Judgment and Order : 1. Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, appearing for the official respondent nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6. None has appeared for the respondent no. 7. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the final inter se seniority list of Forest Rangers, as on 15/12/2021, circulated by the Department vide Memorandum dated 15/12/2021, issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Environment, Forests and Climate Change, whereby, the private respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 have been placed above the writ petitioner in the seniority list. The facts and circumstances of the case, giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition, shorn of unnecessary details, is narrated herein below. 3. The Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) i.e. the respondent no. 7 herein, had issued advertisement no. 5/2009-2010 dated 12/08/2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for filling up a number of different posts under the Government of Nagaland. The advertisement notice dated 12/08/2010 had also included 1(one) post of Forest Ranger (Cl-II Gazetted) under the Forest Department. Subsequently, by issuing addendum dated 09/09/2010, 3 (three) more posts, in the category of Forest Ranger (Cl-II Gazetted), were added to the number of vacancies in the Forest Department. In response to the advertisement notice, as stated above, the petitioner had submitted his candidature. 4. On completion of the selection process, the respondent no. 7, vide notification dated 25/07/2011, had inter-alia recommended the names of 4 (four) candidates for filling up the 4 posts of Forest Rangers (Cl-II Gazetted) under the Forest Department. The four candidates whose names were recommended by the NPSC were Shri Khujah Jurry and the three private respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 herein. It would be pertinent to mention herein that Shri Khujah Jurry was selected as an un-reserved category candidate whereas, the respondent no. 4 Shri Ailong Phom was selected as a backward tribe candidate. The respondent nos. 5 & 6 i.e. Shri Punseni Khing and Shri Imkongsunep Longchar respectively, were selected against the 50% quota reserved for the Forestry Graduates. The aforesaid four candidates, having accepted the offer of appointment as Forest Rangers, by the appointment order dated 25/10/2011, they were all appointed as Forest Rangers. The respondent nos. 5 & 6 i.e. Shri Punseni Khing and Shri Imkongsunep Longchar respectively, were selected against the 50% quota reserved for the Forestry Graduates. The aforesaid four candidates, having accepted the offer of appointment as Forest Rangers, by the appointment order dated 25/10/2011, they were all appointed as Forest Rangers. However, after serving the Department for a few months, Shri Khujah Jurry i.e. the un-reserved category candidate, had submitted his resignation on 31/12/2011, which was accepted by the appointing authority on 24/02/2012 and accordingly, he was released from his post. 5. In the wake of the resignation of Shri Khujah Jurry, the Government of Nagaland, vide letter dated 06/03/2012 addressed to the Secretary of the respondent no. 7, had made a request to recommend the first candidate from the waiting list maintained by the NPSC, so as to fill up the post of Forest Ranger vacated by Shri Khujah Jurry. It appears that the writ petitioner herein was the first wait listed candidate and accordingly, vide letter dated 13/06/2012 issued by the NPSC, the name of the writ petitioner was recommended so as to fill up the vacant post of Forest Ranger arising due to the resignation of Shri Khujah Jurry. On 13/07/2012, the post of Forest Ranger was offered to the petitioner which he had accepted. Consequently, vide notification dated 30/08/2012, the petitioner was appointed as Forest Ranger. 6. Thereafter, on 21/03/2014, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Forest, Ecology, Environment and Wild Life i.e. the respondent no. 2 herein had issued a Memorandum notifying the tentative seniority list of Forest Rangers, as on 01/01/2014. In the said tentative seniority list, the petitioner’s name appeared at Sl. No. 28 whereas, the names of the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 appeared below him at Sl. No. 29, 30 & 31 respectively. It is to be noted herein that the 3 promotee Forest Rangers appointed in the same year, viz. Shri Keviyiebei, Shri Bendangtemsu and Shri Bokato, were placed above the writ petitioner and the private respondents at Sl. No. 25, 26 & 27 respectively, in the tentative seniority list. 7. It appears that by issuing notification dated 20/12/2011, the Government had provided that the promotee Officers would be above the direct recruit Forest Rangers appointed in the year 2011 in order of seniority. No. 25, 26 & 27 respectively, in the tentative seniority list. 7. It appears that by issuing notification dated 20/12/2011, the Government had provided that the promotee Officers would be above the direct recruit Forest Rangers appointed in the year 2011 in order of seniority. On 04/07/2014, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland had forwarded the seniority list of Forest Rangers to the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Nagaland, whereby, it was mentioned that a per general rule of inter se seniority, in case of the promotees’ and direct recruits in the same calendar year, the promotees would rank senior since the promotion vacancies existed before the requisition for direct recruitment was issued but the promotion was delayed for want of ACRs/APARs. 8. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent nos. 4 , 5 & 6 herein, as writ petitioners, had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 232(K)/2015 assailing the notification dated 20/12/2011; the Memorandum dated 21/03/2014 and the letter dated 04/07/2014, questioning the seniority position given to the 3 (three) promotee Forest Rangers, primarily on the ground that the writ petitioners therein (i.e. the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 in this writ petition) were appointed as Forest Rangers on a date prior to the promotion of the private respondents were given effect to and hence, having been borne in the cadre of Forest Rangers (Cl-II Gazetted) prior to the private respondents, they ought to have been treated as senior to the private respondents (Promotee Officers). 9. After considering the materials available on record, the learned Single Judge had passed judgement and order dated 26/05/2017 in WP(C) 232(K)/2015, allowing the writ petition filed by the present private respondents as Writ Petitioners, by setting aside the notification(s)/memorandum(s) impugned therein, with a direction upon the respondents to count the seniority of the Officers with effect from the date when they were borne in the cadre. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 26/05/2017, the private respondents therein (Promotee Officers) had preferred Writ Appeal No. 25/2017 before this Court, which was dismissed by the judgement dated 27/05/2019, thus, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgement and order dated 26/05/2017, the private respondents therein (Promotee Officers) had preferred Writ Appeal No. 25/2017 before this Court, which was dismissed by the judgement dated 27/05/2019, thus, affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge. By the judgement and order dated 27/05/2019, the Division Bench had also issued a direction upon the State respondents to abide by the judgment and order dated 26/05/2017 passed by the learned Single Judge and complete the exercise within a period of 3 (three) months. 11. Pursuant to the judgement and order dated 27/05/2019, the Departmental Authorities had issued Memorandum dated 30/08/2019, circulating the tentative seniority list of Forest Rangers, as on 30/08/2019 whereby, the writ petitioner as well as the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 were assigned seniority position above the promotee Officers. However, being dissatisfied with the fact that the writ petitioner had been assigned seniority above the private respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6, who were borne in the cadre of Forest Ranger before the writ petitioner, they had submitted joint representation dated 12/09/2019 before the concerned authorities with a request to rectify the seniority list. It appears that the matter was thereafter referred to the respondent no. 7 seeking its opinion. By issuing communication dated 10/07/2020, the respondent no. 7 had opined that the writ petitioner would be senior most amongst the 4 (four) direct recruit Forest Rangers since after Shri Khujah Jurry, he had scored the highest marks and accordingly, was placed in the first position in the waiting list. Notwithstanding the aforesaid recommendation made by the respondent no. 7, the respondent no. 2 had issued Memorandum dated 23/08/2021 notifying the tentative seniority list of Forest Rangers, as on 23/08/2021 whereby, the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 were placed above the writ petitioner in order of seniority. Aggrieved by the Memorandum dated 23/08/2021, the petitioner had submitted a representation before the respondent no. 2 claiming seniority over the respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6, primarily on the ground that since he had scored higher marks than the private respondents in the selection process. 12. On 15/12/2021, the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, had circulated the final seniority list of Forest Rangers whereby, the higher seniority assigned to the private respondents above the writ petitioner in the tentative seniority list had been maintained. 12. On 15/12/2021, the Under Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, had circulated the final seniority list of Forest Rangers whereby, the higher seniority assigned to the private respondents above the writ petitioner in the tentative seniority list had been maintained. Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed. 13. Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has argued that since his client had scored higher marks than the private respondents and, therefore, was ranked higher in order of merit in the select list prepared by the NPSC, hence, regardless of the date of appointment, the writ petitioner ought to rank higher in order of seniority above the private respondents, more so, since the 3 (three) private respondents were accommodated /appointed against the vacancies reserved for backward community/Forestry Graduates. 14. By referring to the pleadings in WP(C) 232(K)/2015 instituted by the private respondents, Mr. Limawapang has vociferously argued that in that writ petition, the private respondents had neither impleaded the writ petitioner nor was there any relief claimed against him. Therefore, the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge vide judgement and order dated 26/05/2017 passed in WP(C) 232 (K)/2015 as well as the judgment and order dated 27/05/2019 passed by the Division Bench in WA No. 25/2017 affirming the said decision, would not have any bearing on the claim of the writ petitioner nor could the said decisions come in the way of the writ petitioner in challenging the impugned final seniority list circulated vide memorandum dated 15/12/2021. In support of his above arguments, Mr. Limawapang has relied upon two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Surendra Narain Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (1998) 5 SCC 246 and in the case of Suresh Chandra Jha Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (20070 1 SCC 405 to contend that the mere fact that the private respondents were appointed as Forest Rangers prior to the writ petitioner cannot be a ground to deny seniority to the writ petitioner above the private respondents by ignoring his over all merit position in the selection process conducted by the respondent no. 7. 15. Responding to the said arguments, Ms. 7. 15. Responding to the said arguments, Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland, has argued that the writ petitioner was appointed about 10(ten) months after the appointment of the private respondents and, therefore, he was borne in the cadre of Forest Rangers much after the private respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6. Contending that the appointment of the petitioner is on account of a fortuitous circumstances i.e. due to the resignation of the original appointee i.e. Shri Khujah Jurry, hence, the writ petitioner cannot claim seniority over the private respondents, Ms. V. Suokhrie has further submitted that the decisions relied upon by Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the writ petitioner are distinguishable on facts and, therefore, those would not have any application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 16. Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the private respondents has adopted the submissions made by Ms. V. Suokhrie, and has further argued that since the final inter se seniority list has been circulated in terms of the judgement and order dated 27/05/2019 passed by the Division Bench whereby, it has been held that seniority must be decided by taking note of the date on which the candidate was borne in the cadre, the writ petitioner, having been borne in the cadre of Forest Ranger much later than the private respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6, he cannot claim seniority over the private respondents. 17. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. 18. The facts urged by the writ petitioner are not in dispute. It appears that till the issuance of the Memorandum dated 30/08/2019 notifying the tentative seniority list of Forest Rangers, the writ petitioner herein was shown to be senior to the private respondents. However, that position got reversed after the private respondents had raised objection by submitting representation dated 12/09/2019 seeking rectification of the seniority list. It is only thereafter that a modified tentative seniority list of Forest Rangers was circulated on 23/08/2021 whereby, the private respondents have been shown to be above the writ petitioner in order of seniority. The aforesaid inter-se seniority position was eventually finalized vide impugned seniority list circulated in terms of the Memorandum dated 15/12/2021. 19. It is only thereafter that a modified tentative seniority list of Forest Rangers was circulated on 23/08/2021 whereby, the private respondents have been shown to be above the writ petitioner in order of seniority. The aforesaid inter-se seniority position was eventually finalized vide impugned seniority list circulated in terms of the Memorandum dated 15/12/2021. 19. After going through the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the core issue involved in this proceeding is pertaining to the question as to whether, merely because the writ petitioner had secured higher marks than the private respondents, should he be treated as senior although he was appointed about 10(ten) months after the appointment of the private respondents. Before making any attempt to answer the said question, it would be pertinent to note herein that it is the admitted position of fact that there are no Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India nor is there any Executive Instructions laying down guidelines so as to regulate the conditions of recruitment of Forest Rangers in the State of Nagaland. Under such circumstances, issues such as determination of inter se seniority amongst the Forest Rangers would undoubtedly have to be determined by following the General Principles of Service Jurisprudence applicable in such matters. 20. In the present case, as has been noted herein above, only 1 (one) out of 4 (four) vacancies of Forest Rangers could have been filled up by an un-reserved category candidate. The writ petitioner had applied for the post of Forest Ranger as an un-reserved category candidate. However, since Shri Khujah Jurry had secured highest mark, hence, he was accommodated against the single un-reserved category post of Forest Ranger by virtue of his merit position in the select list prepared by the respondent no. 7. The writ petitioner herein had secured the second highest marks and, therefore, he was placed at Sl. No. 1 in the Waiting List. 21. There is no controversy about the fact that the claim of the petitioner for appointment could have been considered only against the sole post meant for un- reserved category candidate inasmuch as his candidature could not have been considered for filling up any of the other three vacancies, which were meant for the reserved category candidates. 21. There is no controversy about the fact that the claim of the petitioner for appointment could have been considered only against the sole post meant for un- reserved category candidate inasmuch as his candidature could not have been considered for filling up any of the other three vacancies, which were meant for the reserved category candidates. Under such circumstances, since Shri Khujah Jurry had secured higher marks than the writ petitioner, the question of issuing appointment order in favour of the writ petitioner would not arise under ordinary circumstances. However, fortunately enough for the writ petitioner, Shri Khujah Jurry had resigned from the post after serving the Department for a few months. After his resignation was accepted, it was open for the Department either to go for fresh advertisement so as to fill up the vacancy or to appoint a candidate from the wait list. In the present case, the Department had chosen the second option and after obtaining the recommendation of the respondent no. 7, order of appointment was issued to the writ petitioner on 30/08/2012 i.e. after more than 10(ten) months since the private respondents were appointed. Under these facts and circumstances, there can be no element of doubt about the fact that the private respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 were borne in the cadre of Forest Ranger (Cl-II Gazetted) much before the writ petitioner had joined as Forest Ranger. If that be so, the question of accepting the claim of seniority of the petitioner above the private respondents, in the opinion of this Court, would not arise in the eyes of law. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out at any Rule /statutory provision which would protect his right to be conferred with seniority above the private respondents merely because he was appointed against an un- reserve category by securing higher marks than the private respondents. In the absence of any service rule protecting the interest of the candidate claiming higher seniority merely because he had secured higher marks in the selection process, the departmental authorities would be duty bound to recognise the seniority of those direct recruits who were borne in the cadre of Forest Ranger prior in point of time. In the absence of any service rule protecting the interest of the candidate claiming higher seniority merely because he had secured higher marks in the selection process, the departmental authorities would be duty bound to recognise the seniority of those direct recruits who were borne in the cadre of Forest Ranger prior in point of time. The plea raised by the writ petitioner would have been acceptable had Shri Khujah Jurry tendered his resignation prior to the appointment of the private respondent nos. 4, 5 & 6 in the posts of Forest Ranger but not otherwise. 23. It is also to be noted herein that in WP(C) 232(K)/2015, the issue was as to whether, the promotee Officers, who were borne in the cadre of Forest Rangers later than the direct recruits of the same year, would be senior to the direct recruits. While answering the question against the Promotee Officers and in favour of the direct recruits, the learned Single Judge, by allowing the writ petition filed by the private respondents as writ petitioners, had categorically observed that the persons borne in the cadre of Forest Rangers earlier would have to be given seniority above those who had been borne in the cadre at a later date. The judgement of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench vide judgement and order dated 27/05/2019. The direction issued by the learned Single Judge, as affirmed by the Division Bench, has apparently been implemented by the Departmental Authorities and accordingly, the impugned seniority list has been prepared whereby, the private respondents, who were borne in the cadre of Forest Ranger prior to the writ petitioner, were given higher seniority. Under such circumstances, although the issue raised in the present writ petition is slightly different in nature and character, as compared to those in WP(C) No. 232(K)/2015, yet, the principle of law, as enunciated in the earlier decisions of this Court, as noted above, would have a binding effect on this Court. Therefore, unless the petitioner seeks liberty from Division Bench to re-open the issue, it would not be permissible for this Court to express a different opinion on the issue as to whether, a candidate borne in the cadre later in point of time, would be entitled to seniority over others. Therefore, unless the petitioner seeks liberty from Division Bench to re-open the issue, it would not be permissible for this Court to express a different opinion on the issue as to whether, a candidate borne in the cadre later in point of time, would be entitled to seniority over others. Viewed from that angle also, there is no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned seniority list circulated by Memorandum dated 15/12/2021. 24. Coming to the decision relied upon by Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in the case of Surendra Narain Singh and others (Supra) the issue involved therein was pertaining to the claim of seniority amongst two batches of Munsiffs, who were recruited by following two different rules. In case of the first batch, an advertisement was issued by Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) for filling up 200 posts of Munsiffs for the 15 th Examination to be conducted under the Rules framed in the year 1955. Out of the 200 posts, 152 posts were for general category candidates whereas, the remaining 48 posts were meant for SC/ST category candidates. After completing the requisite formalities pertaining to the selection process, the BPSC had forwarded the list of 158 candidates to the Bihar Government for appointment as Munsiffs under the 1955 Rules, out of which, 143 candidates belonged to the general category and the remaining 15 to the SC/ST category. These 158 candidates came to be appointed during the period between March, 1975 and May, 1975. While this process was under progress, another advertisement notice was issued by the BPSC under 1974 Rules for appointment of 152 Munsiffs to fill up additional temporary posts of Munsiffs created by the Bihar Government. On completion of the selection process, the merit list of 152 candidates prepared as per the Rules of 1974, was forwarded to the Bihar Government and accordingly, the candidates were appointed during the period of 23/05/1975 to 17/11/1976, initially for a period of 6 (six) months but their appointment were later on extended till confirmation. Between 14/06/1975 and 04/08/1975, additional 9(nine) candidates were appointed as per the merit list prepared under the 1955 Rules, thus, taking the total number of appointments under the 1955 Rules to be 167 candidates, thereby leaving 33 posts of SC/ST vacant due to want of qualified candidates. Between 14/06/1975 and 04/08/1975, additional 9(nine) candidates were appointed as per the merit list prepared under the 1955 Rules, thus, taking the total number of appointments under the 1955 Rules to be 167 candidates, thereby leaving 33 posts of SC/ST vacant due to want of qualified candidates. It appears that the Bihar Government had dereserved these 33 posts meant for SC/ST candidates and those vacancies were filled up by general category candidates by operating the merit list prepared under the Rules of 1955. Out of these 33 candidates so appointed, one candidate had died. However, the remaining 32 candidates were confirmed and were given seniority above those candidates who were recruited under the 1974 Rules and were in fact, appointed earlier to them. Therefore, the core controversy involved in that proceeding was pertaining to the issue of inter se seniority between the 32 candidates appointed under the Rules of 1955 and those appointed earlier under the Rules of 1974. It was in such factual backdrop that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had observed that the 32 candidates who were appointed against the vacancies of 15 th examination under the 1955 Rules, will have to be given seniority over those candidates who were appointed at an earlier point of time under the Rules of 1974 since those candidates were appointed against vacancies in respect of which they had no right. After going through the aforesaid decision rendered by the Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down in the case of Surendra Narain Singh and others (Supra) would not have any relevant bearing in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 25. In the case of Suresh Chandra Jha (Supra) relied upon by Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, a candidate placed below in the merit list was assigned seniority over a more meritorious candidate merely because he had joined earlier than the candidate securing higher marks. The candidate securing higher marks, in order of merit had, however, reported for duty within the period permitted for joining. However, merely because the other candidate securing lesser marks had joined before him, the seniority position was sought to be altered. By relying upon the law laid down in the case of Puri Gramya Bank Vs. The candidate securing higher marks, in order of merit had, however, reported for duty within the period permitted for joining. However, merely because the other candidate securing lesser marks had joined before him, the seniority position was sought to be altered. By relying upon the law laid down in the case of Puri Gramya Bank Vs. Ananda Chandra Das reported in (1994) 6 SCC 301 , the Apex Court had interfered with such decision to deny the seniority to the more meritorious candidate. In the present case, the issue is not whether, the petitioner had secured higher marks than the private respondents but as to whether, the petitioner can claim seniority above the respondents despite having been borne in the cadre of Forest Ranger on a subsequent date. For the reasons stated herein above, the said question has to be answered in the negative. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the case of Surendra Narain Singh and others (Supra) , in the opinion of this Court, would also have no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 26. For the discussions and reasons furnished herein above, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is bereft of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.