Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1838 (GAU)

Tangmong S/o Pachi v. State of Nagaland

2025-11-12

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER

body2025
JUDGMENT : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. 1. The brief facts of the petitioners case is that the petitioners 1 to 14 are all qualified unemployed youth of Nagaland with Masters degree and NET qualified in their own subjects: The petitioner 1: MA Economics/NET Petitioner 2: MA Economics/NET Petitioner 3: MA Political science/NET Petitioner 4: MA Political Science/NET Petitioner 5: M.Sc Environmental Science/NET Petitioner 6: M.Sc Environmental Science/NET Petitioner 7: MA History/NET Petitioner 8: MA History/NET Petitioner 9: M.Ed/NET Petitioner 10: M.Ed/NET Petitioner 11: M.Ed/NET Petitioner 12: M.A English/NET Petitioner 13: M.A Sociology/NET Petitioner 14: M.A Sociology/NET. 2. It is stated that the petitioners have come before this Court challenging the appointments of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 34as Assistant Professors allegedly through the backdoor without advertisement in violation of Office Memorandums dated 07.07.1976, 26.02.2001, 18.02.2004 and 06.06.2016. These Office Memos prohibit direct recruitment without publicly inviting applications for the post and have also banned appointment on contract basis. 3. The petitioners have also alleged that the private respondents did not have the requisite qualification of NET for appointment as Assistant Professor at the time of their appointment. Only respondent 23 had NET qualification but she also did not have M.Ed with at least 55% marks or MA Education with 55% marks with B.Ed The petitioners have therefore, come before this Court praying for a direction to quash and set aside the impugned appointment orders of respondents 4 to 34 and the extension order dated 4th July 2022 extending the services of the respondents 4 to 34. And also for a direction to requisition any sanctioned posts of Assistant Professors held by the respondent Nos. 4 to 34 to the NPSC for advertisement and also to advertise non sanctioned post of Assistant Professors held by the respondents4 to 34 in accordance with law. Subsequently, by an order dated 08.05.2023 the respondent no.22 has been struck off from the array of respondents. 4. I have learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Z. Zhimomi and also the learned government advocate, Mr. V. Zhimomi for the state respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. L. Iralu for the respondent 9; Mr. A. Zho for respondents Nos. 4 to 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32; and Mr. James Newmai for the respondents Nos. 7, 14, 19, 24, 26 and 31. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. L. Iralu for the respondent 9; Mr. A. Zho for respondents Nos. 4 to 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32; and Mr. James Newmai for the respondents Nos. 7, 14, 19, 24, 26 and 31. 5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an Association known as ACAUT had filed PIL No. 11/2015 before a Division Bench of this Court challenging the contract appointments made through the backdoor in violation of Service Rules and without advertisement. It is stated that during the pendency of the PIL No. 11/2015, the State Government produced before the Court the Office Memorandum No. AR- 5/ASSO/98 dated 06.06.2016 which has banned appointment on contract basis. And the State respondents had also submitted that henceforth any appointment on contract basis shall be null and void and timely vacancies shall be requisitioned to the NPSC. In view of such submission, the Court closed the PIL by an Order dated 05.08.2016 granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court if the O.M dated 06.06.2016 was violated by the State respondents. 6. It is the submission of the learned counsel that even after the order dated 05.06.2016 passed by this Court in PIL No. 11/2016, the State Government continued the contract appointments and therefore, the ACAUT and Public Service Aspirants Nagaland (PSAN) filed WPC 145/2017 challenging the contract appointment to 706 Posts in 32 Departments. And this Court by Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2018 dismissed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability granting liberty to the petitioners to file separate writ petitions for each of the 32 Departments while directing the State respondents not to regularize any person who had completed three years of continuous service on contract/ Ad hoc basis in terms of Office Memorandum dated 04.08.2008 and 11.08.2016. 7. Against the said Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2018 passed in WPC 145/2017, the State Government filed Writ Appeal No. 16/2018. However, the writ appeal was dismissed by an Order dated 07.02.2019. 8. 7. Against the said Judgment and Order dated 03.08.2018 passed in WPC 145/2017, the State Government filed Writ Appeal No. 16/2018. However, the writ appeal was dismissed by an Order dated 07.02.2019. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that having no financial resources to challenge the back door appointments separately in 32 Departments, the Nagaland NET Qualified Forum (NNQF), came before this Court by filing WPC No. 12/2019 and WPC No. 65/2019 challenging the contract appointment of 208 Assistant Professors including the private respondents in the present writ petition. Thereafter, by an Order dated 06.06.2022 the two writ petitions were dismissed on the issue of maintainability as in some subjects/disciplines under challenge, there were no qualified petitioners in that particular subject, and liberty was granted to the NNQF to file a fresh petition, if so advised. 9. Subsequently, 18 NNQF members filed this WPC 340/2022 challenging the backdoor appointments of 31 Assistant Professors appointed without advertisement and without required qualification. 10. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners are all qualified in their respective subjects with NET qualification and eligible to appear in competitive exams as and when the post of Assistant Professor in their respective subjects is advertised through the NPSC or any other mode of advertisement made by the department of higher education. It is submitted that in order to regulate recruitment and appointments the State Government has been issuing various circulars, i.e. Office Memorandum No. AR/8/74 dated 07.07.1976; Office Memorandum No. AR/5/ASSO/98(C) dated 26.02.2001 and Office Memorandum No. AR/5/ASSO/98 dated 18.02.2004 prohibiting direct recruitment without publicly inviting applications for the post. 11. It is submitted that in spite of the aforementioned Office memorandums and the land mark judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, ( 2006) 4 SCC 1 , the State respondents continue to make contract appointments through the backdoor. In this connection, the PN&R Department further issued O.M No. PAR-B/3/2005 (Pt) dated 21.07.2011 directing all departments to requisition all posts carrying a scale of pay of Rs. 5200/- - 20,200/- with grade pay of Rs. 2800/- and above to the NPSC for advertisement. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in spite of the aforementioned Office Memorandums including the O.M dated 06.06.2016 banning appointment on contract basis the State respondents have appointed the respondents on contract basis through the backdoor. 13. 5200/- - 20,200/- with grade pay of Rs. 2800/- and above to the NPSC for advertisement. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in spite of the aforementioned Office Memorandums including the O.M dated 06.06.2016 banning appointment on contract basis the State respondents have appointed the respondents on contract basis through the backdoor. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that all the private respondents were appointed after the land mark judgment of Uma Devi (Supra) where it has been declared that any appointment, if made in violation of the Constitutional Scheme of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India would be rendered illegal and void and therefore the appointment of the private respondents as Assistant Professors without following the due process of law is illegal and void. It is stated that the law is well settled that any appointment made without issuing advertisements inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding selection process where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete, violates the fundamental rights of meritorious persons and for that matter all eligible candidates who without advertisement were unaware of the sanctioned/non-sanctioned vacancies arising in the department of higher education, have missed the opportunity to apply for the post of Assistant professors. It is also submitted that the private respondents have no substantive right to the post held by them and those who come through the back door should also go through that door. It is also submitted that the appointment of the private respondents is made in violation of the various Office Memorandums dated 07.07.1976, 26.02.2001, 18.02.2004, 21.07.2011 and 06.06.2016 and therefore the posts held by the private respondents have to be requisitioned to the NPSC for direct recruitment as prescribed by law. Further even if fixed pay/ contract/ad-hoc/temporary appointment is to be made as stop gap arrangement in administrative exigency, the positions held by the private respondents must be advertised so that all qualified candidates can participate in an open recruitment in a fair and transparent manner and the best among the candidates can be appointed. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appointment orders of all the private respondents are only for a period of 1 year initially. However their appointments have been extended from time to time and they are continuing in the illegal appointment till date. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appointment orders of all the private respondents are only for a period of 1 year initially. However their appointments have been extended from time to time and they are continuing in the illegal appointment till date. It is therefore submitted that there is a continuing cause of action due to the extensions given to the private respondents year after year and therefore even a recently qualified NET candidate can challenge the appointment of the private respondents. And every day the petitioner’s fundamental rights are being violated and therefore, the petitioners have the locus standi to challenge the appointment orders and the extension orders of the private respondents. 15. The petitioners rely on Rule 8 of the Higher Education service Rules 2003, wherein the method of recruitment for the post of lecturer is by direct recruitment through advertisement by the NPSC. Even in the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules of 2015 a similar provision is made in Rule 6 wherein it is stated that the method of recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor is by direct recruitment through advertisement by the NPSC. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the recruitment and qualification provisions in the UGC regulations of 30.06.2010 and 18.07.2018 wherein it is provided that NET/SLET/SET shall remain the minimum eligibility condition for recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors in Universities/colleges/Institutions. It is also provided in the UGC Regulations that appointment on contract basis can be made only when it is absolutely necessary and when the students-teacher ratio does not satisfy the laid down norms. In any case the nos. of such appointment should not excess 10% of the total No. of faculty positions in a collage/university. It is further provided that the qualifications and selection procedures for appointing them should be the same as those applicable to a regularly appointed teacher. The fixed emoluments paid to such contract teacher should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointment should not be made initially, for more than one academic session. And the performance of such teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before re- appointing him/her on contract basis for another session. The fixed emoluments paid to such contract teacher should not be less than the monthly gross salary of a regularly appointed Assistant Professor. Such appointment should not be made initially, for more than one academic session. And the performance of such teacher should be reviewed for academic performance before re- appointing him/her on contract basis for another session. Such appointment on contract basis may also be resorted to when absolutely necessary to fill vacancies arising due to maternity leave, child care leave etc. Learned counsel therefore submits that according to the UGC regulationsit is mandated that the qualification and selection procedure even for contract appointment should be the same as those applicable to regularly appointed teachers. Hence, in the present writ petition, the UGC regulations have also been violated. Learned counsel submits that even for filling up deputation vacancy, or maternity leave vacancy on contract basis, the same has to be advertised. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the impugned appointment Orders of the private respondents and the impugned extension order may be quashed and set aside and the State respondents may be directed to requisition the sanctioned posts of Assistant Professors held by the private respondents to the NPSC for advertisement and also to advertise the non sanctioned posts held by the private respondents for appointment on contract basis. 16. Learned Government Advocate Mr. V. Zhimomi appears on behalf of the State respondent Nos. 1,2 and 3. Learned govt. advocate categorically submits that the private respondents have not been appointed against sanctioned posts and any vacant sanctioned post on account of retirement etc have all been requisitioned to the NPSC for advertisement. The State respondents have annexed copies of the advertisements published in the newspapers in 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2022 as Annexure-A series in the affidavit-in-opposition. Therefore, the state respondents have not violated the O.Ms dated 07.07.1976, 26.02.2001, 18.02.2004, 21.07.2011 and 06.06.2016. 17. Learned Government Advocate submits that in all the Government colleges in Nagaland there is a short fall of teachers in different subjects due to non creation of posts by the government. It is stated that the government has not created posts of assistant professors since 2017. As there were no sanctioned posts the Department of Higher Education had to approach the Government for approval to appoint candidates who had applied for appointment as Assistant professors. It is stated that the government has not created posts of assistant professors since 2017. As there were no sanctioned posts the Department of Higher Education had to approach the Government for approval to appoint candidates who had applied for appointment as Assistant professors. On the approval of the government the Department of higher education has recruited the private respondents on fixed pay. The private respondents have accepted their appointments on the terms and conditions laid down by the government and were willing to offer their services on a meagre fixed pay purely on temporary basis liable to be terminated as and when the Government pleases. The appointment of the private respondents on contract basis under the Higher Education department was made due to exigency of service as not having teachers in a particular subject will create practical difficulties and directly affect the students’ careers. 18. Learned govt. advocate further submits that the Department of Higher Education has not violated any of the office memorandums as alleged by the petitioners as the temporary appointments of the private respondents were not made against any substantive sanctioned posts but they were appointed to meet immediate emergency requirement as provided in the UGC Regulations for making contract appointments. 19. Learned Govt. Advocate submits that as on date there are 491 regular Assistant Professors and 145 fixed pay Assistant Professors in 15 Government colleges in the State of Nagaland. In the two Colleges of Teacher’ Education there are 33 regular Assistant Professors and 5 fixed pay Assistant Professors. It is also stated that any sanctioned post which became vacant has been requisitioned to the NPSC and during the process of recruitment, some of the fixed pay Assistant Professor’s services have been extended on exigency basis since there is shortage of teachers in almost all the Government colleges. For the colleges permanently affiliated to the Nagaland University the Nagaland University has issued the Regulations of 2021 for introduction of PG program. As per Regulation 12A of the Nagaland University Regulation 2021, there has to be at least 10 teachers, 5 for UG and 5 For PG in the Science Stream and at least 8 teachers, 4 for UG and 4 for PG in the other streams. This requirement was met by appointing the private respondents on fixed pay. As per Regulation 12A of the Nagaland University Regulation 2021, there has to be at least 10 teachers, 5 for UG and 5 For PG in the Science Stream and at least 8 teachers, 4 for UG and 4 for PG in the other streams. This requirement was met by appointing the private respondents on fixed pay. Moreover, the payments of remuneration to the private respondents are paid under the category of wages, not salary and not as per the UGC Regulations. It is also submitted that the respondents had issued a Notification No.HTE/Misc-4/02(Pt) dated 30.01.2018 directing all the in-service fixed pay teachers to clear NET within two years and Ph.D within 3 years, failing which there would be no further service extension. Subsequently another Notification No.HTE/Misc-4/02 (pt) dated 29.08.2018 was issued wherein it was reiterated that anyone teaching in the Colleges should NET/PhD. The private respondents have since acquired the requisite qualifications. 20. Learned Govt. Advocate, therefore, submits that all available vacant posts of Assistant Professors has already been requisitioned and advertised over the years starting from 2013 to 2022 and there can be no advertisement at present as the private respondents are not holding sanctioned posts. 21. Learned Govt. advocate also submits that violation of the office memorandums regarding direct recruitment and submission of requisition to the NPSC is only applicable in respect of contract appointment without advertisement against sanctioned posts. Learned Govt. advocate, therefore submits that the prayers made in the writ petitions are misplaced and no such directions as prayed for in the writ petitions can be issued by this court as the respondents are not appointed against sanctioned substantive vacancies. 22. Learned Counsel Mr. A. Zho appearing for respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32 submits that some of the private respondents are appointed before 06.06.2016; all the respondents are appointed without sanctioned posts, and all the petitioners except petitioner 3 and 5 did not possess the requisite qualification at the time when the respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32 were appointed. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32 were appointed. Therefore, the petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the appointments of the private respondents when they were not qualified and eligible on the date of appointment of the private respondents. And such a writ petition cannot be entertained by this Court. 23. Learned Counsel submits that the petitioner has filed the instant batch of writ petitions relying on Uma Devi’s case that public posts have to be advertised before being filled up. However, learned counsel submits that the facts and circumstances in the present writ petition can be differentiated from the facts of the Uma Devi Case. It is also submitted that the judgments relied upon by the petitioner has laid down certain general principles that even for temporary appointments advertisement has to be made. But the temporary appointments in the cited cases relates to temporary appointment against substantive sanctioned posts. The facts of the cases relied upon by the petitioners are therefore different from the instant writ petition and therefore they cannot beneficial to the petitioner’s case. 24. Learned Counsel submits that when the private respondents Nos. 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30 and 32 were appointed on contract basis only petitioner no. 3 and 5 had qualified the NET exam. It is stated that the respondents Nos. 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 27, 30 and 32 were appointed purely on need basis in exigency of service as the subjects were already introduced in the curriculum in the colleges but there were no posts and no teachers which would have deprived the students. The private respondents are all appointed on fixed pay and presently they are drawing a fixed wage of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Learned counsel submits that as the respondents Nos. 4 to 6, 8, 10, 11, 12-13, 15, 16 to 18, 20 to 21, 23, 25, 27, 30 and 32 are not appointed against any sanctioned post, the prayer of the petitioner to advertise the posts held by them is not a valid prayer. The petitioners have not filed any reply to the counter affidavit of the respondents either. 25. 4 to 6, 8, 10, 11, 12-13, 15, 16 to 18, 20 to 21, 23, 25, 27, 30 and 32 are not appointed against any sanctioned post, the prayer of the petitioner to advertise the posts held by them is not a valid prayer. The petitioners have not filed any reply to the counter affidavit of the respondents either. 25. Learned Counsel submits that in view of the statements and contentions made herein above it can be seen that there are many discrepancies in the writ petitions and this Court needs to dismiss the same on the issue of maintainability in as much as almost all the petitioners were not eligible and qualified at the time when the private respondents were appointed on contract basis. It is also stated that most of the private respondents were appointed before 06.06.2016, i.e. before the ban on contract appointment. Moreover the private respondents have all been appointed on fixed pay without sanctioned post. It is submitted that the private respondents have been appointed over a period of time ranging from 2008 to 2019 and therefore the present writ petitions may be dismissed even on the ground of delay as the writ petition was filed only in 2022 and thereby the inordinate and unexplained delay has not been explained by the petitioners. Learned counsel has relied on the Case of Ayaaub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 465 . 26. Learned counsel submits that in the case of Ayaaub Khan (Supra) the Supreme Court had clarified that it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court that he falls within the category of aggrieved person. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc, in a court of law. The Supreme Court also held that an applicant before the high court could not challenge the appointment of a person if she herself could not have been selected even if the appointment of the other person was quashed. It was also held that the appointment had been challenged at a belated stage and therefore the petition should have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and non maintainability alone. It was also held that the appointment had been challenged at a belated stage and therefore the petition should have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and non maintainability alone. Learned counsel states that in the instant case the private respondents are receiving a fixed pay of Rs. 30,000/- per month and most of them have been serving on contract basis for more than 10 years. It has been reiterated that there are different causes of action and in a single writ petition this Court cannot adjudicate the matter and therefore the petitions need to be dismissed on this ground alone. 27. Learned counsel, Mr. L. Iralu appears for respondent No. 9 and has also adopted the submissions made by learned counsel A. Zho, as far as the delay in filling of the writ petitions and the locus standi of the petitioners are concerned. 28. Learned counsel states that the State respondents have failed to create sufficient posts as per the UGC norms. In lieu thereof the state respondents had to resort to engaging Assistant Professors on interim basis. It is submitted that the State is well within its right to make such arrangements for the smooth functioning of the colleges and in order not to deprive the students. Therefore, the petitioners have no locus to challenge the appointment of the respondent 9.The appointment of the respondent No. 9 is being challenged after 5 years without any explanation for the delay. 29. Learned counsel, Mr. L. Iralu submits that the service of the respondent 9 has been extended from time to time and he is now serving for 8 years. The State respondents have categorically contended in their affidavit that none of the private respondents are serving against sanctioned posts and the petitioners have not controverted the same by filing affidavit-in-reply. Learned counsel submits that the case of Uma Devi (Supra) is not applicable in the present case as in the case of Uma Devi the Supreme Court laid down the constitutional principles regarding public employment and regularization of irregular or temporary appointees against sanctioned posts. The difference in the facts is that the private respondents in the present writ petitions have been engaged purely as stop gap or contingency arrangements as there were no sanctioned posts. The difference in the facts is that the private respondents in the present writ petitions have been engaged purely as stop gap or contingency arrangements as there were no sanctioned posts. Learned counsel relies on paragraph 12 of the Uma Devi case(supra) wherein the Supreme court held that, “in spite of the constitutional scheme there may be occasions when the sovereign State or its instrumentalities will have to employ persons in posts which are temporary, on daily wages, as additional hands…………….this right of the Union or of the State government cannot but be recognized and there is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits such engaging of persons temporarily or on daily wages to meet the needs of the situation”. 30. Learned counsel, Mr. L. Iralu further submits that the UGC Regulations or the Higher education service Rules does not govern the private respondent. Their appointments are not regulated by any rules or regulations as they are merely fixed pay employees without sanctioned posts drawing a meagre wages of Rs. 30,000/- per month. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners for a direction to requisition and advertise the posts held by the private respondents is misplaced as there are no posts. Learned Counsel further relies on the case of Sivanandan C.T & others Vs. High Court of Kerala & Others, (2024) 3 SCC 799 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that candidates who had been selected 6 years ago cannot be unseated as unseating them would be contrary to public interest. Learned counsel therefore submits that even in the present case the respondent no.9 has already served on fixed contractual basis for 8 years. In view of the submissions, learned counsel prays that the present writ petition may be dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone. 31. Learned counsel, Mr. James Newmai appears for the respondent Nos. 7, 14, 19, 24, 26 and 31. Learned counsel has also adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. A. Zho and L. Iralu with regard to locus standi of the petitioners and the delay in filing the writ petitions. He has also reiterated that the respondents are all appointed without sanctioned posts and serving as Assistant professors on fixed pay. 32. Learned counsel has also adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel Mr. A. Zho and L. Iralu with regard to locus standi of the petitioners and the delay in filing the writ petitions. He has also reiterated that the respondents are all appointed without sanctioned posts and serving as Assistant professors on fixed pay. 32. Learned counsel submits that each of the petitioners can only be aggrieved in respect of posts in relation to his or her subject where he/she is eligible or has the requisite qualification. It is stated that except petitioner Nos. 3 and 5 none of the other petitioners have the locus to challenge the appointments of the respondents as they did not possess the requisite qualification when the respondents were appointed and as such they are not aggrieved persons. It is stated that the instant petition is not a public interest litigation and therefore each of the petitioners can only be aggrieved if at the time of the appointment of the respondents his/her right had been violated. 33. It is further submitted that the petitioner No. 3 qualified NET in Political Science only in 2014 whereas the respondent No. 7 was already appointed in 2010. The petitioner No. 5 has the qualification of EVS and as such petitioner No. 5 cannot challenge the appointment of respondents Nos. 7, 14, 19, 24, 26 and 31 who are from different subjects. 34. The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the authorities relied upon. 35. It is not disputed that appointment to public posts must ordinarily be made against sanctioned vacancies through transparent process of selection, consistent with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi, ( 2006) 4 SCC 1 has laid down this principle. However, paragraph 53 of the Uma Devi Judgment provides a one-time exception to the general rule against regularizing irregular appointments, allowing for the regularization of irregularly appointed employees who were duly qualified, had worked for at least 10 years in sanctioned posts and did so without the protection of Court’s orders. These exceptions were meant to be considered as a one-time measure within a 6 month period following the judgment. These exceptions were meant to be considered as a one-time measure within a 6 month period following the judgment. The key conditions were that the appointment was to be “irregular and not illegal”, the person had to be qualified, the post was to be a sanctioned one and the service was continuous for ten years before the judgment date. 36. A perusal of the appointment orders of the respondents in the present batch of writ petitions reveals that all the private respondents have been engaged on contractual basis on payment of fixed and consolidated remuneration, for a specific period, some of them have been engaged against deputation vacancy on fixed pay, and some are engaged against retirement vacancy awaiting recruitment through the NPSC. What is common is that all the respondents were engaged on temporary basis without sanctioned posts and are purely stop gap or contingency arrangements. There were no sanctioned posts but due to certain regulations issued by the Nagaland University for introduction of PG Program in all Government Colleges, the appointment of the private respondents were made to meet emergent academic necessities so that students will not suffer. It has already been contended by the State respondent in their affidavit that all vacant sanctioned posts of Assistant Professors has been requisitioned to the NPSC in 2003, 2015, 2016 and 2022. It has also been contended by the State respondents that non- sanctioned post cannot be requisitioned to the NPSC since there is no post. 37. At this juncture, the court will examine the question of maintainability of the writ petitions as this ground has been raised by all the private respondents. The Court has observed that except petitioner 3 and 5 none of the petitioners were qualified and eligible to be appointed as lecturer/Assistant professors at the time when the private respondents were engaged on fixed pay. In the case of B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs. Karnataka Urban Water Supply & Drainage Board Employees’ Association & others, (2006) 11 SCC 731 , the Apex Court held that a writ of certiorari cannot be issued at the behest of a person who himself is not qualified. 38. The petitioners have also not filed any reply to the affidavits filed by the respondents which would imply that the statements made in the counter affidavits are not controverted. 38. The petitioners have also not filed any reply to the affidavits filed by the respondents which would imply that the statements made in the counter affidavits are not controverted. The respondents have stated in their counter affidavits that their services have been extended from time to time since their first appointment. However the extension orders which were issued after the petitioners became eligible have neither been brought on record nor challenged except one extension order No.HTE/HE/13-3/2020/ dated 04.07.2022. The notification dated 04.07.2023 by which the services of the private respondents were extended is not under challenge. The latest extension orders of the private respondents vide No.HTE/HE/13-3/2020 (pt-1) dated 17.07.2025 is also not assailed. The parties to a case are bound by their pleadings and particularly in a writ proceeding pleadings are important as the dispute has to be decided on the basis of the affidavits filed by the parties. The discrepancies in the petition render the writ petition defective and not maintainable. 39. The Court requires a single cause of action or related cause of action for each petition and further all the petitioners should possess the locus standi to sustain the challenge to the appointment of the private respondents. If a petition contains several, different and distinct causes of action, the petition cannot be maintainable. Separate writ petitions have to be filed in order to prevent judicial inefficiency and confusion. If one or some of the writ petitioners lack locus, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 40. In view of the above reasons this Court is of the view that, the writ petition is not maintainable in the present form and there is no scope to enter into the merits of the case. The writ petition is therefore dismissed on the ground of maintainability and locus standi. However, the petitioners are given liberty to file appropriate and separate writ petitions in accordance with law if so advised. Before parting with the records, this Court has taken note of the fact that contract/interim arrangements are being continued till date. It is expected that such interim arrangements should not continue indefinitely and the state respondents should take a call in the matter with regard to creation of posts of Assistant Professors and upon being created; the same should be filled up by following due process of law. The writ petition stands disposed of. It is expected that such interim arrangements should not continue indefinitely and the state respondents should take a call in the matter with regard to creation of posts of Assistant Professors and upon being created; the same should be filled up by following due process of law. The writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any stands merged with this Order. No costs.