JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.6/2022 and Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Writ Appeal No.15/2022. We have also heard Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents in both the writ appeals.

2. As both the writ appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated 03.12.2021 passed in WP(C) No.17/2020, both the writ appeals are taken up for disposal by this common judgment and order.

3. For ascertaining the disputes so raised in both the writ appeals, it would be relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the passing of the impugned judgment and order. The appellants in Writ Appeal No.15/2022 as writ petitioners filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order No.PLN/M-156/93(Pt-I) dated 03.07.2019 as well as the Order bearing No.PLN-950/2000(Pt-I) dated 03.07.2019 and further sought for a direction upon the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization against 67% of the available 3 (three) vacancies of the post of Driver in terms of the Scheme for regularization and absorption of Work-Charged and Casual Employees promulgated by the Office Memorandums dated 17.03.2015 and 22.09.2004 and the related norms applied by the State Government in filling up the vacancies.

4. The case set out by the writ petitioners who were 6 (six) in numbers was that the Petitioner No.1 was initially appointed as Driver on contingency basis on a monthly wage of Rs.1,500/- and temporarily attached with Sr. Accounts Officer, in the State Planning Machinery, under the Planning and Coordination Department, Nagaland, Kohima vide an order dated 04.07.2002. The Petitioner No.2 was also appointed as the Driver on contingency basis on a monthly wage of Rs.3,000/-and temporarily attached with Sr. Accounts Officer, in the District Planning Machinery, Peren, Nagaland vide an order dated 07.09.2005. The Petitioner No.3 was also initially appointed as Driver on fixed honorarium basis of Rs.4,500/-in the GIS Cell, Planning and Coordination Department, Nagaland, Kohima vide an order dated 16.05.2006. In similar terms, the Petitioner Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were also appointed as Driver on contingency basis on 01.07.2008, 17.07.2008 and 13.01.2009 respectively. The Petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 were granted the revised pay band of Rs.5,200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.1,800/-per month plus all other allowances as were admissible under Rules from time to time in Nagaland with effect from 01.06.2011 vide an order dated 08.06.2011. Similarly, the Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were granted revised pay band with effect from 01.06.2011 vide an order dated 13.06.2011. The Petitioner No.5 was granted the revised pay band with effect from 01.01.2012 vide an order dated 22.12.2011 and the Petitioner No.6 was granted the revised pay band with effect from 02.01.2015 vide an order dated 20.12.2014. All the 6 (six) petitioners were listed at Serial No. 1, 2, 5, 10, 11 and 12 in the seniority list of the fixed/scale pay Driver under the Planning and Coordination Department.

5. It was the case of the petitioners that they were entitled to regularization in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 17.03.2015 along with the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2004. The petitioners have also mentioned in the writ petition that on 06.06.2016, the P&AR Department had notified a ban on appointment on contractual basis declaring inter alia that any appointment made on contract basis shall be null and void. It is the further case of the petitioners that in spite of the said Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2016, when 2 (two) vacancies arose in the year 2018 and another additional vacancy arose in the year 2019, the respondent authorities illegally appointed the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 on contract basis for a period of 1 (one) year till the interview is conducted whichever is earlier vide an order bearing No.PLN/M-156/93