JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Ms. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K. Sema, learned senior Addl. Advocate General appears for the State Government assisted by Ms. Livika for respondent Nos. 1 to 26, except 7 and 19. Mr. Taka Masa, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 7. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 80 to 137. Mr. K. Ndang, learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 64 to 68 and 70 to 73. Ms. Naomy Sale, learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 21 and Mr. K. Kire, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 19.

2. The petitioners' case in brief is that the State respondents have been making rampant backdoor appointments to various Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV posts under the Government of Nagaland on contract/ad hoc basis and regularizing the said appointees by way of the impugned OM dated 4.8.2008 and OM dated 11.8.2016, which is in violation of the directions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that no advertisements have been issued by the State respondents before appointing persons on contract/ad hoc basis and without following the recruitment rules made for the said post. She submits that the appointments made on contract/ad hoc basis by the State respondents are being made on a pick and choose policy and as the same has been done without any selection process, the same has resulted in depriving thousands of educated youth of the State from participating in the selection process. The petitioner's counsel has produced recruitment rules pertaining to various posts under all the Departments under the Government of Nagaland, except the Art and Culture Department. She submits that as recruitment rules have been framed, the vacancies should be filled up as per rules, after vacancies are notified and advertised.

4. The petitioner's counsel, thus, prays for setting aside the impugned OMs dated 4.8.2008 and 11.8.2016. She has also prayed for setting aside appointment orders made on contract/ad hoc basis and to terminate the services of 706 backdoor appointees, appointed before and after 6.6.2016, including the impleaded 110 private respondents and to fill up the said posts as per the recruitment rules, after calling for advertisements. The petitioner's counsel also submits that though the petitioner No. 1 is an unregistered association/body, the petitioner No. 1 has the locus standi to file this writ petition as they stand on behalf of the people of Nagaland and in support of her submission, she has relied upon the case of the State of Himachal Pradesh v. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyanysayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh, (2011) 6 SCC 597. In support of her submission that regularization of contractual employees are sought to be made in violation of the directions laid down by the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1.

5. Mr. K. Sema, learned senior Addl. Advocate General submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is defective due to nonjoinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as, the writ petitioners have prayed for terminating the appointments of 706 persons, while impleading only 110 persons in the writ petition. He also submits that the petitioner No. 1 is an unregistered body and accordingly, the petitioner No. 1 has no locus standi to file the writ petition. He further submits that the other petitioners are not aggrieved persons, they have no locus standi to file the writ petition, as no legal or fundamental right of theirs has been violated. He also submits that as the writ petition is not a Public Interest Litigation, the writ petition, not being maintainable, should be dismissed.

6. In support of his submissions, the learned senior Addl. Advocate General has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of R.K. Jain v. Union of