JUDGMENT :

Nelson Sailo, J.

Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents.

2. Claiming to have a common grievance, 25 writ petitioners have joined hands to file the instant writ petition.

3. Brief facts of the case as presented by the petitioners is that they were appointed as Lecturer/Assistant Professors between 01.06.1986 to 13.03.1996 through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) under the Department of Higher Education, Govt. of Nagaland. Thereafter, after serving for a number of years, they were placed in the selection grade/Associate Professor. Be it stated herein that in due course of time, the post of Lecturer was re-designated as Assistant Professor and Senior Grade Lecturers as Associate Professors.

4. According to the petitioners, when they entered into their respective services, the eligibility criteria was inter alia a Masters Degree with minimum 55% marks. The statutory rules at the time of their entry into service was the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 1990 (Rules of 1990) which was subsequently repealed by the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2003 (Rules of 2003). Under the Rules of 1990 and the Rules of 2003, the eligibility criteria for appointment/recruitment to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor remained the same. The Rules of 2003 was then repealed by the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2015 (Rules of 2015) which came into force from the date of its publication in the Nagaland Gazette i.e., 10.06.2015. As per the Rules of 2015, the post of Associate Professor is the feeder post for promotion/placement to the grade of Professor/Principal and the essential qualification for such promotion/placement is Ph.D with a minimum service of 3 (three) years at Stage-4. According to the petitioners, they were all appointed under the Rules of 1990 & 2003 and they have the accrued and vested right to be considered for promotion/placement to the higher post but their rights have been adversely affected with the adoption of the Rules of 2015.

5. The petitioners contend that a few Associate Professors approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 65(K)/2015 contending inter alia that they were superseded by their juniors and though they did not possess Ph.D, the Rules should be relaxed and they should be considered for promotion for placement/promotion to the post of Principal. The writ petition was disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 25.04.2016 wherein, it was held that as the petitioners did not possess the requisite qualification as prescribed by the Rules of 2015, they are not entitled to any relief. Against the Judgment & Order, the State Government filed Civil Review Petition No. 5(K)/2016 contending that as there was shortage of Principals under the Department of Higher Education, it was not possible to process the case of eligible teachers for promotion without Principals. Taking this into account, this Court allowed the Review Petition by Order dated 06.03.2017. Subsequently, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 5(K)/2016 were promoted as Principals. According to the petitioners, except for two of the promotees, the rest have already retired on superannuation.

6. The petitioners contend that in the Department of Higher Education, there are as many as 46 Associate Professors without Ph.D. All of them, including the petitioners were appointed prior to the coming into force of the Rules of 2015. Further, the practice of the Department of not making Ph.D an essential qualification for recruitment can be ascertained from the advertisement floated on 13.11.2019 by the NPSC. According to the petitioners, a perusal of the advertisement would show that candidates possessing Master Degree in the relevant subject with at least 55% marks are eligible to apply for the post of Assistant Professor. They contend that at the time of their initial appointment, they were assured that their qualifica