JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Ms. Z. Zhimoni, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 15; Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland along with Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent no. 16; and Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 17 to 20. 2. The instant review petition is filed by the two review petitioners viz. [i] Viboto H Sumi; and [ii] Keneilekho Sophie, seeking review / recall / modification of a Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023. 3. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 was preferred by fifteen nos. of writ petitioners, who are arrayed in this review petition as respondent nos. 1 to 15, challenging appointments of forty nos. of Sub-Inspector of Police [SI]/Unarmed Branch Sub-Inspector of Police [UBSI]/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police [ASI]/Instructor Havildar in Nagaland Police by the State respondent authorities on different dates in the years, 2019 and 2020, vide Orders of Appointments, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-B to Annexure-B-37. The said alleged forty illegal appointees were impleaded as party-respondent no. 6 to party-respondent no. 45 in the said writ petition. Amongst them, the present review petitioners were impleaded as the party-respondent no. 44 and the party-respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 and in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023, their Order of Appointment dated 07.01.2019 [annexed as Annexure-B-37 to the writ petition] was inter-alia challenged. 4. The writ petition came up for final consideration on 26.09.2024 and on that day, the learned counsel for the parties including the learned counsel who represented the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45, were heard. During the hearing, it is found that no counter affidavit was filed either by the official respondents or by the private respondents. It was submitted on behalf of both the official respondents and the private respondents that the comprehensive affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022, involving similar issues, would also cover the issues involved in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023. 5. The primary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 was that the appointments of the respondent nos. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022, involving similar issues, would also cover the issues involved in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023. 5. The primary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 was that the appointments of the respondent nos. 6 to 45 were made without any advertisement and without any kind of recruitment process and the appointments were in complete violation of the principles enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties; upon perusal of the materials on record; and after taking into consideration the common Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2024 passed in the batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 and W.P.[C] no. 199/2022, this Court has reached a finding that the appointments of the respondent no. 6 to 45 were made without being preceded by any public advertisement and any kind of selection process. 7. Consequently, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 was disposed of with the following observations and directions. 15. In the above facts and circumstances obtaining in the case in hand, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and directions. [i] The appointments of the respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 45, challenged in the writ petition, to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police [SI]/Unarmed Branch Sub-Inspector of Police [UBSI]/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police [ASI]/Instructor Havildar who were appointed on different dates in the years 2019 and 2020, as reflected in their Orders of Appointments, which are annexed as Annexure-B to Annexure-B-37 to this writ petition, by the State respondent authorities without any advertisement are all set aside and quashed. The Orders of Appointments of the respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 45 enclosed as Annexure-B to B-37 are set aside and quashed. [ii] The State respondents are directed to take steps for holding fresh selection of the posts of Sub-Inspector of Police [SI]/Unarmed Branch Sub-Inspector of Police [UBSI]/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police [ASI]/Instructor Havildar, which become vacant due to setting aside and quashing of the orders of appointment issued in respect of the respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 45, by issuance of advertisement in newspapers which are widely circulated throughout the State of Nagaland. The said selection be held in accordance with law. 6 to respondent no. 45, by issuance of advertisement in newspapers which are widely circulated throughout the State of Nagaland. The said selection be held in accordance with law. It is further observed that the process of recruitment shall be conducted following the principles enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. [iii] The process of selection shall be completed at the earliest and preferably within 6 [six] months from the date of the present order. [iv] The respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 45 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 the respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 45 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. As held in the common Judgment and order dated 20.09.2024 [supra], there shall be no concession/relaxation as sought for in terms with Annexure-A of the affidavit filed by the State of Nagaland on 20.08.2024 in the batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022, this Court likes to observe in similar manner, though the affidavit dated 20.08.2024 is not part of the records of this case. [vi] The respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 45 may be allowed by the State respondents to continue in-service for a period of 6 [six] months from the date of the instant order or till such time fresh appointments are made pursuant to the selection directed hereinabove, whichever is earlier. [vii] It is further observed that during the continuance of service of the respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 45 as observed in para [vi] above, they are required to maintain discipline required on the part of the members of the Nagaland Police Force and in case of any act of indiscipline on their part, the State respondent authorities would be at liberty to deal with such act of indiscipline in accordance with law. 8. Mr. Pongener, learned counsel for the review petitioners herein has submitted that there was some kind of miscommunication between him and his clients, that is, the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45. He has submitted that though it was represented to him that the appointments of the respondent no. 8. Mr. Pongener, learned counsel for the review petitioners herein has submitted that there was some kind of miscommunication between him and his clients, that is, the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45. He has submitted that though it was represented to him that the appointments of the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45 were preceded by an advertisement and a recruitment process, no document supporting such facts was furnished to him at a time prior to the date of hearing. As a result, he could not represent on the date of hearing that the fact situation relating to the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45, that is, the two review petitioners herein, were different from fact situation obtaining as regards the appointments of the other private respondents, that is, the respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 43 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023. It was in view of such omission on his part, the Court had recorded in Paragraphs 10 & 14 of the Judgment and Order, sought to be reviewed, that there was no distinguishing feature between the private respondents in the batch of writ petition, W.P[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022 and the private respondent nos. 6 to 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023. 8.1. Referring to the documents annexed to this review petition, Mr. Pongener has submitted that the two review petitioners were appointed as Sub-Inspector and Instructor Havildar respectively by an Order dated 07.01.2019 passed by the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland after publication of an advertisement in the newspaper and after a duly completed recruitment process and their appointment order dated 07.01.2019 was different from the appointment orders issued in respect of the respondent no. 6 to the respondent no. 43. 8.2. It has been averred in this review petition that an Advertisement was published by the Office of the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland in an English newspaper, ‘Nagaland Post’ in its issue dated 04.10.2018 [Annexure-B-1] inviting applications for filling up a vacancy in the post of Sub-Inspector [SI] and a vacancy in the post of Instructor Havildar. It was in response to the said Advertisement, the two review petitioners herein submitted their candidatures. The two review petitioners were thereafter, short-listed and were asked to undergo medical test, physical test, followed by written examination and oral interview. It was in response to the said Advertisement, the two review petitioners herein submitted their candidatures. The two review petitioners were thereafter, short-listed and were asked to undergo medical test, physical test, followed by written examination and oral interview. It has been averred that by a Circular dated 06.11.2018 of the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland, annexed to this review petition as Annexure-B-2, 116 nos. of candidates were short-listed to undergo physical test for Sub-Inspector [SI] and 14 nos. of candidates were short-listed to undergo physical test for Instructor Havildar. In the said Circular, the name of the review petitioner no. 1 figured at serial no. 90 in the list short-listed for Sub-Inspector [SI] and the name of the review petitioner no. 2 figured at serial no. 6 in the list prepared for the post of Instructor Havildar. The two review petitioners had qualified in the physical test as well as in the medical test. Thereafter, they were declared successful in the written examination as well. It is evident from an Order dated 06.11.2018, annexed as Annexure-B-4 to the review petition, that a Board was constituted for the purpose of conducting medical test, physical test, written examination and oral interview pursuant to the Advertisement dated 04.10.2018. After conclusion of the recruitment process including the oral interview, the two review petitioners herein were found to have fulfilled all the parameters laid down in the recruitment process and the results were published in an English daily newspaper, ‘Nagaland Post’ in its issue dated 16.12.2018 [Annexre-B-6] wherein the names of the two review petitioners were published as recommended candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector and Instructor Havildar. It was thereafter, by the impugned Order dated 07.01.2019 [Annexure-B-37], the two review petitioners came to be appointed by the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland. 9. Mr. Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the official respondent nos. 17 to 20 who also appeared for the respondent no. 2 to 5 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023, has submitted that initially, he was not representing those respondents and he was handed over the brief at a later point of time. At the time of handing over the brief, verbal instructions were placed before him to the effect that the respondent no. 2 to 5 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023, has submitted that initially, he was not representing those respondents and he was handed over the brief at a later point of time. At the time of handing over the brief, verbal instructions were placed before him to the effect that the respondent no. 6 to 45 were appointed in similar manner and thus, the issue involved in the batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 and W.P.[C] no. 199/2022 were same. It was in such fact situation, he made his submissions basing on the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate General in the said batch of writ petitions. 9.1. Mr. Sangtam, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland has also submitted in similar lines as Mr. Jamir. 9.2. Mr. Jamir has further submitted that written instructions were sent from the official respondents to the then Government Advocate who represented the respondent nos. 2 to 5 earlier, wherein it was mentioned that the appointment of the respondent nos. 44 and the respondent no. 45 was preceded by an advertisement and a duly conducted selection process. As the said written instructions were not handed over to him at the time of handing over the brief to represent the respondent nos. 2 to 5 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023, he could not place and apprise the Court about the said instructions at the time of hearing of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 on 26.09.2024. In essence, it was due to miscommunication he could not place proper instructions at the time of hearing. 9.3. Ms. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 15 who represented the petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023, has fairly submitted that the instructions were placed before her to the effect that the appointments challenged in the batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022 as well as in W.P.[C] no. 318/2023, were all illegal as no advertisement was ever published by the State respondent authorities prior to making those appointments and no recruitment process was undertaken for such appointments. It was in such situation, submissions were advanced at the time of hearing that all the appointments were illegal. Ms. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022 as well as in W.P.[C] no. 318/2023, were all illegal as no advertisement was ever published by the State respondent authorities prior to making those appointments and no recruitment process was undertaken for such appointments. It was in such situation, submissions were advanced at the time of hearing that all the appointments were illegal. Ms. Zhimomi has further submitted that after having a look at the annexures appended to this review petition, it appears prima facie that the appointments of the two review petitioners herein were preceded by an advertisement published in the newspaper and a selection process consisted of medical test, physical test, written examination and oral interview. But the fact, Ms. Zhimomi has submitted, can only be ascertained from the relevant records. It has been submitted by Mr. Zhimomi that if upon examination of the records it is found that the two review petitioners were validly appointed then appropriate order modifying / rectifying the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 can be passed. 10. I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. I have also gone through the statements and averments made in the review petition and in the affidavit as well as the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 20, including the annexures appended thereto. 11. Mr. Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 17 – 20 has also produced one file, File no. HG/Estt[A]-1/2016 containing the records pertaining to the recruitment process, which led to the appointments of the two review petitioners on 07.01.2019 in the posts of Sub-Inspector and Instructor Havildar respectively. 12. The writ petition was considered and disposed of by taking into consideration the settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad-hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. This Court had taken into consideration the settled proposition that if any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board, etc. the same would not meet the recruitment of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court had taken into consideration the settled proposition that if any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board, etc. the same would not meet the recruitment of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The reason being that such a course violates the mandates contained in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the posts, from the benefit of participating in the process of recruitment, meaning thereby, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these mandates is not entitled to any relief including salary. The Court has considered the observations made in Paragraph no. 35 and Paragraph no. 36 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mahanty, [2011] 3 SCC 436, wherein it is held that for a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the constitutional requirements embodied in Article 14 and Article 16 is to be fulfilled and 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. The decision in Binod Kumar Gupta and others vs. Ram Ashray Mahoto and others, [2005] 4 SCC 209, has also been referred to wherein it has been observed that continuance of illegal appointees cannot be allowed merely because they had been found working for the last fifteen years as the same would amount to condoning a gross irregularity in their initial appointments. 13. This Court thereafter, proceeded to hold that it was an admitted case of the parties that the orders of appointment of the respondent no. 6 – 45 in the writ petition, were made without any kind of advertisement and without following the principles which emanate from Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. As there was no advertisement and no selection process the acts of non-advertisement and not holding any selection process had deprived all the eligible candidates including the petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023, to submit their candidatures for the vacancies in question. Finding such action on the part of the State respondent authorities leading to the appointments of the respondent nos. 317/2023, to submit their candidatures for the vacancies in question. Finding such action on the part of the State respondent authorities leading to the appointments of the respondent nos. 6 – 45 therein in clear violation of the principles enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, this Court proceeded to make the observations and directions, extracted in Paragraph no. 7 hereinabove in this Order. 14. In view of the grounds urged in this review petition on behalf of the two review petitioners and, more or less, supported by the respondents to this review petition, this Court finds it appropriate to consider the case projected by the respondents, more particularly, the respondent no. 20 in the affidavit and the additional affidavit filed in this review petition. 15. It has emerged from the affidavit and the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 20 in this review proceeding and from the documents available in File no. HG/Estt[A]-1/2016 that the Office of the Director General of Home Guards & Civil Defence, Government of Nagaland vide its Official Letter no. HG/Estt.[A]-I/2016/662 enclosing a copy of the specimen Advertisement, requested the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relation, Nagaland for publication of the said Advertisement in esteemed daily newspapers published in the State about the recruitment process initiated for one post of Sub-Inspector and one post of Instructor Havildar in the Department. 15.1. Pursuant to the Official Letter dated 01.10.2018, the Advertisement came to be published in the English Daily Newspaper, ‘Nagaland Post’ in its issue dated 04.10.2018. The relevant excerpts of the said Advertisement are as follows : ADVERTISEMENT Applications are hereby invited from eligible Male / Female candidates from Indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland belonging to any Naga Tribes including Kuki, Kachari and Garo Tribes for filling up the under mentioned post under Director General Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland, Kohima in the manner prescribed below : Sl. no. Name of post No. of vacancy Educational qualification Scale of pay 1. Sub-Inspector 1 [one] Bachelor’s Degree 7th ROP 2017 Pay Matrix level-8 2. Inspector Havildar 1 [one] Bachelor’s Degree 7th ROP 2017 Pay Matrix level-5 Relaxation in Educational Qualification : HSSLC Passed for Backward Tribes for the post of Instructor Havildar. Age limits Minimum – 21 years, Maximum – 35 years. Sub-Inspector 1 [one] Bachelor’s Degree 7th ROP 2017 Pay Matrix level-8 2. Inspector Havildar 1 [one] Bachelor’s Degree 7th ROP 2017 Pay Matrix level-5 Relaxation in Educational Qualification : HSSLC Passed for Backward Tribes for the post of Instructor Havildar. Age limits Minimum – 21 years, Maximum – 35 years. Note: [a] Recruitment test consisting of Medical Test, Physical Test, Written Test or Oral [for those passing Physical & Written Test] will be conducted by a Recruitment Board with the representative from Home & P&AR Department. 15.2. After publication of the Advertisement, the Director General of Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland by an Order dated 06.11.2018, constituted a Board for the purpose of conducting Medical Test, Physical Test, Written Test or Oral [for those passing Physical & Written Test] as per the Advertisement for recruitment to the two posts so advertised, at the Central Training Institute, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Toluvi, Dimapur from 09-00 a.m. onwards on 13.12.2018. The Board so constituted by the Order dated 06.11.2018, comprised of the following members : 1. Chairman Commandant General, Home Guards & CD. 2. Member Representative from Home Department. 3. Member Representative from P&AR. 4. Member Commandant, CTI, Home Guards & CD. 5. Member Secy. Senior Staff Officer Home Guards & CD. 15.3. On 06.11.2018, the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland published a Circular no. HG/ESTT[A]-1/16/758 publishing the names of the applicants, whose applications were accepted for undergoing Medical Test, Physical Test, Written Test or Oral [for those passing Physical & Written Test] to be held from 09-00 a.m. onwards on 13.12.2018 for recruitment for the two posts – one post of Sub-Inspector and one post of Instructor Havildar. The Circular also contained the names of the applicants whose candidatures were rejected. From the Circular, it is noticed that candidatures of 116 nos. of applicants were accepted for undergoing the tests for the post of Sub-Inspector and candidatures of 14 nos. of applicants were accepted for undergoing the tests for the post of Instructor Havildar. 15.4. On 06.11.2018, the Office of the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland vide its Letter no. of applicants were accepted for undergoing the tests for the post of Sub-Inspector and candidatures of 14 nos. of applicants were accepted for undergoing the tests for the post of Instructor Havildar. 15.4. On 06.11.2018, the Office of the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland vide its Letter no. HG/Estt[A]-1/2016/756 enclosing a copy of the Advertisement requested the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relation, Nagaland for publication of the Advertisement in the daily newspapers published in the State calling for the candidates for Medical Test, Physical Test, Written Test or Oral Test, whose applications were accepted. 15.5. Pursuant to the Letter dated 06.11.2018, the Advertisement came to be published in the English Daily Newspaper, ‘Nagaland Post’ in its issue dated 07.11.2018. The Advertisement read as under : GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL HOME GUARDS & CIVIL DEFENCE NAGALAND, KOHIMA Dated Kohima the 7th Nov, 2018 ADVERTISEMENT NO.HG/Estt[A]-1/2016/ : In continuation to this Department advertisement dated 04.10.2018, for recruitment to S.I & Havildar under Home Guards & Civil Defence, candidates whose applications are accepted are hereby called to undergo Medical Test, Physical Test, Written Test & Oral [for those passing Medical Test, Physical Test & Written Test] on the date, venue & time given below : 1. Date 13.12.2018 2. Venue Central Training Institute Home Guards & Civil Defence, Toluvi, Dimapur. 3. Time 09-00 AM onwards. 4. No TA/DA shall be admissible to the candidates. 5. The list of the accepted and rejected applicants is displayed in the Office Notice Board and can also be download from the office web site www.hgcd.nagaland.gov.in during office hours. I. TOSHITSUNGBA AIER, IPS Director General 15.6. The Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland by another Order dated 27.11.2018 in continuation of his earlier Order dated 06.11.2018, re-constituted the Board with the following members for the purpose of conducting Medical Test, Physical Test, Written Test & Oral [for those passing Medical Test, Physical Test & Written Test] : 1. Chairman Commandant General, Home Guards & CD. 2. Member Representative from Home Department. 3. Member Representative from P&AR. 4. Member Commandant, CTI, Home Guards & CD. 5. Member Secy. District Commandant, Home Guards & CD, Dimapur. 15.7. Chairman Commandant General, Home Guards & CD. 2. Member Representative from Home Department. 3. Member Representative from P&AR. 4. Member Commandant, CTI, Home Guards & CD. 5. Member Secy. District Commandant, Home Guards & CD, Dimapur. 15.7. The re-constituted Board after completion of the Medical Test, Physical Test, Written Test or Oral Test for the two posts – one post of Sub-Inspector and one post of Instructor Havildar, held on 13.12.2018, recorded its findings in the form of Minutes as under : 1. All together 61 candidates including 3 women candidates reported for the recruitment. 2. 33 candidates were rejected on physical test which is indicated below :- [a] Height 2 [b] Pull-Up 1 [c] High Jump 5 [d] Long Jump 5 [e] Running 20 3. 24 S.I. candidates and 4 Havildar candidates sat for the written test. 4. Three candidates each from the S.I. and Havildar were shortlisted for the oral interview. Sub-Inspector Havildar 1. Achem Konyak 1. Yhunkvulo Tep 2. Mhao S. Ovung 2. Keneilekho Sophie 3. Vihoto H. Sumi 3. Keneizolie Sopfu 5. The following candidates were selected based on merit Sub-Inspector Havildar 1. Vihoto H. Sumi 1. Keneizolie Sopfu 6. All possible measures were taken to ensure fair conduct of recruitment. 15.8. The Board thereafter, forwarded the results of the recruitment process to the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland by a Letter dated 14.12.2018 issued under the hand of the Commandant General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland, Kohima. As per the said Letter, the name of Sri Viboto H. Sumi [the review petitioner no. 1] holding Chest no. 13, was recommended for the post of Sub-Inspector and the name of Sri Kenelekho Sophie [the review petitioner no. 2] holding Chest no. 53, was recommended for the post of Instructor Havildar. It was stated that all parameters of the selection process were fulfilled. By the Letter dated 14.12.2018, all related documents pertaining to the Selection Process were also forwarded. 15.9. The Office of the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland vide its Letter no. HG/ESTT[A]-1/2016/844 dated 14.12.2018 by enclosing a copy of the results of recruitment, requested the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relation, Nagaland for publication of the same in the daily newspapers published in the State. 15.10. 15.9. The Office of the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland vide its Letter no. HG/ESTT[A]-1/2016/844 dated 14.12.2018 by enclosing a copy of the results of recruitment, requested the Director, Directorate of Information and Public Relation, Nagaland for publication of the same in the daily newspapers published in the State. 15.10. Pursuant to the Letter dated 14.12.2018, the following Advertisement came to be published in the English Daily Newspaper, ‘Nagaland Post’ in its issue dated 16.12.2018 : GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL HOME GUARDS & CIVIL DEFENCE NAGALAND, KOHIMA RESULT Dated, Kohima the Dec. 2018 NO.HG/ESTT[A]-1/2016/ : In continuation to this Department advertisement dated 04.10.2018 on the basis of the total marks secured in the physical test, written test and oral test, the following candidates are recommended for appointment to the post as mentioned below : Sl. No. Name Recommended to the post of 1 Viboto H. Sumi Sub-Inspector 2 Keneilekho Sophie Instructor Havildar Sd/- I. TOSHITSUNGBA AIER, IPS Director General 15.11. Thereafter, the following order came to be passed by the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland : GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL HOME GUARDS & CIVIL DEFENCE NAGALAND, KOHIMA ORDER : Dated, Kohima the 7th Jan, 2018 NO.HG/ESTT[A]-1/2016/: On having been declared successful in the recruitment test conducted by Recruitment Board on 13.12.2018, the following are hereby appointed to the post as mentioned below with all other allowances as are admissible from time to time with effect from 01.01.2019 [FN] Sl. No. Name Designation Appointed against Scale of Pay Place of posting 1 Shri. VIBOTO H. SUMI Asst. to District Commandant [S.I.] Lt. S. Hetoi 7th ROP Pay Matrix level-8 Phek 2 Shri. KENEILEKHO SOPHIE Instructor Havildar Maongkaba [promoted] 7th ROP Pay Matrix level-5 CTI, Dimapur 2. Other service conditions which are not specified in this order will be governed by the existing Rules/Orders issued by the Governor from time to time. Sd/- [I. TOSHITSUNGBA AIER], IPS Director General 16. In view of the above statements and averments made in the affidavit and the additional affidavit of the respondent no. 20, the records of the recruitment process, in original, contained in File no. HG/Estt[A]-1/2016 [produced by Mr. Jamir] leading to the appointments of the two review petitioners viz. Sri Viboto H. Sumi [the review petitioner no. 1] and Sri Keneilekho Sophie [the review petitioner no. 20, the records of the recruitment process, in original, contained in File no. HG/Estt[A]-1/2016 [produced by Mr. Jamir] leading to the appointments of the two review petitioners viz. Sri Viboto H. Sumi [the review petitioner no. 1] and Sri Keneilekho Sophie [the review petitioner no. 2] on 07.01.2019, are perused. On perusal, it is found that the statements and averments made in the affidavit and the additional affidavit of the respondent no. 20, extracted above, tally with the records of the proceedings relating to the recruitment process leading to their appointments on 07.01.2019. The original copies of the daily newspapers, referred above, are also found in the File. 17. It is true that nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India precludes a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. It is true that there are limits to the exercise of power of review. The power of review may be exercised to the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. The power may also be exercised where some mistakes or error apparent on the face of the record is found. It may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, the power of review is not to be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit as that would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the court wherefrom the appealable order has arisen. 18. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the court wherefrom the appealable order has arisen. 18. The learned counsel for the parties have referred to the decisions in [i] Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club, [2005] 4 SCC 741; [ii] Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, [2013] 8 SCC 320; [iii] Rafiq and another vs. Munshilal and another, [1981] 2 SCC 788; [iv] Ramkumar Gupta and others vs. Har Prasad and another, [2010] 1 SCC 391; [v] State of Rajasthan and another vs. Surendra Mohnot and others, [2014] 14 SCC 77; and [vi] S. Nagaraj and others vs. State of Karnataka and another, 1993 Supp [4] SCC 595. 18.1. In Board of Control for Cricket in India [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : 89. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. 90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words ‘sufficient reason’ in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’. 18.2. In Kamlesh Verma [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : Summary of the principles 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute : 20.1. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine ‘actus curiae neminem gravabit’. 18.2. In Kamlesh Verma [supra], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under : Summary of the principles 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute : 20.1. When the review will be maintainable : [i] Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; [ii] Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; [ii] Any other sufficient reason. The words ‘any other sufficient reason’ have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112 ] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [ AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520 ] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [ (2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: [i] A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. [ii] Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. [iii] Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. [iv] Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. [v] A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. [vi] The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. [vii] The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. [viii] The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. [ix] Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 18.3. [viii] The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. [ix] Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 18.3. In Rafiq [supra], the High Court disposed of the appeal preferred by the appellant in the absence of the learned counsel for the appellant. When the appellant became aware of the fact that his appeal has been disposed of in absence of his advocate, he move an application in the High Court to recall the order dismissing his appeal and to permit him to participate in the hearing of the appeal. The said application was rejected by the High Court. In such backdrop, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the following words : 3. The disturbing feature of the case is that under our present adversary legal system where the parties generally appear through their advocates, the obligation of the parties is to select his advocate, brief him, pay the fees demanded by him and then trust the learned Advocate to do the rest of the things. The party may be a villager or may belong to a rural area and may have no knowledge of the court's procedure. After engaging a lawyer, the party may remain supremely confident that the lawyer will look after his interest. At the time of the hearing of the appeal, the personal appearance of the party is not only not required but hardly useful. Therefore, the party having done everything in his power to effectively participate in the proceedings can rest assured that he has neither to go to the High Court to inquire as to what is happening in the High Court with regard to his appeal nor is he to act as a watchdog of the advocate that the latter appears in the matter when it is listed. It is no part of his job. ………. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, …………., the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. ………. What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him would suffer because of the default of his advocate. If we reject this appeal, …………., the only one who would suffer would not be the lawyer who did not appear but the party whose interest he represented. The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that the party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent. The answer obviously is in the negative. …………. However, we cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted. Therefore, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court both dismissing the appeal and refusing to recall that order. ………. 18.4. In Ramkumar Gupta [supra], the High Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution and rejected the application for restoration of the writ petition on condonation of delay in filing the same. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants filed special leave petitions. Considering the fact that the appellants were diligently prosecuting the litigation for a long period and there was no lapse on their part till the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and also considering the fact that a lawyer was engaged by them to contest the matter in the High Court who could not be present at the time the writ petition was taken up for hearing, it was held that it would be improper that the appellants should be punished for non-appearance of the learned counsel for the appellants at that time and the appellants had suffered injustice merely because their chosen advocate had defaulted. By setting aside the impugned order, the writ petition was restored to its original file. 19. It is clear that at the time of hearing the writ petition, none of the learned counsel for the parties, either from the petitioners’ side or from the respondents’ sides, had submitted to the effect that the review petitioner no. 1 [the respondent no. 44 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023] and the review petitioner no. 2 [the respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023] were appointed after a recruitment process initiated by publication of an advertisement and the recruitment process included Medical Test, Physical Test, Written Test and Interview. 1 [the respondent no. 44 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023] and the review petitioner no. 2 [the respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023] were appointed after a recruitment process initiated by publication of an advertisement and the recruitment process included Medical Test, Physical Test, Written Test and Interview. After having perused the records pertaining to the recruitment process initiated and conducted by the Office of the Director General of Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland pertaining to the two posts – one post of Sub-Inspector and one post of Instructor Havildar – in the said Directorate and the facts emerging from the affidavit and the additional affidavit, as discussed in Paragraph no. 15 above, this Court is of the view that the review petitioner no. 1 and the review petitioner no. 2 came to be appointed in their respective posts of Sub-Inspector and Instructor Havildar by the impugned Order dated 07.01.2019 [Annexure-B-37 to the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023], after publication of an advertisement and a valid selection process, held in conformity with the constitutional principles embodied in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Had the above factual position been asserted at the time of hearing of the writ petition by the parties, the Order of appointment dated 07.01.2019 [Annexure-B-37 to the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 317/2023] in respect of the two review petitioners [the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.(C) no. 317/2023] would not have been interfered with. It is evident that at the time of hearing the writ petition, the learned counsel for the parties had failed to canvass the correct picture and it was a case default on their part. 20. In the three-Judge decision in S. Nagaraj [supra], the Government filed four affidavits but failed to apprise the Court timely of correct facts which resulted into injustice to a set of employees. In that context, the following observations were made : 18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. If the Court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of the Court. In Administrative Law the scope is still wider. Technicalities apart if the Court is satisfied of the injustice then it is its constitutional and legal obligation to set it right by recalling its order. Here as explained, the Bench of which one of us [Sahai, J.] was a member did commit an error in placing all the stipendiary graduates in the scale of First Division Assistants due to State's failure to bring correct facts on record. But that obviously cannot stand in the way of the Court correcting its mistake. Such inequitable consequences as have surfaced now due to vague affidavit filed by the State cannot be permitted to continue. 19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or re-consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai [ AIR 1941 FC 1 , 2 : 1940 FCR 78 : (1941) 1 MLJ Supp 45] the Court observed that even though no rules had been framed permitting the highest Court to review its order yet it was available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Court approved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh [(1836) 1 Moo PC 117 : 2 MIA 181 : 1 Sar 175] that an order made by the Court was final and could not be altered : … nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the judgments, by errors have been introduced, these Courts possess, by Common law, the same power which the Courts of record and statute have of rectifying the mistakes which have crept in …. The House of Lords exercises a similar power of rectifying mistakes made in drawing up its own judgments, and this Court must possess the same authority. The Lords have however gone a step further, and have corrected mistakes introduced through inadvertence in the details of judgments; or have supplied manifest defects in order to enable the decrees to be enforced, or have added explanatory matter, or have reconciled inconsistencies. Basis for exercise of the power was stated in the same decision as under : It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended in such cases is mainly owing to the natural desire prevailing to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court of last resort, where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard and an order has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard. Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality. When the Constitution was framed the substantive power to rectify or recall the order passed by this Court was specifically provided by Article 137 of the Constitution. Our Constitution-makers who had the practical wisdom to visualise the efficacy of such provision expressly conferred the substantive power to review any judgment or order by Article 137 of the Constitution. And clause [c] of Article 145 permitted this Court to frame rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment or order may be reviewed. In exercise of this power Order XL had been framed empowering this Court to review an order in civil proceedings on grounds analogous to Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The expression, ‘for any other sufficient reason’ in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. Apart from Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules this Court has the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of Court. The Court is thus not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for sake of justice. 21. While dealing with the jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, reported in [1979] 4 SCC 389, has observed as under : 3. …. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab [ AIR 1963 SC 1909 ] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. 22. As the appointments of the two review petitioners are found to have been made in conformity with Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, allowing the order passed in connection with their such appointments made vide Order of appointment dated 07.01.2019 [Annexure-B-37 to the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023] to stand any further would result in miscarriage of justice. 23. It has been submitted at the Bar that save and except the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023, that is, the two review petitioners herein, the other private respondents in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023, that is, the respondent no. 6 to the respondent no. 43 have assailed the observations and directions made in connection with their appointments in the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 and the setting aside of their appointments in an intra-court appeal, Writ Appeal no. 27 of 2024 before the Division Bench. It has been further submitted at the Bar that the Division Bench is in seisin of the same, as on date. 24. Ordinarily, when a review of an order passed in a writ petition is sought and after hearing, a case of review is made out then the original order is to be recalled and the writ petition is to be heard again for passing a fresh order. However, in the case in hand, by the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024, the appointments of forty alleged illegal appointees, that is, the respondent no. However, in the case in hand, by the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024, the appointments of forty alleged illegal appointees, that is, the respondent no. 6 to the respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2024 were set aside and quashed. Out of those forty respondents, that is, the respondent no. 6 to the respondent no. 45, only two of them, that is, the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45 as the review petitioner no. 1 and the review petitioner no. 2 have preferred this review petition, whereas, the other respondents, that is, the respondent no. 6 to the respondent no. 43 have preferred the intra-court appeal. In such obtaining fact situation, the only option is for this Court is to recall / modify the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 only in respect of the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2024, that is, the present two review petitioners. 25. In view of the discussion made above and in the fact situation obtaining in respect of the two review petitioners, this Court is of the considered view that in the event the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 is not reviewed in so far as the two review petitioners are concerned, the same would result in miscarriage of justice as the observations and directions made in respect of the two review petitioners as the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45 in the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 and the setting aside of their Order of appointment dated 07.01.2019 [Annexure-B-37 to the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023] would be incongruous to the Constitutional parameters set forth by Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the instant review petition is allowed. 26. In view of the fact that this review petition is allowed, the direction made in sub-para [i] of Paragraph no. 15 of the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 regarding setting aside and quashing of the Order of appointment [Annexure-B-37 to the writ petition] in so far as the two review petitioners herein, that is, the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 is concerned, is recalled. 15 of the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 regarding setting aside and quashing of the Order of appointment [Annexure-B-37 to the writ petition] in so far as the two review petitioners herein, that is, the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 is concerned, is recalled. In other words, the Order of appointment dated 07.01.2019 [Annexure-B-37 to the writ petition] issued by the Director General, Home Guards & Civil Defence, Nagaland, the contents of which are extracted in Paragraph no. 15.11 hereinabove, shall continue to be in force. As a result, the observations and directions made in sub-para [ii] to sub-para [vii] of Paragraph no. 15 of the Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 shall not be applicable to the two review petitioners herein, that is, the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023. 27. This order disposes of the review petition. No cost.