JUDGMENT :

K.R. Surana, J.

Heard Mr. A. Zho, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the three writ petitions. In connection with W.P.(C) No. 222/2022, heard Mr. E. Thiba Phom, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned special counsel for the State respondent nos. 2, 4 and 5. In connection with W.P.(C) No. 232/2021, heard E. Thiba Phom, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 7, 11, 22, 23, 27, 41, 44 and 54. None appears for other private respondents. In connection with W.P.(C) No. 237/2021, heard E. Thiba Phom, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the State respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. None appears for other private respondents.

Brief facts of the case:

2) The petitioners are all police personnel in the Unarmed Branch of Nagaland Police. They are aggrieved by limited scope of promotional avenues for police personnel from Unarmed Branch and project that while only few limited police personnel from Unarmed Branch have received promotion more than once in their service career, for most of the Unarmed Branch personnel, they have received only one promotion in their career. It is projected that their counterparts, who were recruited in the same year and under same selection process, but posted under the Armed Branch, have got multiple promotions and have even reached the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police in Nagaland Police and thus, are several rank superior to the petitioners. Accordingly, by filing W.P.(C) Nos. 232/2021 and 237/2021, the petitioners have, inter alia, prayed for a direction upon the State respondents to prepare a combined seniority list of both the Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch of Nagaland Police and for other consequential reliefs. However, by filing W.P.(C) No. 222/2022, the petitioners have questioned the legality of Rule 33(b) of Part-III of Nagaland Police Manual and have also prayed for quashing the said provision.

Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners:

3) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that for convenience of the Court, and in consonance with the statements made in the writ petition, he has prepared and produced a chart, containing the position of the petitioners vis-à-vis the private respondents in W.P.(C) 232/2021, projecting as follows:-

a. The petitioner nos. 1, 2, 9 and 10 had got promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector after 14 years to the post of Unarmed Branch Inspector; the petitioner nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11 to 17 had been promoted after 15 years; and the petitioner no. 6 got his promotion after 16 years.

b. From the said chart, comparing the position of the petitioners with the private respondent nos.6 to 15 in W.P.(C) 232/2021, it has been submitted that the respondent nos. 6 to 10, 13, 14 and 15 got their first promotion to the post of Armed Branch Sub-Inspector after 3 years; the private respondent nos. 11 and 12 got promoted to the post of Armed Branch Sub-Inspector after 2 years.

c. It has been projected that all the said respondents got their second promotion to the next higher post of Armed Branch Inspector after 7 years of their first promotion.

d. From the said chart, it is further projected that the respondent no.6 got his next and third promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police after 12 years of his first promotion; the respondent nos. 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, got their next promotion after 13 years; and the respondent nos. 7, 11 and 12 got their next promotion after 15 years.

4) It has been submitted that the petitioners as well as the private respondents in the said W.P.(C) 232/2021, had applied for being appointed as Constables in the Nagaland Police pursuant to advertisement dated 23.03.1999. However, upon selection, while the police authorities had posted the petitioners in the Unarmed Branch but posted the private respondents therein were arbitrarily posted in the A