Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1799 (GAU)

Kashito Sumi v. State of Nagaland

2025-11-07

DEVASHIS BARUAH, PRANJAL DAS

body2025
JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. A. Zho, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional Advocate General of the State of Nagaland who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners herein who are Graduate Teachers have challenged the vires of Rule 15 of the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2017 (for short, “the Rules of 2017”) as well as Schedule-II of the said Rules. In addition to that, the petitioners have also assailed the Advertisement No. NPSC-1/LDE/2022 dated 21.07.2022 (hereinafter referred to as, “the impugned Advertisement”). 3. Taking into account that the vires of Rule 15 as well as Schedule-II to the Rules of 2017 have been assailed, we find it relevant to take note of some of the relevant features of the Rules of 2017. 4. The Rules of 2017 are made in exercise of the powers conferred under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to Nagaland School Education Service. 5. Rule 3 of the Rules of 2017 stipulates as regards the constitution of the Service. In terms with the said Rule, the service shall consists of those persons who at the commencement of the Rules of 2017 were holding regular appointments to the post specified in Schedule-1 to the Rules of 2017 as well as those persons recruited to the service after the commencement of the Rules of 2017. 6. In terms with Rule 5 of the Rule of 2017, the Methods of recruitment have been stipulated. A perusal of the said Rule reveals that the recruitment to the posts specified in Schedule-1 to the Rules of 2017 can be made by the following methods: (a) By direct recruitment; or (b) By recruitment from lower grades; or (c) By promotion; or (d) By selection through limited Departmental Examinations. In terms with Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2017, the respective quotas reserved for direct recruitment and by promotion, the qualifications and conditions for direct recruitment and for promotion/placement to various grades of the service shall be specified in Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017. 7. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2017 stipulates, as to how, recruitment can be made by way of Direct Recruitment. 7. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2017 stipulates, as to how, recruitment can be made by way of Direct Recruitment. It is relevant to mention that the said Rule also stipulates, as to how, direct recruitment can be made to the post of Graduate Teachers and Primary Teachers which is the subject matter of the present adjudication. 8. Rule 7 of the Rules of 2017 refers to Qualifications for Direct Recruitment. In terms with Sub-Rule A of Rule 7 of the Rules of 2017, the age for direct recruitment are stipulated. Educational Qualifications have been mentioned in Sub-Rule B of Rule 7 of the Rules of 2017. Clause II of Rule 7B of the Rules of 2017 relates to the educational qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of Graduate Teacher in various subjects. The said Clause II of Rule 7B of the Rules of 2017 being relevant is reproduced herein under: “II. The required educational qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of Graduate Teacher in various subjects shall be as follows:- (a) Graduate/Post Graduate with at least 50% marks (or an equivalent degree) relaxable by 5% for Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste/differently abled candidates, in either Graduation or Post Graduation at the Bachelor's degree level in the relevant subject from a recognized university; (b) Bachelor- of Education (B.Ed), B.A.Ed//B.Sc.Ed from any National Council of Teacher Education recognized institution; and (c) Besides fulfilling the above qualification, the candidate must have cleared the State Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the SCERT.” 9. Clause III of Rule 7B of the Rules of 2017 stipulates the required educational qualifications for recruitment to the post of Primary Teacher. The said Clause being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ III. The required educational qualification for recruitment to the post of Primary Teacher. (a) Senior Secondary (Class XII or its equivalent)/Graduate with at least 50% marks (or an equivalent grade) relaxable by 5% for Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste/differently abled candidates from a recognized Board/university; (b) PSTE or D.El.Ed or Bachelor of Education (B.Ed), B.A.Ed/ B.Sc.Ed from any National Council of Teacher Education recognized institution; and (c) Besides fulfilling the above qualification, the candidate must have cleared the State Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the SCERT.” 10. Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017 refers to Recruitment by Selection from Lower Grades. The said Rule being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ 12. Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017 refers to Recruitment by Selection from Lower Grades. The said Rule being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ 12. Recruitment by Selection from Lower Grades The following posts shall be filled up by recruitment by selection from lower grades through Departmental Selection Board on the basis of merit cum seniority:- i) 30% of the vacant posts of Post Graduate Teachers occurring in a year shall be filled up through a selection process by recruitment from amongst Graduate Teachers and Primary Teachers having Post Graduate degree with 50% relaxable by 5% for Schedule Tribe/Schedule Caste/differently abled candidates at the master's degree level with B.Ed/B.A. B.Ed/B.Sc.B.Ed and has rendered a continuous service of seven years as a Graduate Teacher and Primary Teacher. (ii) Thirty percent of the vacant posts of Graduate Teachers occurring in a year shall be filled up by recruitment through a selection process from amongst the Primary Teachers having graduate degree with 50% relaxable by 5% for Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe/differently abled candidates at degree level with PSTE/Del.Ed/B.Ed. and has rendered a continuous teaching service of seven years as a Primary Teacher. iii) Inter-se seniority shall be as per the thirty points roster between the direct recruitment and selection from the lower grade as given in Annexure 1 to Schedule II of these rules.” 11. From a perusal of the above quoted Rule, it would transpire that in terms with Clause (i) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017, 30% of the vacant posts of Post Graduate Teachers occurring in a year shall be filled up through a selection process by recruitment from amongst the Graduate Teachers and Primary Teachers having Post Graduate degree with 50% relaxable by 5% for Schedule Tribe/Schedule Caste/differently abled candidates at the master’s degree level with B.Ed./B.A. B.Ed./B.Sc. B.Ed. and had rendered a continuous service of seven years as a Graduate Teacher and Primary Teacher. In terms of Clause (ii) of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017, it is stipulated that 30% of the vacant posts of Graduate Teachers occurring in a year shall be filled up by recruitment through a selection process from amongst the Primary Teachers having graduate degree with 50% relaxable by 5% for Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe/differently abled candidates at degree level with PSTE/Del.Ed./B.Ed. and has rendered a continuous teaching service of seven years as a Primary Teacher. and has rendered a continuous teaching service of seven years as a Primary Teacher. It is apposite herein to observe that for the purpose of filling up the posts of Senior Graduate Teacher in terms with Clause (i) of Rule 12, the Rule making authority have grouped both the Graduate Teachers as well as Primary Teachers as one group subject to have the educational qualifications mentioned in the said Clause. 12. Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 relates to Limited Departmental Examination which is the subject matter of the present dispute. The said Rule being relevant is reproduced herein under: “ 15. Limited Departmental Examination i) 20% of all the vacant posts of Junior Education Officers/Assistant Headmasters in a calendar year shall be reserved for recruitment through Limited Departmental Examination from amongst the Graduate Teachers/Primary Teachers and those holding equivalent post with 50% marks relaxable by 5% for Schedule Tribe/Schedule Caste/differently abled candidates degree/post graduate level with B.Ed/PSTE/DEL.Ed and who have served at least ten years of continuous regular service as Graduate Teacher/Primary Teacher/equivalent post. ii) The Limited Department Examination shall be conducted by NPSC. iii) The examination shall consist of the following subjects:- S l . No. Subject Type Maximum Marks 1. Paper-I General Knowledge and General English Objective and Subjective 170 2. Paper-2 Professional Education Subjective 170 3. Paper-3 Fundamental Rules, Service Rules and Office Procedures Objective and Subjective 170 The detailed syllabi for limited departmental examination shall be as given in Annexure 2 to Schedule II of these rules. iv) Pass Percentage:- a) A candidate shall be declared to have passed the departmental examination if he secures 50% in each of the subjects referred to in Rules-15 (iii) above. b) Marks secured by a candidate in one examination shall not be carried forward to the next examination. c) Marks in any paper being a fraction like, ½, 1/4 shall be rounded off to the nearest whole number. v) Chances Permissible and Age Limit:- a) A maximum of five numbers of chances may be availed of by a candidate. b) There shall be no age bar or age limit for appearing in the Examination. vii) Application for departmental examination Advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates shall be notified by Nagaland Public Service Commission at least thirty days ahead from the last date of submission of application forms. b) There shall be no age bar or age limit for appearing in the Examination. vii) Application for departmental examination Advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates shall be notified by Nagaland Public Service Commission at least thirty days ahead from the last date of submission of application forms. A prescribed application forms for departmental examination shall be issued by Nagaland Public Service Commission. vii) Roster Table Fifty point roster table shall be maintained by the department for maintaining proportionate quota between Departmental Examination and Promotion among the senior graduate teachers as given in Annexure 3 to Schedule II to these rules.” 13. From a perusal of the above quoted Rule, more particularly, Clause (i) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, it show that 20% of all vacant posts of Junior Education Officers/Assistant Headmasters in a calendar year shall be reserved for recruitment through Limited Departmental Examination from amongst the Graduate Teachers/Primary Teachers and those having equivalent post with 50% marks relaxable by 5% for Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste/differently abled candidates degree/post graduate level with B.Ed./PSTE/DEL.Ed. and who have served at least ten years of continuous regular service as Graduate Teacher/Primary Teacher/equivalent post. In terms with Clause (ii) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, the Limited Departmental Examination would be conducted by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC). What would be the subjects and the marks allocated to such subjects in the examination to be held are stipulated in Clause (iii) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017. In terms with Clause (iv) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, the Pass Percentage have been duly mentioned. Sub-Clause (a) of Clause (iv) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 stipulates that the candidate shall be declared to have passed the departmental examination if he/she secures 50% in each of the subjects referred to in Clause (iii) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017. In terms with Clause (v) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, the chances Permissible and Age Limit have been stipulated. The maximum chances a candidate can take is five, but there is no age bar or age limit for appearing in the examination. In terms with Clause (v) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, the chances Permissible and Age Limit have been stipulated. The maximum chances a candidate can take is five, but there is no age bar or age limit for appearing in the examination. In terms with Clause (vii) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, the Nagaland Public Service Commission has to notify by way of an Advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates at least thirty days ahead from the last date of submission of the application forms. Such prescribed application forms shall be issued by the Nagaland Public Service Commission. Clause (viii) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 refers to Roster Table, stipulating that 50 (Fifty) point roster shall be maintained by the department for maintaining proportionate quota between Departmental Examination and Promotion amongst the Senior Graduate Teachers as given in Annexure-3 to Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017. 14. In the backdrop of the above, let us now take into account Schedule-1 of the Rules of 2017. 15. Schedule-1 of the Rules of 2017 refers to the various posts coming within the ambit of Services under the Rules of 2017. Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017 is of relevance, taking into account the challenge made to the same in the instant writ petition. The challenge so made to Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017 is the contents of Serial No. 7 which relates to the post of Assistant Headmaster/Junior Education Officer (Junior Grade-II). The entry at Serial No. 7 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017 being relevant is reproduced herein under: 16. A reading of the above quoted entry at Serial No. 7 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017 would show that the post of Assistant Headmaster/Junior Education Officer (Junior Grade-II) can be filled up in the ratio of 80% by Promotion and 20% by Limited Departmental Examination. The recruitment to the post of Assistant Headmaster/Junior Education Officer (Junior Grade- II) by way of promotion which is 80% would be filled up on recommendation of the Committee amongst the confirmed Senior Graduate Teacher/Senior Legal Assistant provided that he or she had completed at least seven years as Senior Graduate Teacher/Senior Legal Assistant. In addition to that, the Senior Graduate Teacher/Senior Legal Assistant must have served at least one tenure in a rural area. In addition to that, the Senior Graduate Teacher/Senior Legal Assistant must have served at least one tenure in a rural area. From the above stipulation at Clause (a) of Serial No. 7 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017 would therefore make it clear that a Graduate Teacher cannot be promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster/Junior Education Officer (Junior Grade-II). However, in terms with Clause (b), which appears to be in tune with Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, 20% of all the vacant posts of Junior Education Officers/Assistant Headmasters in a calendar year shall be reserved for recruitment through Limited Departmental Examination from amongst the Graduate Teachers/Primary Teachers and those holding equivalent posts with 50% marks relaxable by 5% for ST/SC/differently abled candidates degree/ Post Graduate level with B.Ed./PSTE/DEL.ED. In addition to that, the said Graduate or Primary Teacher have to also serve at least ten years of continuous regular service as Post Graduate Teacher/ Graduate Teacher/ Primary Teacher /equivalent post. 17. In the backdrop of the above provisions, let us now take up the case of the petitioners. 18. The petitioners herein are Graduate Teachers who have assailed Rule 15 as well as Serial No. 7 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017. The vires of Rule 15 as well as entry at Serial No. 7 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017 have been assailed on the ground that permitting the Graduate Teachers to compete with the Primary Teachers for the post of Assistant Headmaster/Junior Education Officer amounts to unreasonable classification, thereby resulting in unequals being treated equally. It is the further case of the petitioners that on the basis of Rule 15 read with entry at Serial No. 7 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017, the impugned Advertisement was issued and therefore the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition. 19. The record reveals that this Court vide an order dated 30.08.2022 issued notice and further stayed the Advertisement dated 21.07.2022 issued by the Nagaland Public Service Commission, Kohima whereby applications were invited for filling up of 56 Nos. of vacancies of Assistant Headmaster/Junior Education Officer through Limited Departmental Examination under School Education Department. 20. The record further reveals that the respondent State had filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, various preliminary objections were taken as regards the maintainability of the instant writ petition. of vacancies of Assistant Headmaster/Junior Education Officer through Limited Departmental Examination under School Education Department. 20. The record further reveals that the respondent State had filed an affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, various preliminary objections were taken as regards the maintainability of the instant writ petition. However, at the time of argument, the same having not been pressed, we would not like to enter into them. In the affidavit-in-opposition, on merits, it was mentioned that the Rules of 2017 were made on the basis of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India after necessary clearance from various authorities. It was averred that as on the date on which the affidavit was filed there were 3,361 Graduate Teachers under the School Education Department and except these 50 petitioners, the other Graduate Teachers are not aggrieved with Rule 15 as well as Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017. It was further stated that the primary intention behind introducing Rule 15 read with Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017 was for the Government to achieve added efficiency in providing educational services as mandated by the Constitution of India, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the National Policy on Education, 1986 (now termed as National Education Policy). It was further mentioned in the said affidavit-in- opposition that by reserving 20% of the post of Junior Education Officers/Assistant Headmasters for Limited Departmental Examination, the rule making authority intended that eligible, qualified and deserving candidates gets recruited in the post of Junior Education Officer/Assistant Headmaster, who would otherwise have to wait in queue for the promotional turn or who may otherwise never reach the position of Junior Education Officer/Assistant Headmaster throughout the entire career. 21. A further perusal of the affidavit would show that the respondents have stated that in terms with the eligibility conditions for being eligible to apply under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 were that the Graduate Teachers/Primary Teachers or others holding equivalent posts should possess: a) Degree/Post Graduate Degree; b) B.Ed./PSTE/D.El.Ed.; and, c) Ten years of continuous regular service. 22. Additionally, it was also contended in the affidavit-in- opposition that Regulation 4.2 of the National Council of Teachers Education Regulations, 2014 prescribes the eligibility criteria for admission to M.Ed. program. In the said Regulations of 2014, persons holding B.Ed. and D.El.Ed are considered eligible for undergoing M.Ed. 22. Additionally, it was also contended in the affidavit-in- opposition that Regulation 4.2 of the National Council of Teachers Education Regulations, 2014 prescribes the eligibility criteria for admission to M.Ed. program. In the said Regulations of 2014, persons holding B.Ed. and D.El.Ed are considered eligible for undergoing M.Ed. program, which meant that National Council of Teachers Education Regulations, 2014 placed B.Ed. and D.El.Ed. on equivalent footing. It was further mentioned that the Limited Departmental Examination syllabus of Paper-II (Professional education) mentioned in the Rules of 2017 consists of M.Ed. and M.A. (education) syllabus only. As such, the Rules of 2017 did not place any different criteria to benefit the Primary Teachers. 23. The writ petitioners filed an affidavit-in-reply reiterating the contentions made in the present writ petition. It was contended that the classification of Graduate Teachers and Primary Teachers is based upon “intelligible differentia”, namely, educational qualification. This differentia has an objective, that the adequately qualified persons be appointed to the post of Graduate Teacher and Primary Teacher as mentioned in Rule 6 of the Rules of 2017. It was further stated in the said affidavit-in- reply that the Limited Departmental Examination is counter- productive as it allows for recruitment from unequally qualified and differentially eligible individuals. It was further averred that Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 is a provision designed to unduly benefit only one category of teachers, thereby compromising the objective to recruit efficient, qualified and deserving candidates. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 24. Mr. A. Zho, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the qualification of the Graduate Teachers is different from the qualification of the Primary Teachers and in fact the post of Graduate Teacher is a promotional post to that of Primary Teacher as would be seen from Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017. Additionally, as per Schedule- 1 of the Rules of 2017, the scale of pay of Primary Teacher is much lower than that of Graduate Teacher. The learned counsel therefore submitted that allowing the Primary Teachers to compete with Graduate Teachers in the Limited Departmental Examination as envisaged under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 amounts to permitting unequals to be treated equally, which violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. The learned counsel therefore submitted that allowing the Primary Teachers to compete with Graduate Teachers in the Limited Departmental Examination as envisaged under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 amounts to permitting unequals to be treated equally, which violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that the classification so made cannot be said to be a valid classification inasmuch as a Graduate Teacher cannot be treated equally with Primary Teacher. He therefore submitted that Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 is ultra vires the Constitution of India and accordingly this Court, therefore, in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should strike down Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 insofar as permitting Primary Teachers to participate in the Limited Departmental Examination. The learned counsel further submitted that the impugned advertisement being fallout of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 which is unconstitutional, the impugned advertisement is also required to be interfered with. 26. Per contra, Ms. V. Suokhrie, the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the State being the employer in terms with the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India has the power to regulate the Terms and Conditions of Recruitment as well as Service. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that the instant writ petition is completely misconceived inasmuch as the petitioners have failed to understand the concept of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) as envisaged under Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 which is based upon the intention of the rule making authority to achieve added efficiency in providing educational services, thereby intending that the eligible, qualified and deserving candidates gets recruitment in the post of Junior Education Officer/Assistant Headmaster who would otherwise have to wait in the queue for their promotional turn. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that by introducing the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for 20% of the post of Junior Education Officer/Assistant Headmasters, opportunity is provided to not only Primary Teachers, but also Graduate Teachers as well as equivalent posts, to compete with each other and attain accelerated promotion by selection to the post of Junior Education Officer/Assistant Headmaster. The learned Additional Advocate General further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pavnesh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others reported in ( 2023) SCC OnLine SC 1583 to draw the distinction between a normal promotion and promotion by selection through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and referred to paragraph No. 16. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 27. Before dealing with the respective submissions, this Court first finds it relevant to take note of what is a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. A Limited Departmental Competitive Examination is a source of recruitment whereby opportunities are afforded to persons who are already in service at lower level to have accelerated promotion depending upon the merit of such candidates. This mode of recruitment has been judicially recognized in various cases by the Supreme Court. In All India Judges Association & Others Vs. Union of India & Other reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 , the Supreme Court observed that there should be an incentive amongst the relatively junior and other officers to improve and to compete with each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion. Paragraph Nos. 27 and 28 of the said judgment being relevant are reproduced herein under: “ 27. Another question which falls for consideration is the method of recruitment to the posts in the cadre of Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges and Additional District Judges. At the present moment, there are two sources for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service, namely, by promotion from amongst the members of the Subordinate Judicial Service and by direct recruitment. The subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other foundation, that it should become as strong as possible. The weight on the judicial system essentially rests on the subordinate judiciary. While we have accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commission which will result in the increase in the pay scales of the subordinate judiciary, it is at the same time necessary that the judicial officers, hard-working as they are, become more efficient. It is imperative that they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the Shetty Commission has recommended the establishment of a Judicial Academy, which is very necessary. It is imperative that they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the Shetty Commission has recommended the establishment of a Judicial Academy, which is very necessary. At the same time, we are of the opinion that there has to be certain minimum standard, objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher Judicial Service as Additional District Judges and District Judges. While we agree with the Shetty Commission that the recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judge cadre from amongst the advocates should be 25 per cent and the process of recruitment is to be by a competitive examination, both written and viva voce, we are of the opinion that there should be an objective method of testing the suitability of the subordinate judicial officers for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service. Furthermore, there should also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior and other officers to improve and to compete with each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion. In this way, we expect that the calibre of the members of the Higher Judicial Service will further improve. In order to achieve this, while the ratio of 75 per cent appointment by promotion and 25 per cent by direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is maintained, we are, however, of the opinion that there should be two methods as far as appointment by promotion is concerned: 50 per cent of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority. For this purpose, the High Courts should devise and evolve a test in order to ascertain and examine the legal knowledge of those candidates and to assess their continued efficiency with adequate knowledge of case-law. The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service shall be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through the limited departmental competitive examination for which the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less than five years. The High Courts will have to frame a rule in this regard. 28. The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service shall be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through the limited departmental competitive examination for which the qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less than five years. The High Courts will have to frame a rule in this regard. 28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we direct that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges will be: (1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test; (b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years' qualifying service; and (c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written and viva voce test conducted by respective High Courts. (2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by the High Courts as early as possible.” 28. It is further relevant to observe that the promotion to the higher level from and amongst those who are in the lower level in the service is not an avenue of promotion available to the persons from the open market. The promotion as a channel to reach higher level is only available to those persons already belonging to the service. In normal circumstances, the promotion would go by the concept of merit linked with seniority subject to suitability. However, in order to encourage, meritorious candidates who may be comparatively junior in service, a window of opportunity is open through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. Those who pass that examination are entitled to have accelerated promotion. This process does not change the character of the movement to the higher post, it continues to be a promotional channel. 29. In the backdrop of the above, it would be relevant to take note of that a Graduate Teacher in terms with Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017 can be promoted to the post of Senior Graduate Teacher. The Graduate Teacher, without the aid of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, cannot be promoted to the post of Junior Education Officer/Assistant Headmaster. The Graduate Teacher, without the aid of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, cannot be promoted to the post of Junior Education Officer/Assistant Headmaster. This Court further takes note of that a reading of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 categorically mandates that to avail the opportunity as given under the said Rule, the Primary Teacher as well as those equivalent posts are required to possess a degree/Post Graduate level with B.Ed./PSTE/DEL.Ed. Under such circumstances, a Primary Teacher who does not have a degree/Post Graduate along with B.Ed./PSTE/DEL.Ed. can be permitted to apply in terms with Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017. Therefore, the differentiation between a Graduate Teacher as well as a Primary Teacher on the question of educational qualification stands eroded in view of the stipulations contained in Clause (i) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017. Furthermore, a conjoint reading of Clauses (iii) & (iv) of Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 stipulates that each candidate has to pass the three papers by securing 50%. The syllabus to the said papers has been mentioned in Annexure-3 to the Rules of 2017. 30. It is very fundamental to observe that the very concept of the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, as mentioned herein above, is to give opportunity to officers at a junior level to have accelerated promotion if they qualify on merits or in other words, merit is the sole criterion. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no unreasonable classification by grouping the Graduate Teachers along with Primary Teachers and other equivalent posts. It must also not be brushed aside that while Rule 12 of the Rules of 2017 relates to recruitment by promotion, thereby conferring a right for consideration for the promotional post as per the mandate of the said Rule, but Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017 cannot be said to be a right to be considered for promotion, but is a Rule prescribing a chance of promotion which under no circumstances can be said to be a condition of service. 31. In view of the above analysis, we do not find any infirmity in Rule 15 as well as the entry at Serial No. 7 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017 to exercise the powers of judicial review. 31. In view of the above analysis, we do not find any infirmity in Rule 15 as well as the entry at Serial No. 7 of Schedule-II of the Rules of 2017 to exercise the powers of judicial review. The impugned advertisement also do not call for interference in view of our analysis and determination. Accordingly, we dismiss the instant writ petition and vacate the interim order passed earlier. 32. The respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate steps for giving effect to Rule 15 of the Rules of 2017, if so advised. 33. The Registry shall return the records back to the Kohima Bench.