JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Ms. Neiteo Koza, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. N. Angami, the learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner herein has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Communication dated 03.06.2024, the Circular dated 04.06.2023, the Advertisement dated 04.06.2024 and the Notification dated 19.06.2024 all issued by the respondent No. 4. The merits to the challenge made to the aforesaid Communication, Circular, Advertisement and Notification can be discerned upon perusal of the facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. 3. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Lecturer under the Higher Education Department of the Government of Nagaland vide an order dated 20.12.2006. The petitioner thereupon rendered his service. After rendering his service for more than 17 years, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor from the post of Lecturer. 4. On 24.05.2023, the respondent No. 4 issued an advertisement for the post of Principal calling for applications from eligible candidates in the Government Colleges in the Academic level 14 (Rs. 1,44,200/-) and Special Allowance of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The said advertisement stipulated the various eligibility criteria. There is no denying to the effect that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for the purpose of promotion for the post of Principal. The petitioner accordingly submitted his application along with others and participated in the said selection process. The petitioner was called for interview vide the Notification dated 08.08.2023 along with 9 others for consideration of their promotion to the post of the Principal. The selection committee after the oral interview published the Interview Assessment Sheet. In the said Interview Assessment Sheet, the petitioner was at Sl. No. 5 and was Wait Listed with remark “Wait List-II”. From the said Interview Assessment Sheet, it appears that 3 (three) persons were recommended. Subsequent thereto, the 3 (three) persons who were recommended were promoted to the post of Principal and posted at different Colleges as mentioned in the Notification dated 20.10.2023. 5. No. 5 and was Wait Listed with remark “Wait List-II”. From the said Interview Assessment Sheet, it appears that 3 (three) persons were recommended. Subsequent thereto, the 3 (three) persons who were recommended were promoted to the post of Principal and posted at different Colleges as mentioned in the Notification dated 20.10.2023. 5. The materials on record further show that a communication was written by the respondent No. 4 to the Commissioner & Secretary of the Government of Nagaland dated 29.04.2024 whereby a proposal was mooted for appointment to the posts of Principal against two anticipated retirement vacancies in May and June 2024 under Zunheboto Government College, Zunheboto and Wangkhao Government College, Mon. In the said communication it was written that there was already a recommendation made by the Interview Board held on 17.08.2023 which was valid for one year and under such circumstances, the petitioner along with another were proposed by the respondent No. 4 to be appointed against the retirement vacancy. 6. The record further reveals that on 22.05.2024, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland had given a Vigilance Clearance in respect to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 4 issued another communication issued on 03.06.2024 mentioned that the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2015 (for short, “the Rules of 2015”) is silent on the number of months a select list would be valid. However, as the NPSC recommends wait list period for only six months, the Department may go for a fresh selection against the two vacancies which have arisen. This communication has been impugned in the present proceedings. 7. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 4 issued a Circular dated 04.06.2024 informing all concerned that the recommendation so made by the Interview Board on 17.08.2023 to the post of the Principal was no longer valid in view of the expiry of six months and the candidates who were wait listed were advised to submit fresh application to the post of the Principal. On the same date an Advertisement was issued for the post of the Principal. The said Circular and the Advertisement is subject matter of challenge to the present proceedings. 8. It is further seen that the respondent No. 4 have also issued another communication on 04.06.2024 wherein it was mentioned that there was one vacancy and two anticipated vacancy. On the same date an Advertisement was issued for the post of the Principal. The said Circular and the Advertisement is subject matter of challenge to the present proceedings. 8. It is further seen that the respondent No. 4 have also issued another communication on 04.06.2024 wherein it was mentioned that there was one vacancy and two anticipated vacancy. The petitioner duly participated in the said selection proceedings initiated on the basis of the Advertisement dated 04.06.2024 for promotion to the post of Principal which is apparent from the Notification dated 19.06.2024 whereby the petitioner was informed that his oral interview would be taken on 24.06.2024. This Notification is also challenged in the present proceedings. 9. It is further relevant at this stage to take note of that the petitioner appeared in the oral interview. The selection committee upon assessing the applicants including the petitioner published an Interview Assessment Sheet for the posts of Principal. The petitioner was put at Sl. No. 5 and against him the remark put was “Waiting List-II”. It is also relevant to take note of that on the basis of the said Interview Assessment Sheet which was prepared on 24.06.2024, a Notification was issued on 15.07.2024 wherein the 3 (three) persons who were at Sl. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the Interview Assessment Sheet were appointed to the 3 (three) vacant posts of Principal, for which, the selection was held. It is relevant to take note of that the instant petition was filed on 26.07.2024, but there is no challenge to the Interview Assessment Sheet which was published on 24.06.2024 as well as the Notification dated 15.07.2024. 10. In the backdrop of the above, the case of the petitioner herein is that as the petitioner was selected at Sl. No. 5 in the Interview Assessment Sheet dated 17.08.2023 and the respondent No. 4 had issued a communication to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland that the recommendations of the interview board held on 17.08.2023 was valid for one year, the petitioner ought to have been considered for the purpose of promotion to the post of the Principal against the two anticipated vacancies. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. N. Angami, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the instant writ petition cannot be maintained primarily on the ground that the petitioner had participated in the subsequent selection proceedings for the purpose of promotion to the post of the Principal against the 3 (three) vacancies of which two were anticipated vacancies. The petitioner thereupon having not fared well in the interview carried out on 24.06.2024 cannot be permitted to file the instant writ petition. He therefore submitted that once the petitioner had already subjected himself to the selection proceedings, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the selection proceedings. In addition to that, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that right of a wait listed candidates to be appointed could only arise if the selected candidates do not accept the appointment. He submitted that once the appointment is already being made, the list gets exhausted. 12. I have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have given my anxious consideration. 13. This Court before dealing with the facts involved in the instant proceedings finds it very pertinent to take note of the Rules of 2015. From a perusal of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2015, it is seen that the methods of recruitment to the post specified in Schedule-I of the Rules of 2015 shall be either by Direct Recruitment or by Promotion. In Schedule-I to the Rules of 2015 at Sl. No. 1 (iii), the post of the Principals of Government Colleges is mentioned. In terms with Rule 7, the manner in which the Direct Recruitment is to be carried out is stipulated. It is very interesting to take note of Rule 7(vi) which stipulates that a waiting list not exceeding 25% of the vacancy advertised shall be maintained by the Commission in respect to a written examination and interview conducted by it. The waiting list shall remain valid for a period of six months from the date of the results declared by the Commission. 14. Rule 12 of the Rules of 2015 stipulates the procedure of recruitment by Promotion/Placement. There is no mention whatsoever as regards maintaining a wait list unlike Rule 7 of the Rules of 2015 which relates to direct recruitment. 14. Rule 12 of the Rules of 2015 stipulates the procedure of recruitment by Promotion/Placement. There is no mention whatsoever as regards maintaining a wait list unlike Rule 7 of the Rules of 2015 which relates to direct recruitment. What is seen from a perusal of Rule 12(iii) of the Rules of 2015 is that the Committee is to meet and prepare a ‘Select List’ based upon the criteria of merit-cum-seniority in order of preference equal to the number of vacancies or anticipated vacancies to be filled by promotion during the recruitment year. Therefore, from a very perusal of Rule 12 of the Rules of 2015 which specifically deals with the procedure of recruitment by way of Promotion/Placement, the concept of maintaining a wait list is foreign. 15. In the backdrop of the above, taking into account that the criteria for promotion is merit-cum-seniority, it is apposite herein to observe that the settled proposition of law stipulates that the principle of merit-cum-seniority postulates the following: (a) Merit plays a predominant role in and the seniority alone cannot be given primacy. (b) Comparative assessment of merit is a crucial, though not mandatory factor. (c) Only when merit is equal in all respects can inter-se seniority be considered meaning thereby that a junior candidate can be promoted over the senior if the junior is more meritorious. 16. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court duly takes note of the case of the petitioner, it would be seen that the petitioner herein, as per the Interview Assessment Sheet dated 17.08.2023 had only secured 50.71 marks. The petitioner was put at Sl. No. 5 in the said Interview Assessment sheet. However, applying Rule 12(iii) of the Rules of 2015, the petitioner in the opinion of this Court, could not have been put at Sl. No. 5 as the marks secured by the petitioner was the least amongst the 10 candidates. In addition to that, as the vacancies and the anticipated vacancies together were 3 (three) in total, the list to be prepared had to be equal to the number of vacancies or anticipated vacancies i.e. 3 (three). The Interview Assessment Sheet dated 17.08.2023 was only a tabulation of the respective merits of the candidates and cannot be said to be the select list. The Interview Assessment Sheet dated 17.08.2023 was only a tabulation of the respective merits of the candidates and cannot be said to be the select list. The select list was the Notification dated 20.10.2023 which appears to have been prepared in terms with Rule 12 (iii) of the Rules of 2015. Therefore, the petitioner could not have made any claim on the basis of the Interview Assessment Sheet dated 17.08.2023. 17. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that the petitioner thereupon participated in the selection process which was initiated on the basis of an Advertisement dated 04.06.2024. The petitioner again did not fare well in the said assessment made and after having not fared well, the petitioner had approached this Court challenging the Advertisement, the Circular and the Notification impugned in the instant proceedings as already noted supra. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner having subjected himself to the second selection proceedings by appearing in the interview and further having not qualified, could not have maintained the instant petition. 18. Consequently, this Court finds no merit in the instant petition, for which, the instant petition stands dismissed.