A.K. Goswami, J.

1. Civil Rule No. 120(K) of 1993 was filed on 11.12.1993 by the Direct Recruit SDOs/Assistant Engineers Union, for short, Union, under Works and Housing Department as the petitioner No. 1 alongwith the President, Vice-President, General Secretary and the Joint Secretary of the Union as the petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5, respectively. Civil Rule No. 120(K) of 1993 was disposed of by a judgment and order dated 20.02.1995, ex-parte, against the private respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 had filed a Review Petition against the said judgment and order dated 20.02.1995, registered as Civil Review Petition No. 5(K) of 1998, contending that the judgment and order dated 20.02.1995 was passed without serving any notice upon him. By an order dated 29.11.1999, this Court had dismissed the Review Petition holding that the respondent No. 3 was served with the notice. Against the said order dated 29.11.1999, the respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 459 of 1999 before the Principal Seat and the same was subsequently numbered as Writ Appeal No. 1(K) of 2003 at the Kohima Bench. Writ Appeal No. 1(K) of 2003 was disposed of by an order dated 31.03.2006 holding that the appeal was misconceived. The respondent No. 3 preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court and by an order dated 22.01.2007, the Supreme Court had remanded the matter to the writ appellate Court by setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.03.2006 passed in Writ Appeal No. 1(K) of 2003, also granting an opportunity to the respondent No. 3 to prefer an appeal against the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge within one month from the date of communication of the order. It was also ordered that in the event of an appeal being filed, the same shall be heard on merits with a further direction that both the appeals will be heard together. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court, the respondent No. 3 had preferred an appeal against the order dated 20.02.1995 in Civil Rule No. 120(K) of 1993 and the same was registered as W.A. No. 8(K) of 2007. The Writ Appeal No. 1(K) of 2003 and W.A. No. 8(K) of 2007 were heard on 25.02.2010 and in Writ Appeal No. 1(K) of 2003, this Court had set aside the order dated 29.11.1999, passed in Review Petition No. 5(K) of 1999 and also had set aside the judgment and order dated 20.02.1995 passed in Civil Rule No. 120(K) of 1993 on the ground that no notice was served on the respondent No. 3. Consequently, Writ Appeal No. 8(K) of 2007 was also disposed of with a similar direction.

2. The respondent No. 3, thereafter, filed an affidavit-in-opposition in W.P. (C) No. 120(K) of 1993. Subsequent to the filing of the affidavit-in-opposition, an application being C.M.C. No. 35(K) of 2010 was filed praying for impleading the applicants as petitioners Nos. 6 to 26. The said application was dismissed on withdrawal by an order dated 09.08.2010. Subsequently another application being C.M.C. No. 83(K) of 2010 was filed for amendment of the writ application, amongst others, to implead prospective petitioners as petitioner Nos. 6 to 26.

3. Petitioner Nos. 6 to 26 were also impleaded as the petitioners in the writ application, the application for amendment having been allowed by this Court. The respondent No. 3 had challenged the order allowing amendment in Writ Appeal No. 12(K) 11. The Division Bench, by an order dated 02.08.2011, while dismissing the writ appeal, had allowed the appellant/respondent No. 3 to file an amended counter affidavit.

4. The petitioner Nos. 6 to 26 were directly recruited as per provision of Nagaland Engineering Service Rules, 1984, (Class-I and Class-II), for short, the Rules, through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) as Assistant Engineers/SDOs under the Department of Works and Housing.

5. It is pleaded that the respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as Draftsman Grade-1 on temporary basis in the office of Civil Administra