The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absorption of employees on deputation with retrospective effect, in violation of government instructions, is invalid and arbitrary.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 herein were, initially, appointed, on 9.3.1982 and 4.12.1982, respectively, in the scale of pay of Rs. 260,425, as Computer, in the Directorate of Evaluation, which falls under the Department of Planning and Coordination, Government of Nagaland. While the appellant No. 1 was promoted to the post of Evaluation Inspector/Investigator (Class-II Gazetted) on 5.12.1987, in the scale of pay of Rs. 640,1445, the appellant No. 2 was promoted to the post of Evaluation Inspector/Investigator on 3.7.1987, with effect from 22.6.1987, in the same scale of pay as mentioned hereinbefore. By Notification, dated 27.6.1993, the appellant No. 2 was promoted to the post of Evaluation Officer ('EO') in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,800-3,700 and has continued in the same capacity till date; whereas the appellant No. 2 was promoted, vide Notification, dated 10.6.1994, to the post of EO (Class-II Gazetted), on officiating basis, in the scale of pay as indicated hereinbefore and has continued till date.

2. The private respondent Nos. 3 and 5, both of whom were Inspector of Statistics (Class-III Non-Gazetted), which fall under the Directorate of Economics and Statistics, came to be appointed as EO, on 31.10.1986, on deputation, for a period of 2 (two) years in the scale of pay of Rs. 930-2080. The private respondent Nos. 4 and 6, who were Assistant Teachers, came to be appointed as EO, on deputation, on 3.11.1986 and 2.12.1981 respectively.

3. By the impugned Notification, dated 19.12.2002, when the private respondents 3, 4, 5 and 6 were permanently absorbed in the Directorate of Evaluation, with effect from their respective dates of joining the post of E.O. on deputation, the appellants, feeling aggrieved by the absorption of the private respondents with retrospective effect, came to this Court with a writ application, which gave rise to WP(C) No. 12(K)/03. and sought for, inter alia setting aside and quashing of the impugned Notification, dated 19.12.2002, aforesaid, their case being that they were appointed, in the Directorate of Evaluation, as computer and, thereafter, they were promoted, in course of time, to the posts of EO, but by absorbing the private respondents in the post of EO, with retrospective effect, the private respondents were made senior to the appellants.

4. In support of their case, the appellants, as petitioners in the writ petition, placed reliance on two Office memoranda, dated 12.8.1975 and 13.9.1986, and contended that in the light of the requirements of the office memoranda aforementioned, the private respondents could not have been legally absorbed with retrospective effect inasmuch as the office memoranda aforementioned made it clear that the absorption, on deputation, was not to be, generally, adhered to, and even if a deputationist was to be absorbed, the absorption must not be done without consultation with, and without obtaining clearance from, the Nagaland Public Service Commission ('NPSC') or the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short, 'DPC'), and even when a deputationist was decided to be absorbed, his absorption would be effective from the date on which the decision to absorb the deputationist was taken and not with retrospective effect. It was also contended by the petitioners/appellants that the cabinet decision, arrived at on 23.10.2002, approving the proposal for absorption of the private respondents as EO with retrospective effect, was in violation of the two office memoranda aforementioned.

5. The writ petition was resisted by the State as well as the private respondents, their case being, in brief, thus: The Directorate of Evaluation was bifurcated from the Directorate of Planning and Coordination on 11.12.1968 and, to the new Directorate so created, officers from Planning and also other Departments of the Government of Nagaland were brought, on deputation, to man the newly created Directorate of Evaluation. The private respondents too were brought into the D