaxation/concessions as mentioned in Annexure-A to the affidavit dated 20.08.2024. The learned Advocate General further submitted that most of the private Respondents are in the late twenties, some are in the early thirties and few have just crossed 35 years. He therefore submitted that the relaxations proposed in Annexure-A to the affidavit dated 20.08.2024 would be a reasonable relaxation inasmuch as the private Respondents cannot be clubbed together with the fresh candidates. He therefore submitted that the relaxations proposed in Annexure-A to the affidavit dated 20.08.2024 would be a reasonable relaxation inasmuch as the private Respondents cannot be clubbed together with the fresh candidates. He therefore submitted that Article 14 of the Constitution mandates parity in treatment under parity of conditions only. 22. On behalf of the private Respondents, the learned counsels adopted the argument of the learned Advocate General and submitted that private Respondents should be granted age relaxation, certain relaxation on account of their service experience as well as they may be permitted to continue till the fresh selections and appointments are made. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION: 23. From the materials on records and the submissions so made, it transpires that the appointments of the private Respondents have been challenged in the instant batch of writ petitions on the ground that they were made without any advertisement. The stand of State Respondents in their affidavits is that in terms of Rule 20 of the Part III of the NP Manual, there is no stipulation of carrying out an advertisement and as such the Respondents have not carried out any advertisement. There is also a stand being taken in the affidavit filed by the State Respondents that without there being a challenge to Rule 20 of Part III of the NP Manual, the Petitioners cannot succeed. The said stand so taken by the State Respondents in their affidavit though later on, as per the submissions of learned Advocate General were not pressed, is required to be dealt with as the same touches upon the adjudication to be made in the instant proceedings. Further, the nature of the appointments so made can only be discerned on the basis of the said analysis. 24. Article 13 of the Constitution states that all laws that are inconsistent with fundamental rights enumerated in Part-III of the Constitution shall be void. Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution mandates that for the purpose of the said Article, “law” includes any Ordinance, Order, Bye Law, Rule, Regulation, Notification, Customs, or Uses having in the territory of India, the force of law. In that view of the matter, the NP Manual which are Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution would be law within the ambit of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution and has to confirm to Part-III of the Constitution. 25. In that view of the matter, the NP Manual which are Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution would be law within the ambit of Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution and has to confirm to Part-III of the Constitution. 25. Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution encompasses an equality code in pursuance of the preambular values of equality of status and opportunity and social justice. Article 14 lays down general principles governing equality by postulating that there must be “equality before law” and “equal protection of law”. Both these expressions are different in content and applicability. The expression “equality before law” means that the same law is required to be applied to those who are similarly situated. The expression “equal protection of law” means amongst equals, law must be equally administered. Therefore, the expression “equal protection of law” casts a positive obligation on the State to ensure that everyone may enjoy equal protection of laws and no one is unfairly denied this protection. 26. Article 16 is a fundamental right which provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The main object of Article 16 is to create a Constitutional Right to equality of opportunity and employment in public offices. The words “employment or appointment” cover not merely the initial appointment but also other attributes of service like promotion and age of superannuation, etc. The Supreme Court in various judgments has held that the appointment to any post under the State can only be made after making a proper advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee where members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of the candidates who applied in response to the advertisement made. 27. The Supreme Court in the case of UPSC Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Others reported in (2006) 2 SCC 482 held that a regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the Employment Exchange where eligible candidates gets their names registered. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela and Others reported in (2006) 2 SCC 482 held that a regular appointment to a post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the Employment Exchange where eligible candidates gets their names registered. It was also observed that any regular appointment made on a post under the State or the Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete, would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution. 28. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Orissa and Another Vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 , the Supreme Court dealt with the question of appointment/employment without advertisement and how the same violates the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was observed that without an advertisement, if appointments made, it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post from being considered which is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Paragraph Nos. 35 and 36 of the said judgment is reproduced herein under: “35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from employment exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, it came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from employment exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in radio and television as merely calling the names from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement of the said article of the Constitution. (Vide Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, Excise Supdt. (Vide Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Admn., State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, Excise Supdt. v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao, Arun Tewari v. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh, Binod Kumar Gupta v. Ram Ashray Mahoto, National Fertilizers Ltd. v. Somvir Singh, Telecom District Manager v. Keshab Deb, State of Bihar v. Upendra Narayan Singh and State of M.P. v. Mohd. Abrahim.) 36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the noticeboard, etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit.” (emphasis supplied to the underlined portion) 29. Taking into account that issuance of an advertisement or calling for applications from eligible candidates is the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution for filling up vacancies of employment under the State, the necessity therefore, is that in order to make Rule 20 of Part III of the NP Manual in consonance with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the aspect of having an advertisement or inviting applications from eligible candidates has to be ingrained to Rule 20 of Part III of the NP Manual. Under such circumstances, this Court therefore in order to save Rule 20 of the Part-III of the NP Manual from being constitutionally invalid, has to read the necessity of issuance of advertisement or inviting applications from eligible candidates as being ingrained in Rule 20 of the Part III of NP Manual. 30. Under such circumstances, this Court therefore in order to save Rule 20 of the Part-III of the NP Manual from being constitutionally invalid, has to read the necessity of issuance of advertisement or inviting applications from eligible candidates as being ingrained in Rule 20 of the Part III of NP Manual. 30. The State of Nagaland had realized during the course of hearing in the present proceedings the said aspect and therefore submitted in their affidavits dated 25.07.2024 and 20.08.2024, the contents of which have been reproduced hereinabove that there is a requirement for carrying out a fresh selection by issuing an advertisement and that the State of Nagaland is ready to cancel all the appointments to the 935 posts which have been put to challenge in the instant proceedings. 31. Now, the next question arises as to whether the State of Nagaland can be permitted to grant relaxation to the private Respondents to the extent sought for. The answer to the said question is to be arrived at on the basis of what was the nature of the appointments which were made in favour of the private Respondents. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Gupta and Others Vs. State of J&K and Others reported in (2004) 8 SCC 253 that an appointment made without any advertisement is an illegal appointment. Such appointed persons though can be granted age relaxation but there cannot be any relaxation in the matter of basic qualifications for appointment. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajoy Debbarma and Others Vs. State of Tripura and Others reported in (2020) 8 SCC 67 which was a case wherein a question arose as to whether after the appointments were found to be illegal and invalid, can any other advantage be conferred upon those candidates concerned. The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed that apart from age relaxation, no other advantages can be conferred upon the candidates concerned. 32. Now, in the above backdrop, the question therefore arises as to whether the relaxations which have been sought for other than age relaxation would be permissible. The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed that apart from age relaxation, no other advantages can be conferred upon the candidates concerned. 32. Now, in the above backdrop, the question therefore arises as to whether the relaxations which have been sought for other than age relaxation would be permissible. The answer has to be in the negative for the following reasons: (a) Article 16 of the Constitution provides that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. The provisions of the Constitution including Article 16 of the Constitution do not enable the State to provide any reservations in the form of relaxation in the case of illegal appointments. (b) Article 14 of the Constitution as observed above mandates equality before law and equal protection of laws. Our Constitution permits substantive equality based on valid classification. To be a valid classification, two conditions are required to be fulfilled. First, there must be an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others left out of the group. The phrase “intelligible differentia” means difference which is capable of being understood and the natural corollary thereof is that the difference is capable of being understood when there is a yardstick to differentiate the class included and others excluded from the group. The second condition is that the differentiation must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved or in other words, the basis of the classification must have a nexus with the object of classification. In the said backdrop, the question rises as to whether the private Respondents can be separately grouped from those candidates who would apply pursuant to the advertisement to be issued. The answer has to be in the negative as no rights are conferred upon any employee on the basis of an illegal appointment. The learned Advocate General though submitted that the private Respondents were selected by applying the proper yardsticks and that the private Respondents had rendered diligent service etc. but when their appointments are illegal being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, the same strikes at the root of their appointments and therefore in the opinion of this Court, they cannot be grouped separately. Further to that, the object sought to be achieved is to appoint constables and not regularize illegal appointments. but when their appointments are illegal being violative of Article 16 of the Constitution, the same strikes at the root of their appointments and therefore in the opinion of this Court, they cannot be grouped separately. Further to that, the object sought to be achieved is to appoint constables and not regularize illegal appointments. (c) Thirdly, Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 20 of Part-II of the NP Manual reads as follows: “3. Recruits should possess sufficient intelligence and physique necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of a constable. The physical standard should be reasonably fixed in reference to the physical strain entailed in the performance of ordinary police duty and in reference to the physical characteristics of the people with whom they would have to deal.” A perusal of the above quoted Sub-Rule shows that the recruits should possess sufficient intelligence and physique necessary for the proper discharge of the duties of the Constable. The physical standards are required to be reasonably fixed in reference to the physical strain entailed in the performance of ordinary police duty and in reference to the physical characteristics of the people with whom they would have to deal. A perusal of Annexure-A as quoted in the earlier segment of this judgment would show that the departmental criteria had been fixed. The learned Advocate General submitted that the private Respondents ought to be selected as per the proposed criteria and not the departmental criteria on account of they having advanced in age and would not be able to prepare for the selection as they would be required to carry out their duties during this period prior to the fresh selection whereas the candidates applying for the first time would have the time to prepare and would be younger in age. The submissions so made, in the opinion of this Court is misconceived as the requirement to meet the departmental criteria of physical activities is a necessity and essential eligibility criteria. The same cannot be relaxed as it would violate the mandate of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 20 of Part III of the N.P. Manual. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the appointments to be made are for Police Constables and not meeting the basic eligibility criteria would result in inefficiency in Police Forces. The same cannot be relaxed as it would violate the mandate of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 20 of Part III of the N.P. Manual. This Court also cannot be unmindful of the fact that the appointments to be made are for Police Constables and not meeting the basic eligibility criteria would result in inefficiency in Police Forces. This Court is also of the opinion that the submission that the private Respondents having advanced in age would not be able to compete with fresh candidates is also misconceived and a too narrow approach taken by the State Respondents inasmuch as pursuant to the fresh advertisement, all eligible candidate between the age of 18 to 35 years would be entitled to participate in the fresh selection. It cannot be conceived as submitted by the learned Advocate General that only candidates of 18 years would participate pursuant to the advertisement to be issued. Under such circumstances, the relaxation sought for on the basis of Annexure-A to the affidavit dated 20.08.2024 would be amount to relaxing the basic qualification or the essential eligibility criteria which is not permissible. 33. Accordingly, the question of granting relaxation as sought for in terms with Annexure-A to the affidavit dated 20.08.2024, other than age relaxation, is not permissible. 34. This Court had duly taken note of that with the setting aside and quashing of the appointments of the private Respondents, a void would be caused to the Police Forces of the State of Nagaland for maintaining the law and order situation. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that till a certain period, the State of Nagaland may be permitted to continue with the services of the private Respondents. The private Respondents however would have the option to continue in the service during this limited period of time or opt for preparing for the fresh selections to be held. 35. This Court enquired with the learned Advocate General of the State of Nagaland as to how much time would be required for completion of the fresh selection process. The learned Advocate General submitted that within a period of 5 (five) months, the fresh selection process can be completed. CONCLUSIONS: 36. 35. This Court enquired with the learned Advocate General of the State of Nagaland as to how much time would be required for completion of the fresh selection process. The learned Advocate General submitted that within a period of 5 (five) months, the fresh selection process can be completed. CONCLUSIONS: 36. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant batch of writ petitions with the following observations and directions: (i) The appointments which have been challenged in the instant writ petitions, i.e. 935 posts of Constables who were appointed during the period from January, 2018 to October, 2019 by the State of Nagaland without advertisement are all set aside and quashed. The appointment orders enclosed as Annexures referred to in Paragraph No.3 of the instant judgment are set aside and quashed. (ii) The State Respondents herein are directed to take steps for holding fresh selection of the 935 posts of Constables by issuance of advertisement in newspapers which are well circulated in the State of Nagaland. The said selection be held in accordance with law. (iii) The process of selection be completed at the earliest and preferably within 6 (six) months from the date of the instant judgment. (iv) The private Respondents herein whose appointments have been set aside by this judgment would be eligible to participate in the fresh selection process. (v) The upper age limit of both the private Respondents as well as the Petitioners herein shall be given relaxation. However, there shall be no relaxation in the matter of basic qualifications as well as the Departmental physical criteria mentioned in Annexure-A to the affidavit dated 20.08.2024. (vi) This Court had rejected the concession/relaxation as sought for in terms with Annexure-A of the affidavit dated 20.08.2024. (vii) The private Respondents may be allowed by the State Respondents to continue in-service for a period of 6 (six) months from the date of the instant judgment or till such time fresh appointments are made pursuant to the selection directed hereinabove, whichever is earlier.