JUDGMENT & ORDER : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. The two writ petitions are being taken up together as they pertain to the same issues and involve the same parties. 2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/29/2020 has submitted that the petition has become infructuous as the respondent no. 4 in WP(C)/29/2020 has expired during the pendency of the writ petition. WP(C)/29/2020 is accordingly disposed of as infructuous. 3. In WP(C)/192/2016, the petitioner has challenged the (i) designation of the post of Systems Analyst as an ex-cadre post under the Directorate of School Education by Notification dated 21.07.2011, (ii) the Corrigendum dated 21.03.2015 barring the petitioner from consideration for further promotion in the Directorate of School Education, and (iii) the final seniority list of employees under the Department of School Education as on 01.10.2015 showing the name of the petitioner in the ex-cadre post category. The petition was initially filed by Mr. Limawabang Aier; however, during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner retired on 31.08.2021 and thereafter expired on 07.03.2024.The present st petitioner/wife of the 1 petitioner filed an application praying for allowing her to pursue the writ proceedings on the ground that if the relief sought for in the petition is allowed, the applicant/wife of the petitioner, who is entitled to the family pension would be getting a higher family pension. Taking into account that the right to sue continues even after the death of the writ petitioner, this Court allowed the application and the present petitioner/wife of the late petitioner was allowed to substitute the first writ petitioner. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned Additional AG, Mr. Imti Imsong for the State respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for respondent no. 4 (R-4). 5. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition is that by a Letter dated 31.03.1988, one post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics), Class-I Gazetted was created in the Directorate of School Education under its Educational Technology Cell (ET Cell) along with some other posts. The said post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) was advertised for recruitment through the Nagaland Public Service Commission. The petitioner applied for the post and was recommended for appointment. Pursuant to the recommendation, by a Notification dated 18.04.1990, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electronics), ET Cell. The said post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) was advertised for recruitment through the Nagaland Public Service Commission. The petitioner applied for the post and was recommended for appointment. Pursuant to the recommendation, by a Notification dated 18.04.1990, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electronics), ET Cell. The petitioner thereafter joined service under the Department of School Education on 18.04.1990. The appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) was equivalent to Grade of Assistant Director. 6. Thereafter, by Notification dated 24.10.2003, the post held by the petitioner was upgraded to Executive Engineer, Class-I Gazetted and re- designated as System Analyst. The post of Executive Engineer/System Analyst was equivalent to the Grade of Deputy Director. 7. In 2011 the Department of School Education undertook an exercise of revamping and restructuring at the Directorate, District, and Sub-Division level. This exercise was undertaken and notified by Notification dated 21.07.2011. In this Notification the post of System Analyst has been categorized as an ex-cadre post. 8. Pursuant to the restructuring Notification dated 21.07.2011, by another Notification dated 02.09.2011 the petitioner along with other officers were allowed officiating promotion/upgradation in various grades. The name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 3 in the Notification dated 02.09.2011 and he is shown promoted to the post of Joint Director. 9. In the year 2012, by Memorandum dated 27.01.2012 the Department published a tentative Seniority List. In this seniority list, the name of the petitioner is at Serial No. 19 in the Grade of Joint Director. 10. In the year 2012, a DPC was convened to consider promotion for Departmental Officers and by Notification dated 14.08.2012, the officiating promotion of the officers in the various grades was regularized. The name of the petitioner figures at Serial No. 10 in the said Notification. Subsequently, by another Notification dated 09.06.2014, the petitioner and another were promoted to the post of Additional Director.The petitioner’s service was confirmed through Notification dated 06.05.2016 confirming his service w.e.f. 01.05.1992. 11. At this point of time, the Department of School Education, while replying to a representation submitted against the petitioner’s promotion by an Association known as All Nagaland School Teachers’ Association (ANSTA), the State respondents vide Letter dated 08.10.2014 stated that Restructuring Notification dated 21.07.2011 could not be read in isolation but should be read with the existing Rules. 11. At this point of time, the Department of School Education, while replying to a representation submitted against the petitioner’s promotion by an Association known as All Nagaland School Teachers’ Association (ANSTA), the State respondents vide Letter dated 08.10.2014 stated that Restructuring Notification dated 21.07.2011 could not be read in isolation but should be read with the existing Rules. The said letter also stated that the petitioner cannot be further promoted in terms of the Notification dated 21.07.2011 and the Rules. 12. Thereafter, the Department of School Education issued impugned Corrigendum dated 21.03.2015. This Corrigendum, clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to further promotion and that the post held by him would be restored as a cadre post when vacated. Thereafter, a final Seniority list of officers in the Department of School Education was issued as on 01.10.2015. In the said seniority list the name of the petitioner is shown at Serial No. 2 in the list of ex-cadre Officers. 13. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted a Representation dated 13.06.2016 to the Commissioner & Secretary, Department of School Education, Government of Nagaland, however, the Representation was not considered. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the Administrative setup in the Department of School Education. It is stated that he was appointed against a regular cadre post and promoted to a regular cadre post. It is submitted that by an Order dated 05.07.2016 the petitioner had also been appointed as State Mission Director under the Nagaland Education Mission Society of Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (Hereinafter referred to as RMSA). It is stated that the RMSA is an integral component of the National Educational Policy and the appointment of the petitioner as the State Mission Director of RMSA underscores the recognition by the State respondents of the petitioner’s competence as only a regular cadre officer can be appointed as Director, RMSA. It is, therefore, unjust and unfair for the State respondents to categorize the petitioner’s service as ex-cadre. It is submitted that the petitioner’s service is covered by the Nagaland School Education Service Revised Rules, 2002 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2002). In terms of the Rules of 2002 the petitioner was promoted at various stages of his career and had reached the post of Additional Director. 15. It is submitted that the petitioner’s service is covered by the Nagaland School Education Service Revised Rules, 2002 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2002). In terms of the Rules of 2002 the petitioner was promoted at various stages of his career and had reached the post of Additional Director. 15. It is submitted that the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) created in the year 1988 is a regular cadre post created for the Department of School Education. The ET Cell is also an integral component of the Department of School Education. At various stages of his career the petitioner was promoted on regular basis against regular cadre post. 16. It is further submitted that notwithstanding the impugned Notification dated 21.07.2011 the petitioner’s service was treated as regular service under the Rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the posts created vide Notification dated 21.07.2011, the petitioner’s post was also upgraded to that of Joint Director from Deputy Director along with several other posts. Going by the Order of promotion against the upgraded posts vide Notification dated 02.09.2011, as many as six posts of Deputy Director were upgraded to that of Joint Director and the petitioner’s post was also among one of them as he was serving as Systems Analyst in the rank of Deputy Director. Subsequently, when the petitioner’s officiating promotion was regularized by Notification dated 14.08.2012 there is no mention that the petitioner’s post is ex-cadre. Even when the petitioner was promoted to the post of Additional Director by the Notification dated 09.06.2014 he was promoted to a cadre post of Additional Director and the Notification does not indicate anywhere that the post of Additional Director to which he was promoted was an ex-cadre post. 17. The petitioner submits that the Nagaland School Education Rules, 2017 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2017) was notified during the pendency of the present writ petition. The petitioner submits that his further promotion to the post of Director is not barred either by the 2002 Rules or the 2017 Rules. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that because of the categorization of the petitioner’s service as ex-cadre by the Corrigendum dated 21.03.2015, the petitioner has been superseded by his juniors as the Corrigendum places an absolute bar on his consideration for further promotion. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that because of the categorization of the petitioner’s service as ex-cadre by the Corrigendum dated 21.03.2015, the petitioner has been superseded by his juniors as the Corrigendum places an absolute bar on his consideration for further promotion. 18. The petitioner further submits that the R-4 Association is an association of Graduate Teachers and they are not affected by the petitioner’s promotion. None of them are entitled to be promoted to the post of Additional Director nor are they within the zone of promotion. If at all, it would be the Officers in the rank of Joint Director who would be aggrieved by the petitioner’s promotion. The petitioner was appointed in the Administrative setup whereas the R-4 Association members are from the teaching cadre. Therefore, the members of the R-4 Association have no locus standi to challenge the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Director or Additional Director. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was promoted to a cadre post prior to the Rules of 2017. It is, therefore, stated that as a regular employee of the Department of School Education, vested rights have accrued to the petitioner from the inception of his service and his service is very much under the Rules of 2002. These rights accrued to him under the Rules of 2002 cannot be taken away by executive instructions/actions in violation of the statutory rules. It is submitted that the impugned Corrigendum dated 21.03.2015 has taken away the vested rights of the petitioner as a regular Government employee covered by the Rules to be considered for further promotion. It is the submission of the petitioner that his post has always been a regular cadre post and it is not an ex-cadre post. 19. The petitioner also submits that the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) was created for the Department of School Education and therefore he was appointed to a cadre post from the inception of his service. Relying on the Rules of 2002, the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the classification of scale of pay of service at Rule 4 of the Rules wherein under Group A, Class-I Gazetted the post of Officer-in-Charge, Educational Technology Cell is one of the cadre post. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is holding an ex-cadre post. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is holding an ex-cadre post. 20. The petitioner has also relied on Rule 3(ii) of the 2002 Rules wherein it is stated that the Rules of 2002 shall apply to persons recruited to the service before the commencement of these Rules. Rule 3 of the 2002 Rules speaks about the persons who will constitute the service under these Rules. The petitioner being appointed before the Rules of 2002 came into force is also part of the service as per Rule 3(ii) of the Rules. 21. Another contention of the petitioner is that the Orders issued by the State Government and their actions are contradictory to the contentions made in the affidavit of the State Government. Moreover, in the additional affidavit filed on 05.06.2018 by the R-4, a copy of the remarks and opinion expressed by the P&AR Department, Government of Nagaland is annexed. In the said remarks, the P&AR Department had stated that the petitioner was promoted to a cadre post of Joint Director and not an ex- cadre post. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government has also, therefore, acknowledged that the petitioner was promoted to a cadre post of Joint Director. It is, therefore, prayed that the Notification dated 21.07.2011 designating the post of System Analyst as an ex-cadre post and the Seniority List as on 01.10.2015 showing the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 2 in the list of ex-cadre officers may be quashed and set aside and the Notification bearing No. DSE/RS/2011 dated 09.06.2014 may be restored. 22. It is, therefore, prayed that the Notification dated 21.07.2011 designating the post of System Analyst as an ex-cadre post and the Seniority List as on 01.10.2015 showing the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 2 in the list of ex-cadre officers may be quashed and set aside and the Notification bearing No. DSE/RS/2011 dated 09.06.2014 may be restored. 22. The petitioner relies on the following authorities in support of his contentions: (i) (1996) 1 SCC 562 in the case of State of Rajasthan Versus Fateh Chand Soni (ii) (1998) 6 SCC 66 in the case of C. Rangaswasmaiah & Others Versus Karnataka Lokayukta & Others (iii) (1998) 8 SCC 469 in the case of K. Kuppuswamy & Another Versus State of Tamil Nadu & Others (iv) (2000) 10 SCC 166 in the case of Balbir Singh Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others (v) (2002) 1 SCC 520 in the case of Pavendra Narayan Verma Versus Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & Another (vi) (2003) 2 SCC 632 in the case of P.U. Joshi & Others Versus Accountant General, Ahmedabad & Others (vii) (2004) 12 SCC 588 in the case of Virender Singh Hooda & Others Versus State of Haryana & Another (viii) 2004 (3) GLT 56 in the case of MalinKantapaul Versus State of Tripura (ix) (2006) 3 SCC 208 in the case of S.N. Chandrashekhar & Another Versus State of Karnataka & Others (x) (2007) 9 SCC 337 in the case of Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Chandigarh Versus Manmohan Singh & Another (xi) (2007) 10 SCC 513 in the case of S.B. Bhattacharjee Versus S.D. Majumdar & Others (xii) 2010 (3) GLT 150 in the case of Loyalakpa Wahengbam Ananta Versus State of Manipur & Others (xiii) (2013) 4 SCC 465 in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Versus State of Maharashtra & Others (xiv) (2014) 8 SCC 644 in the case of Public Service Commission Uttaranchal Versus Jagdish Chandra Singh Bora & Another (xv) (2015) 12 SCC 669 in the case of Anil Joshi & Others Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Others 23. Learned Additional AG, Mr. Imti Imsong appearing for the State respondents relies on the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. Learned Additional AG, Mr. Imti Imsong appearing for the State respondents relies on the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and has submitted that the service conditions of the officers serving in the Department of School Education is governed by the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2002 where the classification of service/sanctioned strength and scale of pay is provided in Schedule-I and the method of recruitment is provided in Rule 7 read with Schedule-II of the Service Rules. In the sanctioned strength and scale of pay of posts under the Department of School Education the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics), ET Cell or the post of Executive Engineer/System Analyst is not shown. 24 . It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed initially as Assistant Engineer (Electronics), ET Cell under the Department of School Education. Subsequently, on 24.10.2003, the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) held by the petitioner was upgraded to that of Executive Engineer and designated as System Analyst. Thereafter, the post of System Analyst held by the petitioner, i.e., Executive Engineer/System Analyst was again upgraded to the rank of Joint Director. The post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics)/Executive Engineer/System Analyst are not regular cadre posts in the service Rules. Therefore, the petitioner’s promotion to the post of Executive Engineer/System Analyst was not done by way of regular promotion but by way of upgradation. The petitioner had accepted this position since his initial appointment and never questioned the non-inclusion of his post in the Service Rules. 25. It is submitted that in the Department of School Education there are several wings, such as Planning and Vocational Education, Health Education, etc. The Officers appointed to such wings are not treated as regular cadre or members of the service under the Department of School Education. Only in the year 2011 by the Notification dated 21.07.2011, the State respondents have restructured the Department of School Education at all levels and thereafter, the Rules of 2017 came into force. 26. Pursuant to the Notification dated 21.07.2011, the post held by the petitioner along with others was upgraded. Therefore, the rights, if, any acquired by the petitioner has to be traced back to the Notification dated 21.07.2011. 26. Pursuant to the Notification dated 21.07.2011, the post held by the petitioner along with others was upgraded. Therefore, the rights, if, any acquired by the petitioner has to be traced back to the Notification dated 21.07.2011. There are two posts of Director in the Department of School Education and the Notification dated 21.07.2011clearly provides that the post of Director shall be filled up by promotion of the senior-most members from among the confirmed members of the service of Higher Secondary Education and School Education/Elementary Education. The petitioner is neither a confirmed member of the service of Higher Education nor of School Education/Elementary Education. As such, the petitioner has no right to claim for further promotion. 27. Learned Additional AG submits that as per the Service Rules there was only one post of Director and one post of Additional Director in the Department of School Education. But by the Notification dated 21.07.2011, the posts of Director and Additional Director were increased to two and four respectively. Out of the four posts of Additional Director,the Annexure-VI to the Notification dated 21.07.2011 provides that one Additional Director post shall be filled by promotion of the senior- most member from amongst the confirmed members of the ex-cadre service of Planning, Health Education and Vocational Education. It further provides that this post of Additional Director will be the last promotional avenue for the members of the ex-cadre service of School Education. Having accepted and having enjoyed the benefit of the Notification dated 21.07.2011 by way of upgradation of his post to Joint Director and further officiating promotion from the post of Joint Director to that of Additional Director, the petitioner cannot turn around and question the validity and legality of the Notification dated 21.07.2011. 28. Learned Additional AG further submits that even assuming but not admitting that the petitioner was promoted to cadre posts of Joint Director and Additional Director, this illegality should not be allowed to be continued by this Court and the post held by the petitioner has to be reverted back upon his retirement to be filled up by cadre officers. Learned Additional AG also submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner is an ex-cadre Officer the impugned Corrigendum dated 21.03.2015, and the impugned seniority list as on 01.10.2015 are in conformity with the Notification dated 21.07.2011, and therefore, they do not warrant the interference of this Court. Learned Additional AG also submits that in view of the fact that the petitioner is an ex-cadre Officer the impugned Corrigendum dated 21.03.2015, and the impugned seniority list as on 01.10.2015 are in conformity with the Notification dated 21.07.2011, and therefore, they do not warrant the interference of this Court. 29. The learned Additional AG has also referred to the affidavit filed by the State respondents on 12.11.2018 in compliance with the Order dated 24.09.2018 passed by this Court. During the pendency of this writ petition this Court vide Order dated 24.09.2018 had directed the Additional AG to submit an affidavit explaining as to why the petitioner has been shown to be a Deputy Director in the Notification dated 02.09.2011. The affidavit was to clarify whether the petitioner had been appointed as a Deputy Director before his officiating promotion to Joint Director vide Notification dated 02.09.2011. The affidavit was to also clarify as to whether the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Director vide Notification dated 02.09.2011 was made from the feeder post of Deputy Director or System Analyst. Further, the affidavit was to also clarify whether the post of Executive Engineer which was re-designated as System Analyst vide Notification dated 24.10.2003 is equivalent to the post of Deputy Director in the Department of School Education as per the Rules of 2002. In pursuance to the Order dated 24.09.2018 the State respondents have filed the aforementioned affidavit. 30. By this affidavit the State respondents have stated that the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) was upgraded to the post of Executive Engineer and designated as Systems Analyst but the said post of Systems Analyst is not one of the regular cadre posts in the Rules of 2002. However, only the pay scale is equivalent to that of Deputy Director. Therefore, basing on the pay scale, the petitioner has been shown to be a Deputy Director in the Notification dated 02.09.2011. In the affidavit, the State respondents have also stated that the petitioner was never appointed as a Deputy Director before his officiating promotion to the post of Joint Director vide Notification dated 02.09.2011 and the post of Executive Engineer/System Analyst was never converted to Deputy Director or re-designated as Deputy Director. 31. In the affidavit, the State respondents have also stated that the petitioner was never appointed as a Deputy Director before his officiating promotion to the post of Joint Director vide Notification dated 02.09.2011 and the post of Executive Engineer/System Analyst was never converted to Deputy Director or re-designated as Deputy Director. 31. The affidavit further stated that the post of Executive Engineer/System Analyst is not a regular cadre post in the Service Rules of 2002 and, therefore, the officiating promotion of the petitioner to the post of Joint Director by Notification dated 02.09.2011 was not made from the feeder post of Deputy Director. The officiating promotion was by way of upgradation of his post in pursuance to Notification dated 21.07.2011 and not as per the provisions of the Service Rules of 2002. It is further stated in the affidavit that the upgraded post of Executive Engineer which was re-designated as System Analyst by Notification dated 24.10.2003 is not a regular cadre post in the Service Rules of 2002, therefore, the post of Systems Analyst/Executive Engineer is not equivalent to the post of Deputy Director in the Department of School Education. Relying on the above statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition as well as the affidavit filed in compliance with the Order of this Court dated 24.09.2018, the learned Additional AG submits that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case and prays that the petition maybe dismissed. 32. Learned counsel for the R-4 Association, Mr. A. Zho submits that members of the R-4 initially joined service as Graduate Teachers in the Department of School Education and are presently working as Administrative Officers in various Grades in the Department of School Education. It is stated that the Department of School Education maintains a seniority list of the entire teaching cadre as per Rule 17 of the 2002 Rules. However, there is no seniority list for the Technical Staff as the petitioner was the only Officer initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in 1990 and subsequently upgraded to the post of Executive Engineer in 2003. Therefore, the name of the petitioner never appeared in the seniority list of Teaching Staff from 1990 to 2011 because the petitioner was appointed against a technical post. 33. Therefore, the name of the petitioner never appeared in the seniority list of Teaching Staff from 1990 to 2011 because the petitioner was appointed against a technical post. 33. Learned counsel submits that under the Department of School Education the Department maintains two seniority lists namely: (i) Officers of Elementary and Secondary Education and (ii) Officers of Higher Secondary Education. The promotional channels for the Teaching Grade are followed as per their seniority position in the seniority list. Since the post held by the petitioner is a technical post he could not have come into the promotional channel of the teaching cadres at any level. In the year 2003 the Assistant Engineer post held by the petitioner was upgraded to Executive Engineer and made personal to him and was also designated as System Analyst. But there is no Order at any point of time by which the post held by the petitioner was re-designated or converted as Deputy Director till 2010. 34. It is further submitted that basing on the Restructuring Policy of 2011, the post of System Analyst came under the Planning Wing as an ex-cadre post and the petitioner was aware of such modifications made on the basis of the Restructuring Policy of 2011. Pursuant to the Notification dated 21.07.2011, by the common promotion order dated 02.09.2011 the petitioner’s post was upgraded to the post of Joint Director which was a post created by the Restructuring Policy of 2011. After being promoted to the post of Joint Director, a post created by the Notification dated 21.07.2011, the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the Restructuring Policy of 2011. 35. Learned counsel for the R-4 submits that the post of Executive Engineer/System Analyst held by the petitioner was shown as “Deputy Director” and the post was upgraded to the rank of Joint Director by the Notification dated 02.09.2011. Use of this nomenclature by the State respondents enabled the petitioner to come to the promotional channel of the cadre officers illegally and against the Rules. The post of Deputy Director is a non-technical post and therefore the post held by the petitioner as Executive Engineer/System Analyst cannot be converted to Deputy Director. 36. Learned counsel also states that the petitioner’s post got upgraded to the post of Joint Director and Additional Director due to the Restructuring Policy of 2011. The post of Deputy Director is a non-technical post and therefore the post held by the petitioner as Executive Engineer/System Analyst cannot be converted to Deputy Director. 36. Learned counsel also states that the petitioner’s post got upgraded to the post of Joint Director and Additional Director due to the Restructuring Policy of 2011. Therefore, the last promotional avenue for the petitioner as per the Policy of 2011 will be the post of Additional Director and he could not claim further promotion. Even going by promotional channel of ex-cadre officers, one Shri Pollem Tep is senior to the petitioner in the rank of Additional Director as per the Seniority List of ex-cadre officers as on 01.10.2015. There is only one post of Additional Director for the ex- cadre category which is presently held by Shri Pollem Tep and therefore the petitioner could not have been promoted to the post of Additional Director before Shri Pollem Tep retired. 37. Learned counsel submits that the R-4 Association consists of members who are now in the rank of Assistant Director, Deputy Director and Joint Director. However, promoting the petitioner to the post of Joint Director and Additional Director against a cadre post has affected the promotional avenues for these members of the R-4 Association. 38. Learned counsel for the R-4 has also submitted that the post of Joint Director to which the post of the petitioner was upgraded was created by the Notification dated 21.07.2011. This is clear from Clause 2 and 3 of the promotion Notification dated 02.09.2011 wherein it is stated that the officiating promotion is made against the post-creation/upgradation under the Restructuring Policy of 21.07.2011. In fact the writ petitioner has accepted the impugned Notification dated 21.07.2011 as he has been promoted on the basis of the post upgradation and creation by this Notification. The submission of R-4 is that before 2011 the petitioner could not have been given promotion as Joint Director and Additional Director as these are non-technical posts. However, after the Restructuring Policy of 2011, the Government in its wisdom allowed the officers from the ex- cadre to reach the level of Additional Director through a separate promotional channel. The petitioner being appointed as a technical person, i.e. Assistant Engineer was allowed further promotion in the administrative setup which is meant only for the officers from the Elementary and Secondary Education or Higher Secondary Education streams. The petitioner being appointed as a technical person, i.e. Assistant Engineer was allowed further promotion in the administrative setup which is meant only for the officers from the Elementary and Secondary Education or Higher Secondary Education streams. In the Rules of 2002 at Schedule-I there are altogether 24 gazetted posts mentioned in the Rules but the post of Assistant Engineer or the post of Executive Engineer are not mentioned there. It is submitted that the impugned Restructuring Notification of 2011 has not discriminated the petitioner in as much as he is holding a technical post and therefore cannot come to the promotional channel meant for “Teaching Staff”. It can be, therefore, easily inferred that in the promotion Notification dated 02.09.2011 the feeder post held by the petitioner being shown as Deputy Director was an inadvertent mistake. 39. Learned counsel for the R-4 further submits that for the first time in his service, the petitioner’s name appeared in the tentative Seniority List of 2012 as Joint Director which was objected by the R-4/Association. Thereafter, corrective measures were taken and final Seniority List was published in 2015 wherein the petitioner’s name appeared at Serial No. 2 in the ex-cadre list. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner is an Engineer appointed to a technical post and his service was never in the teaching stream, nor does he possess a B.Ed. degree and for which his name never appeared in the Seniority Lists till 2011. However, the petitioner was illegally promoted to the post of Joint Director and Additional Director in cadre posts which were meant for the administrative officers from the teaching cadre. As per the Restructuring Policy of 2011 there is a separate promotional channel for the ex-cadre officers and the impugned Corrigendum dated 21.03.2015 was issued based on the Restructuring Policy of 2011 by which the post of System Analyst under Planning wing is declared as an ex-cadre post. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not made out a case for the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 40. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has not made out a case for the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 40. The counsel for the R-4 relies on the following authorities in respect of his submission: (i) GLT 2015 (2) 899 in the case of Debajit Das & Others Versus State of Assam, (ii) (1981) 1 SCC 246 in the case of AkhilBharatiya Soshit Karamchari Versus Union of India & Others, (iii) AIR 1984 (SC) 1595 in the case of Shri O.P. Singla & Another Versus Union of India & Others, (iv) (1997) 3 SCC 639 in the case of H.R. Ramachandraiah & Another Versus State of Karnataka & Others, (v) (2011) 3 SCC 436 in the case of State of Orissa &Another Versus Mamata Mohanty, (vi) (2009) 6 SCC 428 in the case of M.P. Palanisamy & Others Versus A. Krishnan & Others, (vii) (2010) 10 SCC 422 in the case of Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Versus Golden Chariot Airport & Another WITH Airport Authority of India Versus Golden Chariot Airport & Another, (viii) (1981) 1 SCC 537 in the case of M/S New Bihar Biri Leaves Co. & Others Versus State of Bihar & Others, (ix) (1980) 3 SCC 309 in the case of Union of India & Another Versus K.R Tahiliani With Union of India & Others Versus M.M. Singh, (x) (1987) 3 SCC 604 in the case of A.L. Ahuja Versus Union of India , (xi) (1999) 3 SCC 653 in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir Versus Shiv Ram Sharma & Others. 41. This Court has considered the submissions of the opposing parties and have perused the pleadings and examined the authorities relied upon by the parties. 42. Normally ex-cadre post or posts is/are isolated posts in an office or department which was/were created for specific purpose within the office or department. Being isolated posts there is no cadre for next promotion in these posts, the chance of promotion to higher post for the persons holding on these posts is minimal. These posts may be permanent or temporary. Usually, only one or two Ex cadre posts are found in an organization. 43. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electronics) in the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland. These posts may be permanent or temporary. Usually, only one or two Ex cadre posts are found in an organization. 43. It is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Electronics) in the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland. It appears that the post of Assistant Engineer Electronics was specifically created for the Educational Technology Cell in the School Education Directorate. It is also not disputed that by Notification dated 24.10.2003 the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics) held by the petitioner was upgraded to that of Executive Engineer along with the incumbent and also re-designated as System Analyst. The scale of pay of System Analyst was equivalent to the scale of pay of Deputy Director. The Rules of 2002 was brought into force by Notification dated 20.09.2002. Schedule-I of the Rules of 2002 provides for the total strength of the cadres in the Directorate. The post of Assistant Engineer held by the petitioner is not mentioned in Schedule-I of the 2002 Rules. In the case of O.P Singla & Another (supra), the Supreme Court stated that cadre post means any post specified in the Schedule and includes a temporary post carrying the same designation as that of any of the posts specified in the Schedule. And an ex cadre post means a post outside the cadre of posts comprised in a service. Relying on the principle of law in the O.P Singla case it can be concluded that the post of Assistant Engineer Electronics was a post outside the cadre posts specified in the Schedule to the 2002 Rules. 44. The seniority of the cadres are covered by Rule 17 of the Rules of 2002 and according to Rule 17 it provides for three different groups- (i) Language Officers, (ii) Headmasters, DIS, Secretary Board of Elementary Education, Training Officers, SIAE, Special Officer (Women), Hindi Education Officer and (iii) Principals, Vice Principals and subject teachers of Higher Secondary Schools. It is provided in Rule 17 that all these three groups shall maintain separate seniority lists and their channel of promotion shall be determined independent of other groups, and only after reaching Joint Director level a common seniority list is to be maintained. The name of the petitioner never appeared in the seniority list of any of the three groups. It is provided in Rule 17 that all these three groups shall maintain separate seniority lists and their channel of promotion shall be determined independent of other groups, and only after reaching Joint Director level a common seniority list is to be maintained. The name of the petitioner never appeared in the seniority list of any of the three groups. The petitioner’s post does not figure in any of these three groups which establishes the position that the posts of Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer/Systems Analyst were never cadre posts in the Rules of 2002. The 2002 Rules recognized only the three groups mentioned in Rule 17 as the cadre posts. 45. By the impugned Notification No. DSE/RS/2011 dated 21.07.2011, the State Government ordered for revamping and restructuring of the Department of School Education. In this Restructuring Policy, the Planning and Vocational Education posts including System Analyst, are named as ex-cadre posts. As per this Restructuring Policy of 2011, it was provided that the last promotional post for ex-cadre officers of the Department of School Education will be the post of Additional Director. It was also provided in the Policy of 2011 that one post of Joint Director shall be filled up by promotion of the senior-most members from amongst the confirmed members of ex-cadre service of Planning and Vocational Education including System Analyst under the Department of School Education who have rendered not less than five years of continuous service in the immediate lower grade. And it was also mentioned that the System Analyst including Information, Communication and Training will come under Planning. 46. It is pertinent to note that by the Restructuring Policy of 2011 several additional posts of Director, Additional Director, Joint Director and other posts were created and upgraded by the Government. In fact, by this Restructuring Policy of 2011 the Government created and upgraded posts for further promotional avenues even for the ex-cadre service. Before 2011, the ex-cadre service officers had no promotional avenues. Even the petitioner would have remained in the post of Executive Engineer/System Analyst had it not been for the Restructuring policy of 2011. After the Restructuring Policy, the Government issued the promotion/upgradation Notification dated 02.09.2011. By the said Notification dated 02.09.2011, the post of the petitioner being Executive Engineer/System Analyst was also upgraded to the post of Joint Director. Even the petitioner would have remained in the post of Executive Engineer/System Analyst had it not been for the Restructuring policy of 2011. After the Restructuring Policy, the Government issued the promotion/upgradation Notification dated 02.09.2011. By the said Notification dated 02.09.2011, the post of the petitioner being Executive Engineer/System Analyst was also upgraded to the post of Joint Director. However, the post held by the petitioner was reflected as Deputy Director and not Executive Engineer/System Analyst in the promotion/upgradation Notification dated 02.09.2011. It is important to note that the petitioner has not been able to show any order or notification converting the post held by the petitioner from Executive Engineer/Systems Analyst to that of Deputy Director nor is there any re-designation order. 47. In the case of H.R. Ramachandraiah and another (Supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where the Recruitment Rules provided for promotion of Head Gardeners as Field Assistants. Petitioners who were Laboratory Attenders claimed they were equivalent to Head Gardeners and may therefore be considered for promotion as Field Assistants. Rejecting their contention the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, “3. *********unless the Rules are integrated and the channel of promotion is given, by interpretation one category cannot be transposed from other channels and fitted into altogether a different category of service merely because channel of promotion in that service is not provided. Under these circumstances, unless the petitioners get into the channel of promotion under the statutory rules, they cannot by interpretation be fitted into the category to which they do not belong and cannot claim promotion on that basis”. Applying the ratio as laid down in the H.R Ramachandraiah case, the promotion/upgradation Order of 02.09.2011, by which the petitioner was allowed to go from an ex-cadre post to a cadre post is bad in law as far as the petitioner is concerned. 48 . It is also important to note that as per Clause 3 of the Notification dated 02.09.2011, the officiating promotion to the post of Joint Director was issued with a riderthat officers should obtain B.Ed. degree within three years as an exceptional case. It was also provided in Clause 4 of the Promotion Order dated 02.09.2011 that the next promotion will not be considered if the requisite qualification is not obtained. degree within three years as an exceptional case. It was also provided in Clause 4 of the Promotion Order dated 02.09.2011 that the next promotion will not be considered if the requisite qualification is not obtained. The prescription of a higher educational qualification as a qualification for promotion to a post cannot be held as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the case of State of M.P & Another Versus Dharam Bir , reported in (1998) 6 SCC 165 , the Supreme Court held: “32. ‘Experience’ gained by the respondent on account of his working on the post in question for over a decade cannot be equated with educational qualifications required to be possessed by a candidate as a condition of eligibility for promotion to higher posts. If the Government, in exercise of its executive power, has created certain posts, it is for it to prescribe the mode of appointment or the qualifications which have to be possessed by the candidates before they are appointed on those posts. The qualifications would naturally vary with the nature of posts or the service created by the Government” A similar view was expressed in the case of State of J&K Vrs Shiv Ram Sharma & Others (supra), where the Supreme Court stated that the law is well settled that it is permissible for the government to prescribe appropriate qualifications in the matter of appointment or promotion to different posts. It is clear that there is no indefeasible right to claim promotion to a higher grade to which qualification could be prescribed and there is no guarantee that those rules framed by the government in that behalf would always be favorable to the person claiming promotion. 49. The Government, in exercise of its executive power created the new posts in the School Education Department by the Notification dated 21.07.2011 and prescribed the qualification required for promotion to those posts. This Court does not find any illegality in the School Education department prescribing the qualification of B.Ed for promotion to Joint Director and Additional Director. The petitioner had obviously not obtained the required qualification of B.Ed as he is an Electronics Engineer. 50. The petitioner has also relied on the Notification No. DSE/ESTT/DPC/1-30/2011-12 dated 14.08.2012 by which the DPC has regularized his officiating promotion to the post of Joint Director. The petitioner had obviously not obtained the required qualification of B.Ed as he is an Electronics Engineer. 50. The petitioner has also relied on the Notification No. DSE/ESTT/DPC/1-30/2011-12 dated 14.08.2012 by which the DPC has regularized his officiating promotion to the post of Joint Director. At Serial No. 10 where the petitioner’s name appears, the DPC has regularized his appointment as Assistant Engineer w.e.f. 18.04.1990; as System Analyst w.e.f. 24.10.2003 and as Joint Director w.e.f. 02.08.2012. This Notification of 14.08.2012 in fact goes to show that the petitioner was a System Analyst and not Deputy Director when he was upgraded to the post of Joint Director. As per the restructuring policy of 2011 and the 2017 Rules there is only one post of Joint Director and one post of Additional Director for the Ex Cadre service. Records show that the petitioner’s senior, one Pollem Tep had already been promoted from the Ex Cadre service. 51. By another Order dated 09.06.2014 the petitioner was given officiating promotion to the post of Additional Director. However, this officiating promotion was issued without fulfilling the criteria and requisite qualifications prescribed under Schedule-II, Sl.No. 2 of the Rules of 2002 as he had neither completed three years of continuous service in the grade of Joint Director nor obtained B.Ed. Degree as was stipulated in the Notification dated 02.09.2011. 52. The Promotion Order dated 09.06.2014 giving officiating promotion as Additional Director to the petitioner was later modified by the Corrigendum dated 21.03.2015 which is assailed by the petitioner. This Court is of the view that the State Government had rightly corrected the error in the promotion order dated 09.06.2014 as the petitioner being from the ex cadre service could not have been promoted to a cadre post. The State respondents in their affidavit have categorically stated that the petitioner was never appointed as Deputy Director before his officiating promotion to the post of Joint Director by Notification dated 02.09.2011. The State respondents also stated that the post of Executive Engineer/System Analyst was never converted to Deputy Director. Equivalence of posts cannot be determined solely on the basis of pay scales. It must also consider duties, responsibilities, qualifications and nature of work. Simply having the same pay scale for different posts doesn't automatically mean they are equivalent in terms of duties, responsibilities, or other relevant factors unless the government takes a policy decision equating them. Equivalence of posts cannot be determined solely on the basis of pay scales. It must also consider duties, responsibilities, qualifications and nature of work. Simply having the same pay scale for different posts doesn't automatically mean they are equivalent in terms of duties, responsibilities, or other relevant factors unless the government takes a policy decision equating them. In the instant case there is no such policy equating the post of Deputy Director with System Analyst in the School Education department. 53 . During the pendency of the present writ petition, the Rules of 2017 came into force. The 2017 Rules clearly provided for an Ex-Cadre Wing. Under Schedule-I of the 2017 Rules under the heading Ex-Cadre, there are nine posts, the last promotional post is that of Joint Director and the feeder post is Assistant Engineer. 54. This Court has also noted that the person at Serial No. 4, Pollem Tep in the Order of 02.09.2011 is also from ex-cadre service and is senior to the petitioner. Be that as it may, the petitioner as well as the person at Serial No. 4, both from ex-cadre service were promoted to the post of Joint Director by the Order dated 02.09.2011. In fact, when the 2002 Rules came into force the petitioner would have been aware that his appointment was against an ex cadre post, as the post of Assistant Engineer never figured in the 2002 Rules. Even his promotion to Executive Engineer/Systems Analyst was by way of post upgradation and not by regular promotion as the 2002 Rules did not provide any promotional channel for Assistant Engineer. 55. The upgradation/Promotion Order dated 02.09.2011 at Clause 2 shows that the officiating promotion was made against the post- creation/upgradation under the restructuring of the Department of School Education vide Notification dated 21.07.2011. As there was limited promotional avenues for the Ex- cadre service the government created and upgraded posts allowing one Joint Director post and one Additional Director post to be filled up by ex cadre service through the restructuring exercise. It is well-settled that administrative orders creating posts can be issued so long as they are not inconsistent with rules, that is to say, as long as there is no prohibition in the statutory rules for creation of such posts. It is well-settled that administrative orders creating posts can be issued so long as they are not inconsistent with rules, that is to say, as long as there is no prohibition in the statutory rules for creation of such posts. The petitioner was promoted/upgraded to the post of Joint Director only because of the Restructuring Policy of 2011 and after availing benefit of the Policy the petitioner cannot turn around at this stage and challenge the Notification dated 21.07.2011. In the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd (supra) the Supreme Court held that the common law doctrine prohibiting approbation and reprobation is a facet of the law of estoppel and well established in our jurisprudence also. The Court stated that where a party has received a benefit under an order, it could not claim that it was valid for one purpose and invalid for another. A similar ratio was expounded in M/S New Bihar Biri Leaves (supra), wherein the Supreme court stated that it is a fundamental principle of general application that if a person of his own accord, accepts a contract on certain terms and works out the contract, he cannot be allowed to adhere to and abide by some of the terms of the contract which proved advantageous to him and repudiate the other terms of the same contract which might be disadvantageous to him. 56. The R-4 has filed an additional affidavit on 05.06.2018. In the said affidavit the R-4 has annexed a copy of the Department of P&AR opinion dated 24.05.2017 in respect of the officiating promotion of the petitioner to the post of Additional Director. The P&AR department had advised the School Education Department to immediately withdraw the officiating promotion of the petitioner to the cadre post of Additional Director and to revert him back to the post of Joint Director as he is an ex-cadre official. The opinion of the P&AR Department, Government of Nagaland dated 24.05.2017 is as follows: “The matter has been examined and the following are conveyed- (1) The School Education Department had made a serious error in promoting ex- cadre official, Er. Limawabang Aier, to a cadre-post of Joint Director (ii) This has been further compounded by the ensuing promotion sanctioned against the cadre-post of Additional Director and allowing official in question continue holding the aforesaid cadre-post. Limawabang Aier, to a cadre-post of Joint Director (ii) This has been further compounded by the ensuing promotion sanctioned against the cadre-post of Additional Director and allowing official in question continue holding the aforesaid cadre-post. (iii)These are grave infringements of the Service Rules of the Department as well Notification No. DSE/RS/2011 dated 21-07-2011 since the aforementioned rules/notification does not, in any ways, provide for an ex-cadre official to be promoted and to continue holding a cadre-post. (iv) As such, the promotion of Er. LimawabangAier against the cadre-posts of Joint Director and Additional Director needs to be revoked. (v) However, with regard to the promotion to the cadre-post of Joint Director, may not be feasible to review the same considering that it had been already regularized by the Departmental Promotion Committee and also taking into account the fact that more than 04 (four) years have now elapsed. (vi) As such, the present officiating-promotion of Er. Limawabang Aier against the cadre-post of Additional Director will have to be withdrawn and in the event the department requires his service at the level of Additional Director, the department may accordingly submit proposal for upgradation of his post on personal basis along with the compelling functional justifications. This has the approval of the Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department.” 57. The opinion of the P&AR department is self explanatory. As per records this opinion was conveyed on 24.05.2017 but no follow-up action was taken by the Department of School Education and the petitioner retired as Additional Director on 31.08.2021. 58 . The facts in the authorities relied upon by the petitioner are entirely different from the present case and distinguishable. 59. The Supreme Court in Tinku Versus State of Haryana , reported in 2024 INSC 867 reiterated that the judiciary cannot compel authorities to perpetuate illegality by granting relief based on past wrongful actions. Such orders would undermine the ethos of justice and legality. 60. From the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the School Education Department had allowed the promotion of the petitioner to Joint Director and Additional Director against cadre posts in violation of the Service Rules and such illegality was allowed to continue till his retirement. Such orders would undermine the ethos of justice and legality. 60. From the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the School Education Department had allowed the promotion of the petitioner to Joint Director and Additional Director against cadre posts in violation of the Service Rules and such illegality was allowed to continue till his retirement. However, considering the fact that the first petitioner has since retired on 31.08.2021 and thereafter expired on 07.03.2024, this Court does not interfere with the promotion/upgradation orders of the petitioner dated 02.09.2011 and 09.06.2014. 61. The instant petition does not warrant the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and accordingly, it is dismissed. 62. Writ Petition stands disposed.