JUDGMENT & ORDER : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Arenlong, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent nos. 1 – 4; and Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Albina Ozukum, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the writ petitioner seeking the following reliefs :- 1. Quash and set aside, the impugned Order No. DC / KPE / JUD-64 [PT] 2011-12 / 214 dated 31.05.2024 [Annexure - V to the writ petition] issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire; 2. Quash and set aside / review / modify the impugned Notification No. NPSC/CON-35 / 2009 [Pt-1] dated 30.06.2020 issued by the Secretary, NPSC [Annexure - L to the writ petition] only with regard to Serial No. 37; 3. Direct the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire to restore the Indigenous Certificate issued by the File No. DC / KPE / JUD-64 / 2017, Registration No. 1013 / 2017 dated 09.06.2017 and Schedule Tribe Certificate of the Petitioner issued by the File No. DC / KPE / JUD-64/2017, registration No. 113 / 2017 dated 09.06.2017 for the ends of justice [Annexure - G and H]; 4. Direct the Respondent authorities to appoint the Petitioner to the post of Secretariat Assistant under the establishment of Nagaland Civil Secretariat with all consequential benefits in terms of the Notification No. NPSC / CON-35 / 2009 [Pt-1] dated 19.12.2019 and as modified by the Notification No. NPSC / CON-35 / 2009 [Pt-1] dated 22.01.2020, Annexure - I and I-i for the ends of justice. 3. In order to understand and appreciate as to why the writ petitioner has preferred the present writ petition seeking the above reliefs, a narration of the background facts leading to the institution of the writ petition is necessary. It is relevant to mention that before this Court, this is the third round of litigation at the instance of the writ petitioner. 4. On 31.08.2018, the Nagaland Public Service Commission [‘the NPSC’ or ‘the Commission’, for short] published an advertisement being Advertisement No. NPSC-3/2018 whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates to appear in the NCS, NPS, NSS & Allied Services [Preliminary] Examination, 2018. 4. On 31.08.2018, the Nagaland Public Service Commission [‘the NPSC’ or ‘the Commission’, for short] published an advertisement being Advertisement No. NPSC-3/2018 whereby applications were invited from eligible candidates to appear in the NCS, NPS, NSS & Allied Services [Preliminary] Examination, 2018. The said recruitment process was initiated for filling up vacancies in different services of the State Government in Nagaland. By initiating the recruitment process, the following vacancies were inter alia sought to be filled up :- 5. In response to the Advertisement dated 31.08.2018, applications were received from candidates and upon scrutiny of applications, the candidates whose applications were found complete, were provisionally admitted to appear in the NCS, NPS, NSS & Allied Services [Preliminary] Examination, 2018. Admission Certificates were accordingly issued to those candidates to appear in a Written Examination [Preliminary] scheduled on 10.11.2018. The petitioner’s application was also accepted provisionally and she was issued an Admission Certificate on 01.11.2018. After the stage of Written Examination [Preliminary], the process of selection consisted of Main Written Examination, Viva-Voce and Medical Fitness Tests. At the time of submission of applications, the candidates were required to exercise options for the different categories of posts. 6. After completion of Main Written Examination, Viva Voce and Medical Fitness Tests, the NPSC vide a Notification bearing no. NPSC / CON-35 / 2009 [Pt-I] dated 19.12.2019 declared the provisional results as per merit for the categories of posts under the Government of Nagaland, as mentioned in the Table above, on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in Main Written Examination, Viva Voce and Medical Fitness Tests and as per the options exercised by the candidates. In a ‘Note’ appended to the Notification, it was mentioned that any selected candidate intending not to accept the post for which he / she was selected could submit a Non-Acceptance Letter on or before 06.01.2020. It was further mentioned that the results were purely provisional subject to verification of antecedents and documents and consequence of any Non-Acceptance Letter submitted by any recommended candidate. 7. In the provisional results published by the NPSC vide the Notification dated 19.12.2019, the petitioner’s name figured at 36 th position among forty-one nos. of provisionally selected candidates for the forty-one nos. of posts of Secretariat Assistant [Class-III Non-Gazetted]. 7. In the provisional results published by the NPSC vide the Notification dated 19.12.2019, the petitioner’s name figured at 36 th position among forty-one nos. of provisionally selected candidates for the forty-one nos. of posts of Secretariat Assistant [Class-III Non-Gazetted]. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was selected for a post reserved for Sumi Tribe from Kiphire District of Nagaland out of the posts reserved for Backward Tribes of Nagaland. 8. Subsequently on 22.01.2020, the NPSC published another Notification bearing no. NPSC / CON-35 / 2009 [Pt-I] in partial modification of its earlier Notification of even no. dated 19.12.2019 and consequent upon receipt of Non-Acceptance Letters from some of the candidates, thereby, declaring the list of successful candidates for the categories of posts mentioned in Item no. 4 and Item nos. 5 & 7 in the Table. In the Notification dated 22.01.2020 also, the petitioner’s name figured at 36 th position in the list of forty-one nos. of selected candidates recommended for appointment to the post of Secretariat Assistant. 9. After declaration of the provisional results by the NPSC, a complaint was submitted by the Kiphire Tuensang District Sumi Students’ Union [KTDSSU] on 21.12.2019 before the Controller of Examinations, NPSC alleging inter alia that the petitioner was not a bonafide indigenous candidate from Yangzitong Village of Kiphire District. The Student Union as the complainant inter alia sought nullification of the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate and the Schedule Tribe Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner by the authorities earlier on 09.06.2017. The Student Union further made a demand to select a bonafide candidate from the Sumi Tribe of Kiphire District. The Student Union continued to raise the issue through newspaper publications. When the matter came to the notice of the State Government, the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire to verify the indigenous status of the petitioner. 10. Following the direction made by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Nagaland, the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire taking cognizance of the complaint, issued a Summoning Order on 23.01.2020 to decide on the complaint. The petitioner was asked to submit a statement in support of her indigenous inhabitant claim. 10. Following the direction made by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Nagaland, the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire taking cognizance of the complaint, issued a Summoning Order on 23.01.2020 to decide on the complaint. The petitioner was asked to submit a statement in support of her indigenous inhabitant claim. The Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire had, thereafter, held a Meeting in his office chamber on 29.01.2020 for verification of the indigenous status of the petitioner wherein one Sri Hotoshe Sumi [whom the petitioner claimed to be her father], the Village Council Chairman of Yangzitong Village, and the President & the General Secretary of the Eastern Sumi Hoho [ESH], participated, with a nos. of other persons. The Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire after taking note of the submissions made by the parties in the Meeting, had reached a conclusion that it was not within his purview to recommend for DNA testing of Sri Hotoshe Sumi and the petitioner, whose names were recorded in the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate as the father and the daughter. In the Minutes of the proceedings, signed on 04.02.2020 by the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, it was decided that the findings would be forwarded to the higher authority in the State Government to take a final decision in the matter. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner, Ms. Levi Sumi had claimed that Sri Hotoshe Sumi was her biological father and similarly, Sri Hotoshe Sumi had claimed that the petitioner, Ms. Levi Sumi his biological daughter. Their names were recorded as the father and the daughter in the Indigenous Certificate as well as in the Scheduled Tribe Certificate, issued earlier on 09.06.2017. 12. But, subsequently, by another Order bearing no. DC/KPE / JUD-104/2018-19 / 728 dated 16.06.2020, the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire cancelled the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner earlier vide File no. DC / KPE / JUD-64 / 2017 dated 09.06.2017 with Registration no. 1013/2017 along with Indigenous Inhabitant Certificates issued in favour of two others, namely, Ms. Kavitoli and Ms. Lovitoli, wherein also the name of Sri Hotoshe Sumi was recorded as the father. On the basis of the Order dated 16.06.2020, the NPSC published a Notification no. NPSC/CON- 35/2009[Pt-I] on 30.06.2020 in partial modification of its two earlier Notifications of even number, dated 19.12.2019 and dated 22.01.2020. Kavitoli and Ms. Lovitoli, wherein also the name of Sri Hotoshe Sumi was recorded as the father. On the basis of the Order dated 16.06.2020, the NPSC published a Notification no. NPSC/CON- 35/2009[Pt-I] on 30.06.2020 in partial modification of its two earlier Notifications of even number, dated 19.12.2019 and dated 22.01.2020. The Notification dated 30.06.2020 was stated to be published in pursuance of a Letter dated 18.06.2020 of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Nagaland. The notable changes which were brought by the Notification dated 30.06.2020 were : [i] the deletion of the name of the petitioner from the list of forty-one nos. of candidates selected for the post of Secretariat Assistant as a candidate from Sumi Tribe of Kiphire District; and [ii] the inclusion of the name of one Sri Piketo H as a candidate in those forty-one nos. of candidates selected for the post of Secretariat Assistant from Sumi Tribe of Kiphire District. 13. Being aggrieved by the Order dated 16.06.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire [the respondent no. 4], the petitioner preferred a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 85/2020 praying for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing and setting aside of the Order dated 16.06.2020. The petitioner also sought for quashing and setting aside of the Notification no. NPSC/CON-35/2009[Pt-I] dated 30.06.2020. The petitioner further sought for a direction to the official respondents to appoint her in the post of Secretariat Assistant in terms of the NPSC’s Notification dated 19.12.2019. In the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 85/2020, Sri Piketo H was impleaded as party-respondent no. 6. 14. When the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 85/2020 was moved, the Hon’ble Court issued notices to the respondents on 15.07.2020. Further, the Court by an Interim Order dated 21.09.2020 had observed that the appointment of the respondent no. 6, Sri Piketo H would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The appointing authority did not, however, issue any appointment order to the respondent no. 6 during the pendency of the writ petition. 15. At the time of hearing of W.P.[C] no. 85/2020, the Court took note of the undisputed facts and examined the Order dated 16.06.2020. The Court formed a view that the Order dated 16.06.2020 was passed on mere perusal and partial consideration of the documents submitted by the parties involved. The Court was of the view that the respondent no. 15. At the time of hearing of W.P.[C] no. 85/2020, the Court took note of the undisputed facts and examined the Order dated 16.06.2020. The Court formed a view that the Order dated 16.06.2020 was passed on mere perusal and partial consideration of the documents submitted by the parties involved. The Court was of the view that the respondent no. 4 should have recorded evidence – oral and documentary – first before drawing the conclusion. The Court was also of the view that reasonable opportunity of being heard was not provided to the petitioner and the same amounted to violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court by its Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2021 quashed and set aside the impugned Order dated 16.06.2020. The Hon’ble Court also directed the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire [the respondent no. 4] to conduct a thorough enquiry by giving all the stakeholders or the parties involved the chance of producing their evidence [both oral and documentary] and of being heard and thereafter, to draw a conclusion supported by evidence so produced. Since one of the posts of Secretariat Assistant could not be filled up till a decision on the issue would be reached by the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, it was directed that the exercise should be completed within a period of three months from 27.09.2021. It was further ordered that the Notification dated 30.06.2020 should remain suspended till the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire would reach a conclusion on the issue of the petitioner’s indigenous identity. 16. After the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2021, the respondent no. 4 in compliance of the direction of the Hon’ble Court, initiated inquiry proceedings by calling for appearance of the stakeholders on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021. In the proceedings held on 20.11.2021, there was participation of a total of thirty-two persons including the petitioner, Sri Hotoshe Sumi and Smti. Yevili, as per the Attendance- Sheet. In the proceedings held on 04.12.2021, a total of thirty persons, as per the Attendance-Sheet, participated. 17. After holding the proceedings on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021 for the purpose of the inquiry, as directed, the respondent no. 4 passed an Order on 11.04.2022 observing that a satisfactory conclusion could not be arrived at with regard to indigenous identity of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence produced. By the Order dated 11.04.2022, the respondent no. 4 directed for DNA testing of three persons viz. [i] Ms. 4 passed an Order on 11.04.2022 observing that a satisfactory conclusion could not be arrived at with regard to indigenous identity of the petitioner on the basis of the evidence produced. By the Order dated 11.04.2022, the respondent no. 4 directed for DNA testing of three persons viz. [i] Ms. Levi Sumi [the petitioner]; [ii] Sri Onil Rava; and [iii] Sri Hotoshe Sumi. It was mentioned that all the three persons had agreed to undergo DNA testing and the Eastern Sumi Hoho [ESH] and the Kiphire Tuensang District Sumi Students Union [KTDSSU] had agreed to bear the expenses incurred during the DNA testing. Pursuant to the Order dated 11.04.2022, it was decided by the State Government that the DNA testing of the three persons would be done in the DNA Forensic Laboratory Centre at Kolkata, West Bengal. The petitioner made a Representation before the respondent no. 4 on 13.06.2022 to review that order / decision taken with regard to DNA testing. 18. Aggrieved by the Order dated 11.04.2022 [supra] passed by the respondent no. 4 and alleging inaction on the part of the State respondents to review that order / decision regarding DNA testing, the petitioner approached this Court for the second occasion by preferring a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 111/2022 to assail the same. 19. In the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 111/2022, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that during the proceedings held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021, the parties had produced documentary evidence and adduced oral evidence, which were sufficient to decide the paternity issue. It was further contended that the order regarding DNA testing had infringed the right of privacy and the petitioner was not willing to undergo DNA testing. It was further urged that no adverse circumstance should be drawn for the petitioner’s unwillingness to undergo DNA testing. 20. The Court considered the issue whether the petitioner could be directed to undergo DNA testing against her will. The Court had observed that before a direction was to be issued to have DNA testing, the consent of the party would be required as such test would be a constraint on the personal liberty and, therefore, DNA testing could not be carried out without the consent of the person concerned. The Court had observed that before a direction was to be issued to have DNA testing, the consent of the party would be required as such test would be a constraint on the personal liberty and, therefore, DNA testing could not be carried out without the consent of the person concerned. The Court was of the view that in a situation where other evidence were available, the order for DNA testing should be refrained from inasmuch as such test had the potential of infringing the right of privacy and causing major social repercussion. 21. The Hon’ble Court allowed the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 111/2022 by a Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2023 with the following observations and directions :- 17. Considering the observation made in the present writ petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, can come to a conclusion on the basis of the inquiry proceedings held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021. 18. As this Court intends to remand the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, to take a decision on the basis of the materials available in the inquiry proceedings, this Court refrains from making any observation with regard to the oral and documentary evidence produced before the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire. 19. Accordingly, it is directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, shall come to a final decision on the basis of the materials available in the inquiry proceedings held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021 without directing the petitioner, Sri Hotoshe Sumi and Sri Onil Rava to undergo for DNA test. 20. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 11.04.2022, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, Nagaland and the letter dated 05.05.2022 written by the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, addressed to the petitioner, Sri Hotoshe Sumi and Sri Onil Rava are set aside and quashed. 21. It is directed that the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire, shall give his decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. 22. It was in deference to the direction made in the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2023 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 111/2022, the respondent no. 4 issued a Summon Order on 21.03.2024 to the petitioner, Sri Hotoshe Sumi, Sri Onil Rava and Smti. 22. It was in deference to the direction made in the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2023 passed in the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 111/2022, the respondent no. 4 issued a Summon Order on 21.03.2024 to the petitioner, Sri Hotoshe Sumi, Sri Onil Rava and Smti. Yevili to appear before his office on 27.03.2024 with a request to bring all relevant documents and records in their possession pertaining to the social status of the petitioner. On receipt of the Summon Order, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent no. 4 to strictly implement the directions made in the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2023. Accordingly, the respondent no. 4 on the basis of the records of the inquiry proceedings held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021 passed the impugned Order dated 31.05.2024 recording findings that the petitioner is not a biological daughter of Sri Hotoshe Sumi and she is the daughter of Sri Onil Rava and Smti. Yevili. 23. Mr. Taka Masa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the complainants who had lodged the complaint against the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate and the Scheduled Tribe Certificate could not produce any convincing oral and documentary evidence to refute the claim of the petitioner. They had only insisted for DNA testing of the petitioner and her father, which cannot be permitted without consent of the concerned person who has to undergo the DNA Testing. He has submitted that a presumption of legitimacy can only be displaced by strong preponderance of evidence and not merely by balancing the probabilities. He has submitted that the burden of proof that the child is not the legitimate daughter of the projected biological father should be higher than the normal standard of preponderance of probabilities. He has contended that the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire had failed to take into account the above legal principles and succumbed to public pressure in passing the impugned Order dated 31.05.2024. According to him, the evidence recorded and materials collected during the inquiry proceedings held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021 were sufficient to establish that the petitioner is the biological daughter of Sri Hotoshe Sumi, as recorded in the Indigenous Inhabitance Certificate and the Scheduled Tribes Certificate, issued on 09.06.2017. With such submissions, he has submitted that the impugned Order dated 31.05.2024 is liable to be set aside and quashed and the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. With such submissions, he has submitted that the impugned Order dated 31.05.2024 is liable to be set aside and quashed and the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs sought for in this writ petition. 23.1. Mr. Taka Masa has referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another vs. Add. Commissioner, Tribal Development and others, [1994] 6 SCC 241 ; Ashok Kumar vs. Raj Gupta and others, [2022] 1 SCC 20 ; and a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 2000 AP 163 , in support of the case of the petitioner. 24. Mr. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland appearing for the State respondents has strenuously contended that from the documentary evidence on record, it is evident that the petitioner does not belong to the recognized Scheduled Tribes of the State of Nagaland and the petitioner not being a recognized Scheduled Tribe from Nagaland has also no legal right to claim the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate projecting herself as an indigenous Sumi from Kiphire District. Mr. Thiba Phom has referred to the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3. He has contended that as the Order dated 31.05.2024 was passed on the basis of the materials received and the evidence recorded during the inquiry proceedings, it is not open for the petitioner to seek setting aside and quashing of the Order dated 31.05.2024. The respondent no. 4 had recorded a clear finding that evidence was insufficient to hold that there is father-daughter relationship between Sri Hotoshe Sumi and the petitioner. The Court while considering legality and validity of an order in the nature of the Order dated 31.05.2024 does not act as an appellate authority to evaluate the evidence on record and if the Order is found to be made on the basis of the materials and evidence on record, then the Court while exercising the power of judicial review would not dwell upon the aspect of validity and legality on the basis of sufficiency or insufficiency of evidence on record, unless it was based on no evidence. He has submitted that Sri Onil Rava is the biological father of the petitioner and Sri Onil Rava is not a Scheduled Tribe person from Nagaland. Therefore, the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate and the Scheduled Tribe Certificate were obtained through misrepresentation. He has submitted that Sri Onil Rava is the biological father of the petitioner and Sri Onil Rava is not a Scheduled Tribe person from Nagaland. Therefore, the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate and the Scheduled Tribe Certificate were obtained through misrepresentation. 24.1. Mr. Thiba Phom, learned Government Advocate has referred to the decision in Director General of Police, Railway Protection Force and others vs. Rajendra Kumar Dubey, [2021] 14 SCC 735 , to submit on the scope and ambit of the power of judicial review in a matter where examination is on the point of determination of facts by an adjudicatory body. He has also referred to another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Director of Tribal Welfare Government of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri and another , reported in [1995] 4 SCC 32. 24.2. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3, it has been averred that after the direction made by the Hon’ble Court in its Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2023 to the respondent no. 4 to come to a final decision on the basis of the materials available in the inquiry proceedings held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021, all the stakeholders were summoned by a Summoning Order dated 21.03.2024 by the respondent no. 4. The petitioner, Sri Hotoshe Sumi, Sri Onil Rava and Smti. Yevili were asked to appear on 27.03.2024 with all relevant documents and records in their possession pertaining to the indigenous status of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent no. 4 verified the documents produced by the parties and after going through their recorded statements and considering all the materials placed on record, had passed the Order dated 31.05.2024. 25. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5, the Nagaland Public Service Commission [‘the NPSC’ or ‘the Commission’] through its Secretary, it is stated that Sri Piketo H, who was impleaded as party-respondent no. 6 in both the writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 85/2020 and W.P.[C] no. 111/2022, was recommended by the Commission in place of the petitioner, Ms. Levi Sumi following cancellation of her Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate by the respondent no. 4 vide Order dated 16.06.2020. The recommendation was made against the post reserved for Backward Tribe, Sumi from Kiphire District and Sri Piketo H was accordingly placed at Serial no. 37 in the list of successful candidates published vide Notification dated 30.06.2020. Levi Sumi following cancellation of her Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate by the respondent no. 4 vide Order dated 16.06.2020. The recommendation was made against the post reserved for Backward Tribe, Sumi from Kiphire District and Sri Piketo H was accordingly placed at Serial no. 37 in the list of successful candidates published vide Notification dated 30.06.2020. However, when by the Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2021 the Order dated 16.06.2020 was set aside and quashed directing the respondent no. 4 to conduct a thorough inquiry within a period of three months therefrom and it was also ordered to keep the Notification dated 30.06.2020 issued by the NPSC suspended till the conclusion of the inquiry by the respondent no. 4 on the issue of the petitioner’s indigenous identity, the Notification dated 30.06.2020 was kept in abeyance. After the Order dated 11.04.2022, the petitioner filed the second writ petition assailing the direction made by the respondent no. 4 in the Order dated 11.04.2022 for DNA testing. During the pendency of the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 111/2022, Sri Piketo H was selected for the post of Secretariat Assistant on the basis of his performance in the NCS, NPS, NSS and Allied Services Examination, 2021 and his name figured at Serial no. 33 in the list of thirty-five nos. of successful candidates for the post of Secretariat Assistant in a Notification dated 15.11.2022 published by the NPSC. Sri Piketo H came to be appointed to the post of Secretariat Assistant w.e.f. 11.01.2023 by a Notification dated 10.01.2023. Subsequently, when the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 111/2022 was disposed of by the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2023 directing the respondent no. 4 to decide the issue of the petitioner’s indigenous identity on the basis of available materials without any DNA test and the respondent no. 4 by Order dated 31.05.2024 decided against the petitioner’s indigenous identity resulting in cancellation of the petitioner’s Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate dated 09.06.2017, it was decided by the State Government to fix the seniority of Sri Piketo H on the basis of his position in the list of successful candidates for the post of Secretariat Assistant published after the NCS, NPS, NSS and Allied Services Examination, 2018 by an Order dated 28.11.2024. The date of appointment of Sri Piketo H in the post of Secretariat Assistant under the Backward Tribe, Sumi from Kiphire District was revised from 11.01.2023 to 20.07.2020. 25.2. Mr. The date of appointment of Sri Piketo H in the post of Secretariat Assistant under the Backward Tribe, Sumi from Kiphire District was revised from 11.01.2023 to 20.07.2020. 25.2. Mr. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 5 while reiterating the stand of the NPSC, as stated in the affidavit-in- opposition in the afore-stated manner, has submitted that the Personnel & Administrative Department, Government of Nagaland by an Office Letter dated 07.10.2024 wrote to the Secretary, NPSC proposing to revise the date of appointment of Sri Piketo H, whose appointment pursuant to the NCS, NPS, NSS & Allied Services Examination, 2018 was kept in abeyance, at par with the other recommended candidate who joined service as Secretariat Assistant pursuant to publication of the final merit list on 20.07.2020, though Sri Piketo H did not join in the post with them. He has submitted that by the Office Letter dated 07.10.2024, the Commission’s view / comment was sought for and the Commission by its Office Letter dated 18.11.2024, recommended to fix the seniority of Sri Piketo H accordingly. It was thereafter the Order dated 28.11.2024 was issued. Mr. Jamir has further submitted that the Commission has all throughout abided by the directions and the decisions of the Hon’ble Court. He has further submitted that the decision of issuing or cancelling the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate is within the exclusive province of the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner and the Commission has no role in the process. 26. Mr. Taka Masa has pointed out that when the present writ petition was filed on 20.01.2025, the petitioner was not aware of the Order dated 28.11.2024 and the Order dated 28.11.2024 came to the knowledge of the petitioner only after receipt of the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 on 09.05.2025. He has submitted that the subsequent Order dated 28.11.2024 by which the date of appointment of Sri Piketo H was revised from 11.01.2023 to 20.07.2020 also calls for a review / recall, as it has been made at the cost of the petitioner, who was selected for the post of Secretariat Assistant reserved under the quota for Backward Tribe, Sumi from Kiphire District on the basis of merit in terms of the Advertisement dated 31.08.2019 and the Notification dated 19.12.2019 read with the Notification dated 22.01.2022. 27. 27. It is to be mentioned that it has been projected on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a biological daughter of Sri Hotoshe Sumi of Yangzitong Village, a person belonging to Sumi Tribe of Kiphire District and is only an adopted daughter of Sri Onil Rava. On the other hand, the collective stand of the opposing stakeholders is that the petitioner is not a bonafide indigenous inhabitant belonging to Sumi Tribe of Kiphire District and therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled for any Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate and the Scheduled Tribe Certificate. It has been claimed by the opposing stakeholders that the petitioner is not a biological daughter of Sri Hotoshe Sumi. 28. The respondent no. 4 during the proceedings, held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021, recorded statements of a number of persons and considered a number of documents. The respondent no. 4 also prepared the Minutes of the proceedings held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021. 29. The parties are found to be in unanimity on the point that the Personnel & Administrative Department, Government of Nagaland by a Notification dated 28.04.1977 had laid down the criteria on the basis of which a person could be qualified as an ‘Indigenous Inhabitant’ of the State of Nagaland for the purpose of employment. From the Notification dated 28.04.1977, it can be noticed that in order to be termed as an Indigenous Inhabitant, a person should have settled permanently in Nagaland prior to 01.12.1963. In addition, the following criteria were to be satisfied for determining a person to have a permanent settlement in the State prior to 01.12.1963 :- [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 01.12.1963; or [2] The person or his/her parents or legitimate guardian should have been paying house tax prior to 01.12.1963; or [3] The person or his/her parents or legitimate guardian should have acquired property and patta on it to 01.12.1963. It is further laid down in the Notification that only those certificates issued by a Deputy Commissioner or an Additional Deputy Commissioner shall be accepted. 30. It is further laid down in the Notification that only those certificates issued by a Deputy Commissioner or an Additional Deputy Commissioner shall be accepted. 30. In the Birth Certificate issued under the provisions of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969; the Admit Cards issued to the petitioner by the Nagaland Board of School Education to appear in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination, 2008; and the Permanent Account Number [PAN] Card issued to the petitioner, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 05.01.1992. Therefore, the scope of the inquiry proceeding was to find out whether Sri Hotoshe Sumi fulfilled the criteria laid down in the Notification dated 28.04.1977 and whether he is the father or the legal guardian of the petitioner, which would entitle her for an Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate. A Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued to women should be verified with respect to the status of her father, and her place of ordinary residence or that of her father. The issue hinges on the question whether Sri Hotoshe Sumi is the biological father of the petitioner, if it is established that Sri Hotoshe Sumi is an indigenous inhabitant. 31. Subsequently on 20.09.2024, the State Government had issued another notification, in supersession of all previous notifications, guidelines and orders issued from time to time by the Government, on the subject of indigenous inhabitants, laying down a new set of criteria for issuance of Indigenous Inhabitant Certificates by taking into account the recommendations made by the Commission on Register of Indigenous Inhabitants of Nagaland. As the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate in favour of the petitioner was issued on 09.06.2017 in terms of the Notification dated 28.04.1977, the adjudication of the lis regarding validity of the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate under reference is to be made qua the Notification dated 28.04.1977. 32. It is to be mentioned that in the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate and the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, the name of the father of the petitioner is mentioned as Sri Hotoshe Sumi of Yingzitong Village of Kiphire District, Nagaland. In the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued on 09.06.2017, it is mentioned that Sri Hotoshe Sumi belongs to Sumi [Naga Tribe], which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution [Nagaland] Scheduled Tribes Order, 1970. In the Scheduled Tribe Certificate issued on 09.06.2017, it is mentioned that Sri Hotoshe Sumi belongs to Sumi [Naga Tribe], which is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution [Nagaland] Scheduled Tribes Order, 1970. In the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate issued on 09.06.2017, it is mentioned that Sri Hotoshe Sumi had been permanently settled in Nagaland prior to 01.12.1963 and he has been paying house tax prior to 01.12.1963. It is further mentioned that Sumi [Naga Tribe] of Kiphire District has been notified as a Backward Tribe vide a Notification dated 14.04.2011 of the State Government. 33. As mentioned above in the inquiry proceedings held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021, a total of sixty-two persons including the petitioner, Sri Hotoshe Sumi, Sri Onil Rava, and Smti. Yevili [whom the petitioner claimed as mother], appeared before the respondent no. 4. It is the materials collected and statements recorded in the inquiry proceedings held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021 which the respondent no. 4 was directed to consider to arrive at a decision as regards the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner on 09.06.2017. 34. As the during the proceedings of 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021, statements of a number of stakeholders were recorded, it is apt to refer briefly to some of the statements of the stakeholders who deposed about the indigenous inhabitant status of the petitioner. 34.1. As per the statement of Sri Hotoshe Sumi, one Smti. Meena is the mother of the petitioner and Smti. Meena abandoned both him and the petitioner after the birth of the petitioner. Smti. Yevili, who is his biological sister, raised the petitioner. He further stated that he was not aware of whereabouts of Smti. Meena and therefore, was not in position to bring Smti. Meena to the hearing. Sri Hotoshe Sumi further stated that he has twelve children, but Ms. Kavitoli and Ms. Lovitoli are not his biological daughters as they are biological daughters of Sri Onil Rava. He also stated that he was earlier known as Zhehevi and he changed his name to Hotoshe Sumi in the year 1971, when he was about eighteen years. He stated that he did not have any document to support that he was earlier known by the name Zhehevi except a declaration in an affidavit. 34.2. He also stated that he was earlier known as Zhehevi and he changed his name to Hotoshe Sumi in the year 1971, when he was about eighteen years. He stated that he did not have any document to support that he was earlier known by the name Zhehevi except a declaration in an affidavit. 34.2. The petitioner stated that she is the adopted daughter of Sri Onil Rava and therefore, Sri Onil Rava is not her biological father but only her adopted father. Likewise, Smti. Yevili is not her biological mother but only her foster mother. Smti. Meena is her biological mother. She further stated that Sri Hotoshe Sumi is her biological father. It was further stated by her that she had been living in Mokokchung for the past twenty-nine years. 34.3. During the proceedings, Smti. Yevili stated that she is the sister of Sri Hotoshe Sumi and the wife of Sri Onil Rava. Smti. Yevili further stated that Sri Hotoshe Sumi is her biological brother whereas the petitioner is not her biological daughter. She further stated that she is simply the foster parent of the petitioner. Smti. Yevili stated that she has five children – Mughali, Benali, Khavili, Lovili and Vinoto. When asked, she stated that the names of Khavili, Lovili and Levi [the petitioner] were entered as nominees in the pension papers of Sri Onil Rava. She further stated that Khavili and Lovili being the youngest in the family and the petitioner being her adopted daughter, were shown as nominees as advised by some officers to enter the younger ones in the families as nominees. 34.4. Sri Onil Rava stated that he belongs to Assamese Community and Smti. Yevili is his wife. He further stated that he has five children – Mughali, Benali, Khavili, Lovili and Vinoto. He claimed that Sri Hotoshe Sumi is the biological father of the petitioner and he did not have any information about the biological mother of the petitioner. He was posted as a Sweeper in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Mukukchung at the time of his retirement in February, 2023. He further stated that all his pension related works were done by his wife, Smti. Yevili and therefore, the names of the nominees were also entered by her. 34.5. One Sri Simon Awomi, who is an uncle of the petitioner, stated that Smti. He further stated that all his pension related works were done by his wife, Smti. Yevili and therefore, the names of the nominees were also entered by her. 34.5. One Sri Simon Awomi, who is an uncle of the petitioner, stated that Smti. Yevili is the biological mother of the petitioner and Sri Hotoshe Sumi cannot be the biological father of the petitioner since Sri Hotoshe Sumi is the biological brother of Smti. Yevili. He stated that the petitioner could not bring Smti. Meena as the family had no information about Smti. Meena. 34.6. Another family member of the petitioner, Yeheto stated that Sri Hotoshe Sumi had an extra-marital affair and the petitioner was born out of the said affair. He further stated that Smti. Yevili is not the biological mother of the petitioner. 34.7. Two office bearers of KTDSSU stated that the Chairman, Yangzitong Village Council issued a No Objection Certificate [NOC] to Sri Hotoshe Sumi to the effect that he is a bonafide inhabitant of Yangzitong Village based on erroneous name in the electoral roll. The inhabitants of Yangzitong Village were not sure about the indigenous identity of the petitioner. 34.8. Three officials of the Eastern Sumi Hoho [ESH] stated that Sri Hotoshe Sumi earlier claimed that he has eleven children but subsequently, he claimed that he has twelve children. 34.9. The Gaonburah of Yangzitong Village, Sri H. Ihoto stated that the NOC was issued to Sri Hotoshe Sumi because he is a bonafide inhabitant of Yangzitong Village. 35. After having considered the materials and the statements recorded during the proceedings held on 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021, the respondent no. 4 has reported about a nos. of inconsistencies and contradictions in the materials and the statements of the witnesses, when a revisit was made. The respondent no. 4 had taken note of the fact that the pension papers of Sri Onil Rava showed Smti. Yevili as his wife and Ms. Kavitoli and Ms. Levi [the petitioner] as his daughters and has observed that the same is an indication that the petitioner is the daughter of Sri Onil Rava. The statement made by Smti. Yevili regarding inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the pension papers of Sri Onil Rava at the advice of others has been disbelieved in absence of any supporting evidence in that connection. The respondent no. The statement made by Smti. Yevili regarding inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the pension papers of Sri Onil Rava at the advice of others has been disbelieved in absence of any supporting evidence in that connection. The respondent no. 4 has further found that in the pension papers of Sri Hotoshe Sumi, the petitioner has not been shown as one of the nominees and the same has created doubt about the claim that the petitioner is the daughter of Sri Hotoshe Sumi. The respondent no. 4 has further mentioned that there were several complaints from the villagers of Yangzitong Village as regards the indigenous identity of the petitioner. It can be seen from the Order dated 31.05.2024 that the respondent no. 4 has been taken into consideration the statements of the officials of the KTDSSU to the effect that the petitioner is the daughter of Smti. Yevili and Sri Onil Rava. The respondent no. 4 has further recorded that it has been revealed from Sri Hotoshe Sumi that Ms. Kavitoli and Ms. Lovitoli are not his biological daughters and they are daughters of Sri Onil Rava. It is relevant to iterate that Indigenous Inhabitant Certificates were also issued in favour of Ms. Kavitoli and Ms. Lovitoli along with Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. The respondent no. 4 has recorded a finding that Sri Hotoshe Sumi had entered his name as the father of Ms. Kavitoli and Ms. Lovitoli knowing fully well that they are not his biological daughters and they are daughters of Sri Onil Rava. In the Order dated 31.05.2024, the respondent no. 4 has recorded that the scope of the inquiry has been confined to the materials and evidence recorded during the enquiry proceedings of 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021 which have not provided sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner is the daughter of Sri Hotoshe Sumi. Rather, the documentary evidence go to show that it is Sri Onil Rava who is the father of the petitioner. Conclusion have, thereby, been reached to the effect that, firstly, the petitioner is a daughter of Sri Onil Rava and Smti. Yevili; and secondly, the petitioner is not a biological daughter of Sri Hotoshe Sumi. 36. The Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate and the Scheduled Tribes Certificate were issued on 09.06.2017, when the petitioner became a major as her date of birth is 05.01.1992. Yevili; and secondly, the petitioner is not a biological daughter of Sri Hotoshe Sumi. 36. The Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate and the Scheduled Tribes Certificate were issued on 09.06.2017, when the petitioner became a major as her date of birth is 05.01.1992. The petitioner admitted that the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate and the Scheduled Tribe Certificate were applied by her. It is also pertinent to note that in the Birth Certificate, the Admit Card of the HSLC Examination, 2008 and the Admit Card for the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination, 2010, apart from mentioning Sri Hotoshe Sumi as the father of the petitioner, the name of Smti. Yevili has been recorded as the mother of the petitioner. As the petitioner was a minor then, those details were possible to be furnished only by either by Sri Hotoshe Sumi or Sri Onil Rava or Smti. Yevili. 37. At this juncture, a reference to the decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil [supra] is appropriate wherein it is observed that an admission wrongly gained or an appointment wrongly obtained on the basis of false social status certificate has the effect of depriving the genuine Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes or OBC candidates as enjoined in the Constitution of the benefits conferred on them by the Constitution. It has been noticed that it is normally the parent or the guardian who may play fraud claiming false social status certificate. 38. From the statements of Sri Hotoshe Sumi and Smti. Yevili recorded during the inquiry proceedings of 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021, it has emerged that Smti. Yevili is the biological sister of Sri Hotoshe Sumi as their father is one Zhetokhu Sema. If such fact is accepted, then Sri Hotoshe Sumi and Smti. Yevili could not be the husband and the wife, as recorded in the Birth Certificate, the Admit Card of the HSLC Examination, 2008 and the Admit Card for the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate Examination, 2010 of the petitioner. It is also an admitted position that on 09.06.2017, Indigenous Inhabitance Certificates were issued in favour of the petitioner, Miss. Kavitoli and Miss. Lovitoli from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire and in those Indigenous Inhabitance Certificates, the name of Sri Hotoshe Sumi was recorded as their father. But, it is an admitted position from the statement of Sri Hotoshe Sumi that they are not his daughters. Kavitoli and Miss. Lovitoli from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kiphire and in those Indigenous Inhabitance Certificates, the name of Sri Hotoshe Sumi was recorded as their father. But, it is an admitted position from the statement of Sri Hotoshe Sumi that they are not his daughters. There is no evidence that there was any ceremony, according to prevalent customs, for the adoption of the petitioner by Sri Onil Rava and Smti. Yevili. Nobody spoke anything on such adoption. The petitioner herself stated that she had been living in Mokokchung for the past twenty-nine years. 39. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a Court of appeal over a decision of fact-finding authority. It is not the function of the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. In its writ jurisdiction, the High Court may interfere where the fact-finding authority has held the proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or where the findings of the fact-finding authority are based on no evidence or the authority has acted in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or its actions were actuated by some extraneous considerations, thereby, failing to reach a fair decision or it has allowed to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion of a fact-finding authority on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at that conclusion. The above propositions are referred to in the decision in Rajendra Kumar Dubey [supra]. 40. In Laveti Giri [supra], it is held that the burden of proof of social status is always on the person who professes it to seek constitutional socio-economic advantages. It is no part of the duty of the State to disproof or otherwise. 41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhury Patil [supra] has considered a question whether an approach adopted by the High Court in elaborately considering a case would be vitiated by an error of law. In answering the question, it has been observed that the High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. 41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhury Patil [supra] has considered a question whether an approach adopted by the High Court in elaborately considering a case would be vitiated by an error of law. In answering the question, it has been observed that the High Court is not a court of appeal to appreciate the evidence. The committee which is empowered to evaluate the evidence placed before it when records a finding of fact, it ought to prevail unless found vitiated by judicial review of any High Court subject to limitations of interference with findings of fact. The committee when considers all the material facts and records a finding, though another view, as a court of appeal may be possible, it is not a ground to reverse the findings. The High Court has to see whether the committee considered all the material it or has not applied its mind to relevant facts which have led the committee ultimately record the finding. 42. It is settled that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is a supervisory jurisdiction and in exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court. Therefore, the findings of fact reached by fact-finding authority on the appreciation of evidence are not to be reappreciated in writ proceedings. The writ court exercises a limited and supervisory power of judicial review over a finding reached by a fact-finding authority, focusing primarily on the legality of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the factual conclusions themselves. It is true that an error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ court but an error of fact, however grave it may be, cannot be corrected by a writ court. A writ can be issued only if it is established that in recording the finding of fact, the fact-finding authority has erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or has erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence. A finding of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority cannot be challenged on the ground that the material placed or evidence adduced before it is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn therefrom are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding authority. A finding of fact recorded by a fact-finding authority cannot be challenged on the ground that the material placed or evidence adduced before it is insufficient or inadequate to sustain a finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn therefrom are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the fact-finding authority. It is not open in writ proceedings to substitute a view arrived at by a fact-finding authority even if it appears to the High Court that another view would have been more appropriate. The High Court shall not interfere with a conclusion reached in an inquiry unless the conclusion reached is based on no evidence and perverse. It is not open to interfere with determination of facts recorded by a fact-finding authority if it is based on legal evidence, however less it may be and it is also not open to correct an error of fact reached after a fact-finding inquiry, however grave the error of fact appears to be. 43. In the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, as are narrated above, and the finding of fact reached by the respondent no. 4 on the basis of the materials and evidence recorded during the proceedings of 20.11.2021 and 04.12.2021, as directed by the Judgment and Order dated 22.12.2023, to the effect that the petitioner is not the daughter of Sri Hotoshe Sumi and is the daughter of Sri Onil Rava and Smti. Yevili cannot be said to be based on no evidence to hold it as a perverse finding. The said finding of facts are found to be based on documents, admitted to have been submitted before the Government by Sri Hotoshe Sumi, Sri Onil Rava and Smti. Yevili. It is of pertinence that both Sri Hotoshe Sumi and Sri Onil Rava were Government servants who had a duty to disclose their family details truthfully. The link required to establish between Sri Hotoshe Sumi and the petitioner has been found to be missing. On an analysis of the impugned Order dated 31.05.2024, it cannot be said that the respondent no. 4 did not consider all the material facts or the respondent no. 4 did not apply his mind. 44. The decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in P. Kranthi [supra], was with regard to issuance of community certificate to persons under the Andhra Pradesh [SCs., STs. 4 did not consider all the material facts or the respondent no. 4 did not apply his mind. 44. The decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in P. Kranthi [supra], was with regard to issuance of community certificate to persons under the Andhra Pradesh [SCs., STs. & BCs.] Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1993. The Act have provided for a detail procedure for issuance of community certificates. It is in such context, the Court has observed that a community certificate issued by a competent authority empowered under the Act would have unimpeachable finality till the same is cancelled by a District Collector. The Act had vested the power to the District Collector to initiate inquiry either suo moto or on a written complaint that any community certificate was obtained fraudulently. 45. The decision in Ashok Kumar [supra] is on the right of privacy of person whose DNA test is sought. As the issues involved in the present writ petition do not pertain to DNA test, the said decision is found to be not relevant. 46. In the light of the discussion made above and for the reasons recorded and keeping in mind the contents of the power of judicial review, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is called for to the impugned Order dated 31.05.2024. Consequently, the grounds urged for seeking the other reliefs in the writ petition are not found tenable and therefore, the other reliefs sought for in the writ petition cannot also be granted. 47. As a corollary, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is, therefore, dismissed. The consequences would accordingly follow. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.