JUDGMENT : MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J. 1. Heard Mr. C. T. Jamir, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard K.N. Balgopal, learned Advocate General, assisted by Ms. V. Shokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Govt. Advocate, Mr. V. Rio, Mr. V. Kense and Ms. N. Nambiar, learned counsel appearing for the State of Nagaland as well as Mr. Yangerwati, learned Central Government Counsel. 2. By this common judgment, this Court proposes to dispose of two connected writ petitions, namely, WP(C) No. 134/2025 and WP(C) No. 138/2025. Both the writ petitions were filed by the petitioner, Ms. Vatsala Panghal, who had appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (herein after referred to as “NEET”) for admission into MBBS course in one of the Medical Colleges of India from the central pool meant for the State of Nagaland. 3. It is pertinent to mention here that for the academic year 2025- 26, total 152 numbers of seats are available for MBBS course for the State of Nagaland. Out of these 152 seats, 42 seats are allocated in 30 different Medical Colleges of India from the central pool for the State of Nagaland. 4. The petitioner is the daughter of Colonel Lovelesh Panghal, presently posted as the Commanding Officer of 1 Nagaland Battalion, NCC at Kohima. As such, claiming to be a ward of employee of the Central Govt. posted in and having his headquarter in the State of Nagaland, she had applied for a seat in MBBS course out of the seats allocated to the State of Nagaland from the central pool. In the NEET, the petitioner secured 455 marks out of total 720 marks and has secured 113803 all India rank. 5. However, in the merit list of provisionally selected candidates for the State of Nagaland prepared on the basis of marks obtained in NEET (UG) for the academic sessions 2025-26, the name of the petitioner did not figure. Her name figures in the list of category-III at Annexure-B and in the remarks column no reason has been mentioned for non-inclusion of her name in the merit list of provisionally selected candidate. 6. Her name figures in the list of category-III at Annexure-B and in the remarks column no reason has been mentioned for non-inclusion of her name in the merit list of provisionally selected candidate. 6. As the petitioner’s name did not appear in the reject list, neither did it appear in the merit list of the provisional selected candidates of Nagaland State NEET(UG), in spite of the fact that she secured 455 marks, which is more than the marks secured by the candidate who is placed at second rank in the merit list of the provisional selected candidates of Nagaland State NEET(UG) published by the Director, Directorate of Technical Education, Nagaland (respondent no.3), the petitioner preferred the writ petition (C) No.134/2025. 7. In the said writ petition by order dated 28.07.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner to participate provisionally in the counseling for allocation of seats for MBBS course for the State of Nagaland, which was to be held on 30.07.2025, however, it was held on 04.08.2025. The respondents were also directed to explore the possibilities of keeping one seat vacant without halting the admission process for others, pending disposal of the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 8. During the course of hearing of the WP(C) No.134/2025, the learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the State of Nagaland produced a copy of the Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department. The said notification lays down the guidelines for selection of candidates to the state reserved seats under various seats allotment for undergoing Graduate course, inter-alia, in medical and allied subjects. In the eligibility criteria for category-III (b) which relates to children of non-local State Government employees and children of All India Service Officers borne on Nagaland cadre, two additional stipulations were incorporated, namely, the candidate should have appeared/passed Class-X/XII or equivalent from any school within Nagaland and his/her parents should have been residing and posted at Nagaland for at least three years or more. Both the criteria should be fulfilled. 9. The petitioner, impugning the aforesaid Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department to be violative of the guidelines/directions issued by the Govt. Both the criteria should be fulfilled. 9. The petitioner, impugning the aforesaid Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department to be violative of the guidelines/directions issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 09.12.1986 and subsequent guidelines for allocation of central pool MBBS seats issued by the Govt. of India, preferred another writ petition, i.e. WP(C) No. 138/2025. 10. In the WP(C) No. 134/2025, the petitioner has mainly sought the reliefs of quashing and setting aside or revision of the select list dated 24.07.2025 in respect of MBBS seats (Annexure-L to the writ petition). She has also prayed for considering the case of the petitioner in terms of the directions dated 09.12.1986 and subsequent similar directives/guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Union of India and by including the name of the petitioner in the provisional merit list and also for calling the petitioner for counselling. 11. In the second writ petition, i.e. WP(C) 138/2025 filed during the pendency of the earlier writ petition, the petitioner has sought the relief of quashing and setting aside of paragraph No.1 category-III (b), 2(c) and 3(e) of the Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 in respect of MBBS-UG seats. She has also prayed for considering the case of the petitioner in terms of the direction issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 09.12.1986 and subsequent similar direction issued by the Govt. of India. 12. Mr. C.T. Jamir, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being the ward of a Central Government Employee posted and having his headquarters in the State of Nagaland is squarely covered under the category of persons eligible to be nominated for allocation of a seat in MBBS course against the central pool as per directives/guidelines issued in this regard on 09.12.1986 by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. He submits that in the said guidelines, it was specifically reiterated that only the children of (i) permanent resident of the State/UT concerned; (ii) the employees of the State/UT Government concerned; (iii)the employees of the Central/ other States/UT Government on deputation to the State/UT concerned and (iv) the employees of the Central/other States/ UT Government posted in and having their headquarter within the State/UT concerned will only be eligible for selection and nomination against the seats allotted by the Central Government. 13. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner’s name was shown in the list of the category-III candidates at Annexure-B and not in the provisional merit list of candidates for Nagaland State-NEET (UG) for the Academic Sessions 2025-26, however, no reason was mentioned in the remarks column against her name for not keeping her in the merit list of the selected candidates even though she secured second highest marks amongst all the candidates whose names appeared in the said list (Annexure-A as well as Annexure-B). 14. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of the petitioner was illegally and arbitrarily omitted from the provisional merit list of the selected candidates for Nagaland State-NEET (UG) for the Academic Sessions 2025-26 published by the respondent No. 3. 15. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that it is only during hearing of the WP(C) No. 134/2025, when the learned senior Government counsel for the State respondent produced the Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department before the Court, the petitioner came to know about the same. He submits that the said notification is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Central Government on 09.12.1986 and subsequent guidelines for selection and nomination of candidates against Central pool of MBBS seats. He also submits that said notification dated 09.09.2021 was not even uploaded in the website of Directorate of Technical Education. He submits that the same was uploaded in the said website only on 28.07.2025 i.e., after filing of the writ petition by the present petitioner. He, therefore, submits that the Directorate of Technical Education deliberately did not publish the same till the filing of writ petition by the petitioner and there was no way of the petitioner having been known about the same. 16. He, therefore, submits that the Directorate of Technical Education deliberately did not publish the same till the filing of writ petition by the petitioner and there was no way of the petitioner having been known about the same. 16. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the letter bearing No. U.14014/84/86-ME(UG) dated 09.12.1986 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India to all the States/UTs without medical college, it has been specifically directed to treat the children of Central/State/UT Government Employees, as mentioned in the said letter, at par with local residents and the sole criteria for selection will be academic merits of the candidates subject to special orders issued with the concurrence of the Government of India. He submits that no such concurrence was obtained by the Government of Nagaland before incorporating additional criteria mentioned in Sl. No. 1 (eligibility) category III(b) in the Notification dated 09th September, 2021 of the Government of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department, hence, the said notification is violative of principle of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India . 17. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that Clause-3(selection) Sub-clause (e) of the impugned notification dated 09.09.2021 which provides that “if seats are available after selecting all eligible and qualified candidates belonging to recognized indigenous Scheduled Tribes of Nagaland, then selection of candidates under category- III will be considered. Preference will be given in following order:- Candidates belonging to non-local indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland; children of non-local State Government employees and children of All India Service Officers borne on Nagaland Cadre is also discriminatory and contradictory to the guideline issued by the Union Government wherein it has categorically stated that the children of Central/State/UT Government Employees, as mentioned in the said letter, at par with local residents and the sole criteria for selection will be academic merits of the candidates. 18. 18. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the four categories of candidates mentioned in the guidelines issued by letter No. U.14014/84/86-ME(UG) dated 09.12.1986 of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India are to be treated equally and at par with the local residents, however, by affording preferential treatment to one category over other category of eligible candidates as provided in Clause- 3(e) of the impugned notification dated 09.09.2021 is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14, 21 of the Constitution of India . 19. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department by incorporating the stipulations with a view to totally exclude the children of Central Government employee posted in Nagaland from availing the benefit of getting admission in MBBS course against seat allocated under Central pool, in violation of the guidelines issued by the Central Government in this regard would be violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed to her under Article 14 of the Constitution of India . In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Dr. Pradeep Jain etc. Vs. Union of India and Ors. etc.” reported in “ ( 1984) 3 SCC 654". 20. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that by incorporating the stipulation regarding requirement of the parent of children, eligible under category-III mentioned in the Notification dated 09.09.2021, posted in the State of Nagaland, to reside and remain posted there for three years or more would also be violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India . 21. He also submits that the notification dated 09.09.2021 by giving the candidates belonging to indigenous Scheduled Tribes of Nagaland and candidates belonging to members of recognized backward tribes of Nagaland preferential treatment over the candidates mentioned in the category-III of the said notification, in effect totally excludes the candidates belonging to category-III of the said notification and ensures 100% reservation for the candidates belonging to category-I and category-II of the said notification, which would be violative of the principle of equality enshrined in the Article 14 of the Constitution of India . In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel and Ors. ” reported in “ 2025 SCC OnLine SC 180” as well as in the case of “ Saurabh Choudry and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. .” reported in “ (2003) 11 SCC 146 ”. 22. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of 152 seats available to the State of Nagaland only 42 seats are from central pool allocated to the State by the Central Government. Hence, the selection and nomination of the candidates for admission in MBBS course against the seat allocated from central pool has to be strictly as per guidelines for the selection and nomination of candidates against central pool MBBS/BDS seats issued by the Govt. of India from time to time. He submits that the beneficiary Government Departments must follow such guidelines while selecting and nominating candidates against the Central pool. He also submits that in the lines of guidelines issued on 09.12.1986, the Union Government from time to time has issued similar guidelines for selection and nomination of candidates for MBBS course against Central pool. He further submits that the latest Office Memorandum, in this regard has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on 28th July, 2025 which contains guidelines similar to those issued by the Union Government in the year 1986. 23. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in pursuant to the directions of this Court by order dated 28.07.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 134/2025, though the petitioner was allowed to participate in the counselling for allocation of seats in MBBS course in different colleges under Central pool, however, she was not informed about the college allocated to her. He submits that by arbitrarily excluding the petitioner from the merit list of provisionally selected candidates even though she secured second highest marks amongst the candidates of the State of Nagaland, she would be deprived of a college of her own choice even if the writ petitions filed by her are decided in her favour. 24. He submits that by arbitrarily excluding the petitioner from the merit list of provisionally selected candidates even though she secured second highest marks amongst the candidates of the State of Nagaland, she would be deprived of a college of her own choice even if the writ petitions filed by her are decided in her favour. 24. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before approaching this Court by filing the present writ petitions, the father of the petitioner had filed representation on three occasions before the respondent authorities for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner, however, when nothing was done, the petitioner has been compelled to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions by this Court to the respondent authorities for redressal of her grievance as prayed for. 25. On the other hand, Mr. K. N. Balgopal, learned Advocate General, Nagaland has submitted that the petitioner is not eligible to be considered for getting benefit of admission to MBBS course against seat allocated under Central pool in terms of the Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department. He submits that the State of Nagaland is well within its powers to provide for stipulation regarding the requirement of the candidate, seeking admission in the MBBS course against seats allocated under Central pool to the State of Nagaland, to have appeared/passed Class-X/XII or equivalent from any of the school within the State of Nagaland and that his/her parent(s) should have been residing and posted in Nagaland for at least three years or more and that both criteria should be fulfilled. 26. The learned Advocate General, Nagaland submits that the Office Memorandum dated 12th  August, 2024 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare regarding the guidelines for allocation of Central pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2024-25 and similar other guidelines issued earlier by the Union Government allows the application of reservation policy being followed by the beneficiary State in case of Central pool MBBS/BDS seats and accordingly the State of Nagaland, which is a deficient State in medical education, is well within its powers in adopting a reservation policy to protect the interest of its inhabitants and incorporate stipulations as provided in Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department. 27. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department. 27. The learned Advocate General submits that the petitioner is a resident of State of Haryana and has passed out Class-IX examination from convent of Gagan Bharti Mohan Garden, New Delhi. He submits that she has neither appeared or passed out her Class-X or Class-XII examination from any school within Nagaland as required to be eligible under category-III of notification dated 9th September, 2021. He further submits that though the father of the petitioner has been posted as Commanding Officer of 1 Naga Battalion(G) NCC, however, he has also not been residing and posted in the State for three years or more and thus the second stipulations contained in the notification dated 09.09.2021 is also not fulfilled. 28. The learned Advocate General, Nagaland has also submitted that the father of the petitioner cannot be regarded as an Officer of All India Service borne on Nagaland Cadre as he does not belong to either Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service or other services recognized as All India Services to avail the benefit of an MBBS seat against Central pool. He submits that apart from 42 seats allocated under the Central pool for the State of Nagaland, the Ministry of Defence, to which the father of the petitioner belongs to, has also been allocated 42 seats under the Central pool and the petitioner could have competed and availed the benefit under the said quota. 29. The learned Advocate General, Nagaland submits that the father of the petitioner has been posted as Commanding Officer of 1 Naga(G) Battalion NCC for a period of 24 months only. He further submits that stipulations regarding residence for three years or more by the parent of the candidate in the State of Nagaland is to prevent the people who are flying from one province to another, from one State to another, as mere birds of passage without any roots, without any connection with the particular province, who just came to apply for the post and to walk away after taking the plum. By referring to the Constituent Assembly debates quoted in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “ Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel and Ors. By referring to the Constituent Assembly debates quoted in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “ Dr. Tanvi Behl vs. Shrey Goel and Ors. .” (supra), he submits that it is to prevent such people who do not have any connection with the State or its people, some limitations by providing conditions prescribing certain period of residence within the State of Nagaland is necessary. 30. Referring to the report of the Mandal Commission, learned Advocate General, Nagaland submits that assessment of merit of persons placed in different social, cultural and environmental background would depend upon different factors. He submits that a candidate coming from well to do family background and social status securing more marks may not be regarded as more meritorious when compared to another candidate who belongs to backward class and occupy low social position though he may have grit, determination, ability to fight odds etc. He submits that the local inhabitants of the State of Nagaland are pre- dominantly Tribals and are deficient in medical education. Hence, he submits that to protect the interest of local inhabitants of Nagaland certain stipulations have been incorporated in the Notification No.HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department. He submits that the said notification has been in vogue since last five years and Central Government has not raised any objection to the same, which in effect amount to granting concurrence to the same. 31. The learned Advocate General, Nagaland also submits that if the writ petitions filed by the petitioner are allowed, it would deprive a deserving local candidate from availing the benefit of getting admission in MBBS course against a seat allocated to the State of Nagaland under Central pool and it would be without affording him an opportunity of being heard. He submits that it would be against the principle of natural justice. 32. While assisting the learned Advocate General, Ms. V. Suokhrie, Additional Advocate General, Nagaland submits that the notification dated 09.09.2021 has been published in the Nagaland Gazette, the Official Gazette of the State of Nagaland. She submits that once publication in the official gazette takes place, it is deemed to be known to all and ignorance of law is not an excuse. V. Suokhrie, Additional Advocate General, Nagaland submits that the notification dated 09.09.2021 has been published in the Nagaland Gazette, the Official Gazette of the State of Nagaland. She submits that once publication in the official gazette takes place, it is deemed to be known to all and ignorance of law is not an excuse. She submits that as the aforesaid notification has been published in the official gazette, the petitioner is deemed to have notice of the same and pleading ignorance about the same would be of not help to her. She submits that merely because the petitioner pleaded her ignorance about the notification dated 09.09.2021, she may not be allowed to take advantage of availing benefit under Central pool quota allocated to the State of Nagaland, though she is ineligible in terms of the said notification. In support of her submission, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ State of AP and Ors. Vs. Twin City Jewelers Associations and Ors.” reported in “ (2005) 13 SCC 552 ” 33. On the other hand, Mr. Yangerwati, the learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the Union of India has submitted that the MBBS seats allocated to the beneficiary State which are deficient in medical education are primarily meant for children of four categories of persons mentioned in the guidelines for selection and nomination of candidates against Central pool MBBS/BDS seats. He submits that the criteria for selection and nomination of candidates against MBBS seats reserved for Central Government should be strictly followed as per the directions/guidelines issued by the Government of India from time to time. 34. He submits that the father of the petitioner being an army officer posted in the State of Nagaland falls within the category No. (iv) of the guidelines issued by the Central Government i.e., he is an employee of the Central Government posted in and having headquarters within the State of Nagaland. He also submits that the case of the petitioner is the first case where a ward of Central Government employee posted in the State of Nagaland has agitated against her deprivation from availing benefit of Central pools MBBS seats due to discriminatory stipulations in the State Government notification dated 09.09.2021. He also submits that the case of the petitioner is the first case where a ward of Central Government employee posted in the State of Nagaland has agitated against her deprivation from availing benefit of Central pools MBBS seats due to discriminatory stipulations in the State Government notification dated 09.09.2021. He submits that if an eligible candidate who is a ward of a Central Government employee posted and serving in the State of Nagaland is found entitled to get an MBBS seat on the strength of her merit, she should not be deprived of the same. He also submits that the State Government has failed to show that it took prior concurrence for incorporating special eligibility criteria for the ward of the Central Government employee posted and serving in the State of Nagaland, therefore, he submits that the said notification is bad in law. 35. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. 36. Let us, first consider the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 138/2025, wherein the petitioner has challenged the Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23- 1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department of being illegal, discriminatory, arbitrary and violative of the provisions contained in the Part-III of the Constitution of India . 37. It is pertinent to mention herein that the seats available for MBBS course for the State of Nagaland may be categorized mainly in three categories, namely, (1) State Government Quota, which contains 85% of seats in the Medical College of the State of Nagaland, (2) All India Quota which contains 15% of seats allocated to the Union Government in the Medical College of the State of Nagaland and (3) Seats allocated against Central Pool to the State of Nagaland by the Central Government treating it to be deficient in medical education. As regards, the first category of the seats, the admissions may be made according to procedures and policies of the State Government. However, as regards the third category of the seats under Central Pool, the Union Government had issued Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2025 prescribing the guidelines for allocation of Central pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2025-26, which has to be followed by the beneficiary State. However, as regards the third category of the seats under Central Pool, the Union Government had issued Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2025 prescribing the guidelines for allocation of Central pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2025-26, which has to be followed by the beneficiary State. The beneficiary State cannot totally exclude a candidate, by making contrary stipulation in the impugned Notification, who is otherwise eligible to be considered for selection and nomination against Central Pool MBBS seat allocated to the State of Nagaland as per the Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2025, issued by the Central Government. 38. The Central Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has allocated 42 seats in MBBS course in various medical colleges throughout the country for the State of Nagaland under Central pool for the academic year 2025-26. The total numbers of seats in MBBS course from various sources for the State of Nagaland under NEET (UG) 2025 for the academic session 2025-26 is 152. Out of the said 152 seats, 42 seats are allocated to the State of Nagaland by the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. 39. As to how the candidates are to be selected and nominated for these 42 seats in MBBS course allocated under Central pool by the concerned beneficiary department of the State of Nagaland, the Central Government issues directives/guidelines from time to time in this regard. 40. Though, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has mainly relied on the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India to all the States/UTs without medical college by its letter bearing No. U.14014/84/86-ME(UG) dated 09.12.1986, however, the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has issued the Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2025 prescribing the guidelines for allocation of Central pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2025-26. A copy of the said guidelines has been marked to the Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Nagaland also. 41. On perusal of the copy of aforesaid Office Memorandum, submitted as Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the present petitioner in the Interlocutory Application (C) No. 144/2025 in connection with WP(C) No. 138/2025, it appears that as per Clause 1.2 of the said guideline, eligibility criteria of the candidates for selection and nomination against the Central pool of MBBS seat for the academic year 2025-26 has been provided. 42. 42. Clause 1.2 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum provides as follows: - “ 1.2 Eligibility Conditions Only the children of 1. Permanent residents of the State/UT concerned; 2. The employees of the State/UT Government concerned; 3. The employees of the Central/Other State/UT Government on deputation to the State/UT concerned and 4. The employees of the Central/other State/UT Govt. posted in and having their headquarters within the State/UT concerned will be eligible. The children of Central/State/UT Government employees aforementioned should be treated at par with the local resident.” 43. From above guidelines, issued by the Central Government there remains no doubt that children of only four categories of persons are eligible to be considered for selection and nomination against central pool MBBS seat for the academic year 2025-26. It also prescribes that the children of Central/State/UT Government employees should be treated at par with the local residents, which means that there is no stipulation for providing any preferential treatment to any of the four categories mentioned in Clause-1.2 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum. 44. It is also pertinent to note that the aforesaid Office Memorandum does not provide any specific provision for children of All India Service Officers borne on the cadre of the beneficiary state. 45. This Court agrees with the submissions of the learned Advocate General that the father of the petitioner being an Army Officer cannot be regarded as an officer of All India Services of the Nagaland State Cadre. As per Section-2 of the All India Services Act, 1951, the expression “an All India Service” means the service known as Indian Administrative Service or the service known as Indian Police Service, or any other service specified in Section-2A”. The said Section provides for other All India Services, which includes the Indian Services of Engineers (Irrigation, Power, Buildings and Roads), the Indian Forest Service and the Indian Medical & Health Service. Thus, it appears the only these five services may be regarded as All India Services. 46. Now, if we peruse the impugned Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department, it appears that in the Column No.1 relating to eligibility criteria it has been provided as follows:- “ 1. Eligibility: Category I: Members of recognized Indigenous Scheduled Tribes of Nagaland as notified by the Government from time to time. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department, it appears that in the Column No.1 relating to eligibility criteria it has been provided as follows:- “ 1. Eligibility: Category I: Members of recognized Indigenous Scheduled Tribes of Nagaland as notified by the Government from time to time. Category II: Members of recognized Backward Tribes of Nagaland as notified by the Government from time to time. Category III: (a) Candidates belonging to the non-local Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland as per P & AR Department NotificationNO.AR-8/8/76 dated 28th April, 1977. (b) Children of Non-Local State Government employees and children of All India Service Officers borne on Nagaland Cadre. To be eligible under Category III (b), the candidate should have appeared/passed Class X/XII or equivalent from any of the schools within Nagaland and his/her parent(s) should have been residing and posted in Nagaland for at least 3(three) years or more. Both the criteria should be fulfilled. Category IV: Any candidate who drops out/declines after accepting the seat for a particular course will be disqualified for selection against State Quota in the subsequent year. However, if he/she forfeits the seat and the seat is filled up by a replacement, he/she shall not be disqualified.” 47. On perusal of the aforesaid eligibility criteria prescribed in the impugned Notification, it appears that though in Category-III, it has provided for a stipulation as regards the children of All India Service Officers borne on Nagaland Cadre, it has totally excluded the children of the employees of the Central Government posted in and having their headquarters within the State of Nagaland from the eligibility criteria. 48. We have discussed in the paragraph No.45 of this judgment hereinbefore as to what constitute an All India Service. All the employees of Central Government posted in and having their headquarters in the State of Nagaland may not be regarded as Officers of All India Service borne on the Nagaland Cadre. It is, therefore, apparent from the impugned Notification that it totally excludes the children of Central Government employee posted in and having their headquarters in the State of Nagaland from the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Category-III of the impugned notification. 49. It is, therefore, apparent from the impugned Notification that it totally excludes the children of Central Government employee posted in and having their headquarters in the State of Nagaland from the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Category-III of the impugned notification. 49. Thus, though as per the Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2025 prescribing the guidelines for allocation of Central pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2025-26 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, the children of the employees of the Central Government posted in and having their headquarters within the beneficiary state are eligible to be considered for selection and nomination against central pool MBBS seat for the academic year 2025-26, however, the impugned Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23-1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department totally excludes the children of Central Government employee except the children of All India Service Officers borne on Nagaland Cadre. This stipulation in the considered opinion of this Court is contradictory to the Office Memorandum dated 28 July, 2025 prescribing the guidelines for allocation of Central pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2025-26 issued by the Central Government. It also militates against the principles of equality as enshrined in the Part-III of the Constitution of India . Such a stipulation is also violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner guaranteed to her under Article 14 of the Constitution of India . 50. The petitioner, who is the daughter of Colonel Lovelesh Panghal, who is posted as the Commanding Officer of 1 Nagaland Battalion NCC, Kohima is eligible under Category-4 of the Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2025 prescribing the guidelines for allocation of Central pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2025-26. She, being the ward of a Central Government employee posted in an having his headquarter in the State of Nagaland, is eligible as per the Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2025 to be considered for selection and nomination against Central Pool MBBS seat allocated by the Central Government to the State of Nagaland for the academic year 2025-26. She, being the ward of a Central Government employee posted in an having his headquarter in the State of Nagaland, is eligible as per the Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2025 to be considered for selection and nomination against Central Pool MBBS seat allocated by the Central Government to the State of Nagaland for the academic year 2025-26. Her father, who is an Officer of Indian Army posted in the State of Nagaland cannot be treated as a mere bird of passage without any route and without any connection to the State of Nagaland, who just came to the State of Nagaland, so that his daughter may avail the benefit of an MBBS seat against Central Pool. He has been transferred and posted to the State of Nagaland for a period of two years to serve the State and thus, his daughter became eligible under Category-4 of the Office Memorandum dated 28th July, 2025 issued by the Central Government. 51. In view of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs and reasons stated therein the impugned Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23- 1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department is found to be arbitrary and violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner guarantee to her under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as regards its application for selection and nomination of candidates against Central pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2025-26. Accordingly, the impugned notification is set aside and quashed with regard to its application for selection and nomination of candidates against Central pool MBBS/BDS seats for the academic year 2025-26. 52. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 138/2025 is accordingly allowed to that extent. 53. As regards the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 134/2025 is concerned, apparently the petitioner has secured 455 marks in NEET, which is more than the marks obtained by the candidate, who is placed in the second position in the provisional merit list of candidates for Nagaland State- NEET(UG). As the impugned Notification No. HTE/RESERVE/23- 1/2012/474 dated 09.09.2021 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department, which disqualified the petitioner from consideration for selection and nomination against Central pool MBBS seat has already been quashed as indicated herein above, the petitioner is entitled, on the basis of her merit and eligibility criteria to be placed in the merit list prepared by the respondent No. 3. 54. of Nagaland, Higher and Technical Education Department, which disqualified the petitioner from consideration for selection and nomination against Central pool MBBS seat has already been quashed as indicated herein above, the petitioner is entitled, on the basis of her merit and eligibility criteria to be placed in the merit list prepared by the respondent No. 3. 54. The Writ Petition (Civil) No. 134/2025 is also allowed for the aforementioned reasons. 55. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to issue a modified merit list of candidates for selection and nomination against Central pool of MBBS seats for the State of Nagaland for academic year 2025-26 including the name of the petitioner therein at appropriate position in the said list and offer her a seat for MBBS course under Central pool for the State of Nagaland for the academic year 2025-26. 56. As it was informed to this Court by the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, during the course of the hearing, that only one seat has been kept vacant in pursuant to this Court’s order dated 28.07.2025 and other 41 seats have already been allocated to other eligible candidates on the basis of merit and they have been directed to proceed to take admission in the respective allocated medical colleges. Hence, the respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to allocate the available vacant MBBS seat under Central pool for the State of Nagaland to the petitioner. Since, the last date of admission has been notified to be 18th of August, 2025, the respondent No. 3 shall do the needful in this regard within 2(two) days from the date of this order so as to enable the petitioner to take admission in the medical college allocated to her within the time prescribed. 57. The learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland shall inform the respondents about this Judgment so that they may comply with the same within the prescribed time. 58. The respondent authorities are directed to comply with this Judgment and Order in a time bound manner so that the reliefs granted to the petitioner herein do not become infructuous. 59. Both the above mentioned writ petitions are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated herein above.