JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Mere, learned Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents.

2. On 13/09/2022, Mr. Likhase Sangtam, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the matter can be taken up for hearing as the State respondents have filed their affidavit and the rights of the profoma respondent No. 4 to 14 will not be adversely affected even if the matter is taken up for hearing. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court had directed that the case can be listed for admission hearing.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the State respondents to consider the regularisation of the service of the petitioner as typist with retrospective effect from the date the respondent No. 4 to 14, who are juniors to the petitioner, were regularised in service.

1

4. The facts of the case, in brief, as submitted by the petitioner, is that, by the order dated 30/06/1998, the petitioner was appointed as a Typist on contingency basis on a fixed pay of Rs. 450/-P.M w.e.f 01/06/1998 for a period of 1(one) year at Nagaland House Guwahati, by the Deputy Reside