JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. The All Nagaland Directorate & District Government Drivers’ Union (AND&DGDU) has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer: “PRAYER:- In the premises, it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordship's may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why the respondent authorities should not be directed: i) to honor & comply the Meeting Minutes dated 13-08-2010 and to treat on the principle of Equality before Law and Equal treatment by Law. ii) To upgrade the post of Senior most driver to Head driver under the departments mentioned at Annexure-5A. And on cause(s) being shown and on hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass any such other or further order/orders as to your Lordship's may deem fit and proper.” 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner Union consists of the Drivers in the various Directorates and the DC Offices and are espousing the cause for its members. The edifice of the present claim is a resolution of a Committee head by the Chief Secretary of the State in its meeting dated 13.08.2010. Since the entire case is dependent on the said resolution, those are extracted hereinbelow: “MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 13-08-2010 IN THE OFFICE CHAMBER OF CHIEF SECRETARY FOR DISCUSSION ON DEMANDS OF THE ALL NAGALAND GOVT. DRIVERS ASSOCIATION(ANGDA). In pursuance to Meeting Notice vide NO.CSO.CIRC/2010 dated 10-02-2010, a meeting was held in the Conference Hall of Chief Secretary under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary. The following Officers also attended the meeting: 1. Shri R. Angami, Joint Secretary & Transport Officer. 2. Shri H. Achumi, Transport Commissioner. 3. Shri Longshak Phom, Dy. General Manager, NST. ANGDA submitted a memorandum to Chief Secretary on 13-08-2010 containing the following demands: 1. To allow ANGDA. 1) as faculty member in the Driving School, 2) to impact training/to give opportunity to the Head Drivers while in service or after service as Instructor in the Driving School 3) to give opportunity to conduct Special Dry within the training period. Driving School is being manned by qualified candidates in technical line. Therefore, it will not be proper to give chance to the Head Drivers to impart training in the Driving School. Driving School is being manned by qualified candidates in technical line. Therefore, it will not be proper to give chance to the Head Drivers to impart training in the Driving School. However, Principal of the Driving School is asked to arrange a sort of refresher courses for the Members of ANGDA. 2. To declare Drivers profession as "Technical Cadre". Technical Cadre is manned by technically trained employees. Driving profession is not technical. This demand was therefore not agreed to. 3. To recognize ANGDA as "Non-Government Organisation" Associations/Unions of Govt. employees cannot be declared or treated as "Non-Government Organisation." ANGDA itself is a registered Association of Govt. employees. 4. To provide a Govt. building for the Officer of the ANGDA. It was agreed in principle. The ANGDA as well as Govt. shall explore availability of Govt. building for the Office of the ANGDA. B. The Nagaland Directorate & District Govt. Drivers' Union also submitted Memorandum to Chief Secretary on 19-08-2010 to provide post of Driver-Supervisor/Head Driver to all Directorates. It was agreed in principle to provide one post each to All Directorate and D.C. Offices in the State. The selection shall be done on the basis of Seniority-Cum-Merit. In addition to the above demands submitted to Chief Secretary on 19-08-2010, other demands which were earlier submitted by ANGDA were also taken up for discussion. 1) Group Insurance Scheme. It was agreed in principle to enhance the present rate subject to observance of procedures regulating GIS. 2) Liveries. It was decided not to introduce liveries for the present. Sd/-25.8.2010 (LALTHARA)IAS” 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the aforesaid resolution “B” pertaining to providing one post of Head Driver in each of the Offices has not been implemented fully and accordingly, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Shri Supongwati, learned counsel for the petitioners has informed that presently 39 nos. of Departments / Directorates have implemented the aforesaid resolution whereby, the Head Drivers have been appointed. However, 12 nos. of Departments / Directorates are yet to have a Head Driver. He submits that the resolution should be implemented in its entirety as the same was taken on the representation of the petitioners which finds mention in the resolution itself. 5. Per contra, Ms. Suokhrie, learned Addl. However, 12 nos. of Departments / Directorates are yet to have a Head Driver. He submits that the resolution should be implemented in its entirety as the same was taken on the representation of the petitioners which finds mention in the resolution itself. 5. Per contra, Ms. Suokhrie, learned Addl. AG, Nagaland has firstly submitted that the minutes of the meeting dated 13.08.2010 shall not vest any indefeasible rights to the petitioners to make the present claim. She has specifically contended that unless the minutes of meeting is translated into the form of an order, no rights would accrue upon any incumbent. The learned State Counsel has, otherwise submitted that a Head Driver can be appointed only when the number of drivers in a particular DC Office or Directorate is 30 and in fact, in those Offices / Directorates which fulfils the aforesaid requirement, Head Drivers have been designated / appointed. She has submitted that when the requirement is not fulfilled, the aspect of such designation as Head Drivers would not arise. She has also highlighted that few of the Offices are very new where there is no requirement of such Head Drivers. 6. Shri Supongwati, learned counsel for the petitioners, in her reply has referred to the additional-affidavit filed on 30.05.2025 and has submitted that for certain Offices / Directorates having less than 30 nos. of drivers, Head Drivers have been designated / appointed. In this regard, he has specifically referred to the averments made in paragraph 2 of the said additional-affidavit and has submitted that when the State Government has taken a decision to designate Head Drivers in Offices / Directorates having less than 30 nos. of drivers, such decision is required to be implemented in all the other remaining Offices / Directorates. 7. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully perused. 8. From the materials placed on records and from the arguments advanced, it prima facie appears that the entire basis of the present claim is the resolution “B” taken in the meeting dated 13.08.2010 which has already been extracted above. It is true that a resolution was taken to have a Head Driver in each of the Directorate and DC Office. It also transpires that 39 Offices / Directorates have already fulfilled the said resolution by designating one Head Driver in each of those. 9. It is true that a resolution was taken to have a Head Driver in each of the Directorate and DC Office. It also transpires that 39 Offices / Directorates have already fulfilled the said resolution by designating one Head Driver in each of those. 9. While the petitioners have claimed their case on the aforesaid resolution, on the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the State that there was no order passed subsequent to the aforesaid resolution in absence of which, no vested right would accrue upon the petitioners to make any claim. The aspect of any order following a decision has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a number of cases. In this regard, one may gainfully refer to the case of Bachhittar Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. , reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 wherein a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: " 9. The questions, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by C. (1) of Art. 166 and then it has to be communicated. As already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made. Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot in our opinion be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. As long as the matter rested with him the Revenue Minister could well score out his remarks or minutes on the file and write fresh once." 10. This Court is of the considered view that in absence of an order, no claim can be made by the petitioners as no indefeasible right has been vested upon the petitioners. At the same time, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the resolution taken in the meeting dated 13.08.2010 was taken up for consideration and it is a matter of fact that in 39 Offices / Directorates, there has been appointment of Head Drivers. 11. The learned Addl. AG has, however, contended that there is a requirement of having a minimum of 30 nos. 11. The learned Addl. AG has, however, contended that there is a requirement of having a minimum of 30 nos. of Drivers so as to designate / give appointment as Head Driver and in many of the Offices, the number of Drivers is less than the required 30 and few of the Offices are very new. This Court has also taken note of the arguments advanced as well as pleaded in the additional-affidavit that even in Offices having less than 30 nos. of Drivers, Head Drivers have been appointed. This fact has not been disputed by the learned State Counsel. However, the learned State Counsel has hastened to add that any aberration in law would not give any right as the rights under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is positive in nature. 12. Be that as it may, while this Court is of the opinion that the present claim cannot he made as a matter of right, since a resolution was adopted and it also appears that in few of the Offices / Directorates, the strict requirement of having 30 nos. of Drivers has been relaxed, the State may take appropriate action for reconsidering as to whether there would be requirement of having a Head Driver in the remaining 12 nos. of Directorates / DC Offices. If in the opinion of the State, such action is required, the same may be taken in accordance with law and in a fair and transparent manner. The aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of 4 months from today. 13. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the observations indicated above. 14. Cost made easy.