Point of Law : It is akin to doctrine of benefits and burdens which at its most basic level provides that a person taking advantage under an instrument which both grants a benefit and imposes a burden cannot take former without complying with latter.

JUDGMENT :

KAKHETO SEMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland, appearing for the State respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 25/03/2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 8/2019, whereby the claim of the appellants/petitioners for payment of the pay scale as prescribed in the advertisement was dismissed.

3. Brief facts essential for disposal of the writ appeal is that, pursuant to the advertisement dated 28/08/2017 and 20/10/2017 issued by the Directorate of School Education, Nagaland, Kohima, inviting applications for filling up the post of Graduate Teachers (GT) Mathematics and Science, the appellants applied for the post and appeared for the examination conducted on 25/09/2017 and 11/11/2017 respectively. The appellants came out successful in the exam and were appointed as Graduate Teachers (Mathematics & Science) vide the appointment order dated 18/09/2018. It the case of the appellants that though in the advertisement dated 28/08/2017, the pay scale of Graduate Teacher (Mathematics & Science) was prescribed as P.B=Rs. 9300-34,800. G.P. Rs. 4200/- in the appointment orders of the appellants their pay was reduced to Pay Matrix Level 9 (i.e. P.B Rs. 5200-20200/- G.P. Rs. 3400/-) by giving effect to the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as NSES Rules, 2017) which was notified in the Official Gazette on 29/11/2017. Against the reduction of their pay, the appellants submitted representation to the authorities however, the same did not evoke any response and as such, the appellants approached the Court by filing the W.P. (C) No. 8/2019. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the judgment & order dated 25/03/2022 inter-alia holding that since the pay scale given to the appellants in their appointment order was as per the NSES Rules, 2017 which came into force while the recruitment process was going on, the respondents authorities did not commit any illegality in giving the pay scale to the appellants as prescribed in the rules.

4. Mr. Joshua Sheqi, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the advertisement dated 28/08/2017 and 20/10/2017 inviting application for the post of Graduate Teachers (GT) Mathematics and Science, in which the appellants appeared and came out successful, the scale of pay was mentioned as P.B Rs. 9300-34800/- G.P. Rs. 4200/-, which it is submitted is in the Pay Matrix Level 10 of the Nagaland Service (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017. However, when the appointment order dated 18/09/2018 was issued to the appellants by the department, the appellants were appointed in the reduced Pay Matrix Level 9 (i.e. P.B Rs. 5200-20200/- G.P. Rs. 3400/-). Mr. Joshua submits that the reduced pay was in view of the coming in force of the NSES Rules, 2017 which was published on 29/11/2017 in which the pay of the Graduate Teacher was prescribed as P.B Rs. 5200-20200/- G.P. Rs. 3400/-. Mr. Sheqi has further taken this Court to the notification dated 07/12/2017, issued by the Government of Nagaland, department of School Education, wherein it has been inter-alia provided that “All the teachers who were appointed prior to the issue of the Gazette notification of the Nagaland School Education Service Rules, 2017 on 29/11/2017 shall continue to enjoy their respective pay band and grade pay. Only those teachers who are appointed after publication of the revised services rules shall be given the revised pay bands and grade pay of their respective cadre.” Mr. Sheqi however, submits that the NSES Rules, 2017 and the notification dated 07/12/2017 cannot be enforced to determine the pay of the appellants as both these rules and notification were introduce only subsequent to the advertisement dated 28/08/2017 and 20/10/2017 and only after the appellants had appeared for the interview on 25/09/2017 and 11/11/2017. Mr. Sheqi acc