JUDGMENT : M. Zothankhuma, J. 1. Heard Mr. Limawapang, the learned counsel for the appellant and the writ petitioner in WP(C) 176/2019. Also heard Ms. Pichano, the learned Government Advocate, Nagaland, appearing for the State and Mr. T. Khezhie, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 in the writ appeal and the writ petitioner in WP(C) 296/2023. 2. The facts of the case is that advertisement dated 17/01/2018 had been issued for filling up the post of Sweeper in the office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto. The eligibility criteria required for participating in the selection process was that a candidate was required to be an indigenous inhabitant of the State of Nagaland. The respondent no. 4 secured the highest mark in the selection process and was appointed to the said post of Sweeper. The grievance of the appellant was that she should have been appointed to the said post instead of the respondent no.4, inasmuch as, the appellant had secured second highest mark and for the reason that the respondent no. 4 was not an indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland, as required in terms of the notification No. AR-8/8/76 dated 28/04/1977 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland. 3. The appellant filed WP(C) No.176/2019, praying that she should be appointed to the post of Sweeper instead of the respondent no. 4. During the proceedings of WP(C) 176/2019, the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate issued by the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto to the respondent no. 4 was cancelled by order dated 10/12/2019. Being aggrieved by the cancellation of the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate dated 14/06/2013, the respondent no. 4 made a challenge to the same by way of WP(C) NO. 194/2020. 4. The learned Single Judge disposed of WP(C) No. 176/2019 and WP(C) 194/2020 by a common judgement and order dated 04/03/2022, by holding that as the appellant had taken part in the selection process for appointment to the post of Sweeper, she could not subsequently turn around and make a challenge to the selection process. The learned Single Judge had also held that as the cancellation of the petitioner’s Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto, was made without any reason, the same could not be upheld and accordingly set aside the order dated 10/12/2019 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto. The learned Single Judge had also held that as the cancellation of the petitioner’s Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto, was made without any reason, the same could not be upheld and accordingly set aside the order dated 10/12/2019 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto. In the common judgement and order dated 04/03/2022, the learned Single Judge directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto, to make a fresh enquiry with regard to whether the respondent no. 4 was an indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland in terms of the notification dated 28/04/1977. 5. Consequent to the impugned judgement of the learned Single Judge, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto, issued notification dated 25/04/2023, wherein it held that the respondent no. 4 was not a indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland. Accordingly, the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate dated 14/06/2013 issued to the respondent no. 4 was again cancelled. 6. The respondent no. 4 has now put to challenge the notification dated 25/04/2023 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto in WP(C) 296/2023, which is pending in this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 30/11/2023 passed in WP(C) 296/2023, stayed the notification dated 25/04/2023. 7. This Court, in its order dated 07/12/2023 passed in the present writ appeal, had held that in view of the developments that had taken place with regard to the present case, the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 4 would have to be disposed of along with the Writ Appeal, to decide the issues pertaining to the said cases. 8. However, on considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, we are of the view that unless a decision is taken with regard to the correctness of the impugned judgement and order dated 04/03/2022 passed in WP(C) 176/2019 and WP(C) 194/2020, in so far as it relates to the dismissal of WP(C) 176/2019, it would be difficult to take a fair and unbiased decision with regard to the issue to be decided in WP(C) 296/2023. Accordingly, we are of the view that the present writ appeal should be decided, with regard to whether the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the appellant could not make a challenge to the selection process, only because the appellant had participated in the selection process. 9. The notification dated 28/04/1977 issued by the Govt. Accordingly, we are of the view that the present writ appeal should be decided, with regard to whether the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the appellant could not make a challenge to the selection process, only because the appellant had participated in the selection process. 9. The notification dated 28/04/1977 issued by the Govt. of Nagaland provides the criteria to be followed, while deciding whether a person qualifies to be an indigenous inhabitant of the State of Nagaland, for the purpose of employment. It requires that a person should be a permanent resident of Nagaland prior to 01/12/1963 and the criteria to be followed for determining whether a person is to have permanent settlement in the State of Nagaland prior to 01/12/1963, the following have to be considered:- “(1) His/her name or name of parents or legitimate guardians, in case the person was then a minor should have been entered in the Electoral Roll published on 5-12-1963. OR (2) The person or his/her parents or legitimate guardian should have been paying house tax prior to 1-12-1963. OR (3) The person or his/her parents or legitimate guardian should have acquired property and patta on it prior to 1-12-1963.” 10. The contents of the notification dated 28/04/1977 is reproduced herein below, for ready reference as follows:- :- “Government of Nagaland Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms Branch) NOTIFICATION Dated Kohima, the 28 April, 1977. NO. AR-8/8/76;-The Governor of Nagaland is pleased to decide that in order to qualify as an "Indigenous Inhabitant" of the State of Nagaland for the purpose of employment as envisaged in the order NO. APPT-16/6/67 dated 6-7-73, a person should have settled permanently in Nagaland prior to 1-12-1963. The following shall be the criteria for determining a person to have had a permanent settlement in the State prior to 1-12-1963. (1) His/her name or name of parents or legitimate guardians, in case the person was then a minor should have been entered in the Electoral Roll published on 5-12-1963. OR (2) The person or his/her parents or legitimate guardian should have been paying house tax prior to 1-12-1963. OR (3) The person or his/her parents or legitimate guardian should have acquired property and patta on it prior to 1-12-1963. 1. OR (2) The person or his/her parents or legitimate guardian should have been paying house tax prior to 1-12-1963. OR (3) The person or his/her parents or legitimate guardian should have acquired property and patta on it prior to 1-12-1963. 1. It has been further decided that only those certificates issued by a Deputy Commissioner or an Additional Deputy Commissioner shall be accepted and with immediate effect the form of certificate as annexed shall be used. 2. This supersedes this Department's Notification of even number dated the 17 December, 1976. Sd/- A. SHANMUGAM Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland.” 11. The advertisement dated 17/01/2018 for filling up the post of Sweeper, in which the appellant and the respondent no. 4 had participated, requires the candidate to be an indigenous inhabitant of the District, which would thus have to be considered in terms of the notification dated 28/04/1977. When the issue in WP(C) No. 176/2019 was with regard to whether the respondent no.4 was an indigenous inhabitant of the State of Nagaland for the purpose of employment, the learned Single Judge, in our view, had incorrectly considered another aspect i.e. with regard to the non-selection of the appellant in the selection process without elaborating on the same. The appellant had not made any challenge to the selection process, but had only made a challenge to the eligibility criteria of the respondent no. 4, who had participated in the selection process. 12. The decisions relied upon by the learned Single Judge, while deciding the appellant’s writ petition, would go to show that the said decisions were in relation to variations in the contents of the advertisement and the rules and the process that had been undertaken by the authorities in the selection process. The decisions relied upon by the learned Single Judge i.e. Madras Institute of Development Studies & Another Vs. K. Sivasubarmaniyan & Others [ (2016) 1 SCC 454 ] and Ashok Kumar & Another Vs. State of Bihar & Others [ (2017) 4 SCC 357 ] , in our view, was not applicable to the issue to be decided in regard to the grievance raised by the appellant. As such, we are of the view that the impugned judgement and order, in so far as it holds that the appellant could not turn around and challenge the selection process, after taking part in the selection process, was not correct. As such, we are of the view that the impugned judgement and order, in so far as it holds that the appellant could not turn around and challenge the selection process, after taking part in the selection process, was not correct. The challenge by the appellant was not with regard to the selection process, but only with regard to the eligibility criteria of the respondent no. 4 to take part in the selection process. As such, the impugned judgement, in so far as it relates to the issue quoted above, is hereby set aside. 13. The above being said, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgement and order dated 04/03/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) 176/2019 and WP(C) 194/2020, in so far as it has directed the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto, to conduct an enquiry and take a decision, as to whether the respondent no. 4 was an indigenous inhabitant of the State of Nagaland, for the purpose of employment. 14. As the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto has acted upon the direction of the learned Single Judge in terms of the impugned judgement and order and decided that the respondent no. 4 is not an indigenous inhabitant of Nagaland, which has now been put to challenge in WP(C) 296/2023 which is pending in this Court, we are of the view that the said issue should be decided on a subsequent date along with WP(C) 176/2019, which is restored, due to the setting aside a part of the impugned judgement of the learned Judge dated 04/03/2022, which has been indicated above. 15. Accordingly, list WP(C) 176/2019 and WP(C) 296/2023 before a learned Single Judge for disposal. 16. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of.