1 WA/5/2024 Page 1 GAHC020000812024 2026:GAU-NL:434-DB IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH WA/5/2024 1. Smti.Meyalemla CDPO Ongpangkong (S), ICDS Project Mokokchung Nagaland F/N - B Tekalong 2. Smti Unice Sema Cdpo Dimapur (R) ICDS Project Dimapur Nagaland F/N - Jekiho Chishi 3. Smti. Reyivolu Kezo CDPO Kohima (Urban) ICDS Project Kohima Nagaland F/N- Vehupo Kezo 4. Shri Zubemo Jami Cdpo Jakhama ICDS Project Kohima Nagaland F/N- Orenimo 5. Smti. Alongla Aonok CDPO Noksen ICDS Project Tuensang Nagaland F/N I Pirong Aonok 6. Smti Khombeni Jami CDPO Phomching ICDS Project Mon Nagaland F/N- Ayamo 7. Smti. Limasangla 2 WA/5/2024 Page 2 CDPO Aboi ICDS Project Mon Nagaland 8. Shri Sunepwapang CDPO Noklak ICDS Project Noklak Nagaland F/N- Tekachiba 9. Shri M Lakiumong Yimchunger CDPO Thonoknyu ICDS Project Noklak Noklak Nagaland F/N- Mongthro 10. Smti. Meyagangla Pongener CDPO Changtongya ICDS Project Mokokchung Nagaland F/N- Martsuba 11. Shri L. Nikuto Chishi CDPO ICDS Project Zunheboto Nagaland F/N- Luhoto Chishi 12. Shri Zachamo Ngully CDPO Suruhuto ICDS Project Zunheboto F/N- Thungbemo 13. Smti. Amilo Yanthan CDPO Tizit ICDS Project Mon Nagaland F/N- Opvuo Yanthan 14. Shri Logshithung CDPO Wakching ICDS Project Mon Nagaland F/N - Mhathung Yanthan 15. Smti. Atsole Khalo CDPO Tamlu ICDS Project Longleng Nagaland F/N- Zupelhilo 16. Smti. Erenbeni Kikon Sr. Supervisor CDPO Office Wokha Wokha Nagaland F/N- Tsutsamo 3 WA/5/2024 Page 3 17. Shri. Bendangtemsu Sr. Supervisor CDPO Office Niuland Niuland Nagaland F/N- P Kabidai 18. Shri A. Nzanbemo Jami Sr. Supervisor CDPO Office Shamator ICDS Project Shamator Nagaland F/N – Ayamo 19. Shri Vishiho Aye Sr. Supervisor CDPO Office Satakha ICDS Project Satakha Nagaland F/N- Yehevi Aye 20. Shri Emlitenzuk Sr. Supervisor CDPO Office Mangkolemba Mokokchung Nagaland F/N- T. Methong 21. Shri Obed Magh Sr. Supervisor CDPO Office Tseminyu Tseminyu Nagaland F/N Asau Rengma 22. Shri Chubameren Sr. Supervisor CDPO Office Medziphema Chumoukedima Nagaland F/N - Maken A …. Appellants -Versus- 1. The State of Nagaland Represented by The Chief Secretary to The Government of Nagaland 2. The Secretary Department of Social Security and Welfare N/L Kohima 3. The Director Department of Social Security and Welfare 4 WA/5/2024 Page 4 Nagaland Kohima 4. Moba Wenkhang Probation Officer, attached to Directorate of Social Welfare Kohima Nagaland 5. Venedule Vero Research Officer Directorate of Social Welfare Kohima Nagaland 6. Rukevoto Ringa Superintendent Attached to Directorate of Social Welfare Kohima Nagaland 7. Kelevinu Naleo Chief Instructor Anganwadi Training Centre Diphupar Dimapur 8. Anuo Longho Child Development Project Officer ICDS Project Longleng Nagaland 9. Vezhotso Khamo Probation Officer, attached to Directorate of Social Welfare Nagaland 10. Kedozokho Peseyie Child Development Project Officer ICDS Project Dhansiripar Dimapur Nagaland 11. Junito K. Zhimo Child Development Project Officer ICDS Project Satakha Zunhebot ……Respondents For Appellants 1. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate 2. Ms. Z. Zhimomi, Advocate 5 WA/5/2024 Page 5 For Respondents 1. Mr. R. Iralu, Sr. Advocate (R. Nos. 4 to 11) 2. Mr. L. Iralu, Advocate (R. Nos. 4 to 11) 3. Mr. N. Mozhui, Advocate (R. Nos. 2 to 3) Date of Hearing : 05.08.2026 Date of Judgment : 20.08.2026 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Mridul Kumar Kalita, J) 1. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. R. Iralu, the learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. L. Iralu, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 as well as Mr. N. Mozhui, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who were the writ petitioners in the WP (C) No. 126(K)/2019, impugning the judgment and order dated 22.12.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, whereby the said writ petition was dismissed on account of delay and laches in approaching the Court as well as for want of locus standi of the present appellants to file aforementioned writ petition. 3. The facts relevant for consideration of this writ appeal, in brief, are that the present appellants approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 126(K)/2019, contending therein that they were 6 WA/5/2024 Page 6 appointed as Supervisors under the establishment of the Directorate of Social Security and Welfare, Nagaland, on temporary basis, on different dates in between 10.03.2003 to 22.02.2008. 4. It was further contended therein that the respondent No. 4 was appointed as Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) under Assam Welfare Development (Class-II Gazetted) on contractual basis for one year by order dated 14.06.2010 and his services were regularized after the approval of the Cabinet by notification dated 11.03.2015. Similarly, the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were also appointed on contractual basis for a period of one year by order dated 07.06.2011. Later on, their services were regularized by notification dated 17.10.2016 w.e.f. 26.09.2016 after the approval of Cabinet. The respondent No.8 was similarly appointed initially on contractual basis for a period of two years and thereafter his services were regularized on 11.03.2015. The respondent No.9 was appointed initially for a period of one year by notification dated 10.12.2012. Similarly, the respondent No. 10 was appointed as CDPO Class-I on 09.04.2013. Whereas, the respondent No.11 was appointed as CDPO on contractual basis for a period of one year on 28.05.2013. The services of the respondent Nos. 9, 10 and 11 were not regularized. 5. In the meanwhile, the post of CDPO, which was Class-II Gazetted post was upgraded to Class-I Gazetted post by a notification dated 21.09.2012. However, the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7, who were posted as Research Officer, Directorate of Social Welfare, Superintendent Special Homes and Observation Home and Chief 7 WA/5/2024 Page 7 Instructor, Anganwadi Centre, respectively were not accorded upgradation at that point of time. The State respondents by Office Memorandum dated 11.03.2017 deferred the upgradation of the aforesaid posts. The respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 challenged the aforesaid Office Memorandum dated 11.03.2017 by filing a writ petition which was numbered as WP(C) No. 83(K)/2017. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 07.06.2018 by a learned Single Bench of this Court directing the State respondent to immediately take up the issue of upgradation of five posts. 6. It is pertinent to mention herein that some of the individual Supervisors approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.247(K)/2016 challenging the appointment and regularization of the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7, however, by judgment and order dated 07.06.2018, the said writ petition was dismissed. 7. The respondent No.3 of the writ petition, namely, the Director, Department of Social Security and Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima, prepared a tentative seniority list of Grade-II Gazetted Officer in the Directorate of Social Welfare and send it to the State respondents. In the said tentative seniority list, the name of the respondent No.4 was shown at Serial No. 5 and that of the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 were shown as Serial No. 62, 63 and 64 of the tentative seniority list. 8. Thereafter, by the Office Memorandum bearing No. CAB- 2/2013(PT) dated 06.05.2019, the minutes of Cabinet meeting which was held on 03.05.2019 was forwarded. In the Agenda No. 5 of the said Cabinet meeting, the Cabinet discussed the 8 WA/5/2024 Page 8 upgradation of 5 posts and approved permanent upgradation of the said posts by making an observation that seniority of the upgraded incumbents should be determined as recommended by the committee. 9. Consequently, by notification bearing No. SW/ESTT-212/IT/A dated 11.06.2019, the State respondent upgraded the post occupied by the respondents and fixed the seniority of the respondent No. 5, 6 and 7 in the seniority list of the CDPOs as it exists on the date of approval of Cabinet. 10. Being aggrieved by the action of the State respondents, in appointing the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 on contractual basis and regularising the services of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in violation of the concerned service rules as well as aggrieved with the notification dated 11.06.2019 fixing the seniority of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 from the date of approval of the Cabinet, the writ petitioners filed the WP(C) No. 126 (K)/2019 praying for directing the State respondents to give promotion to the petitioners to the posts of CDPOs or equivalent posts strictly in terms of Nagaland Social Security Welfare Service (Revised) Rules, 1997 and tentative seniority list dated 30.07.2018. 11. It was contended in the writ petition by the present appellants that there is no provision for regularization in the Nagaland Social Security Welfare Service (Revised) Rules, 1997 and that the Rules provided for filling up of the vacancies in the 50% of the posts of CDPO by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. It was also contended by the writ petitioners that as per the relevant Office Memorandums, all appointments to the posts under Government 9 WA/5/2024 Page 9 service shall have to be made in accordance with the relevant service rules by the Nagaland Public Service Commission, however, the services of the private respondents were regularised de-hors the rules and were placed above the petitioners in the seniority list. 12. However, by the judgment, which has been impugned in this appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellants on the ground of absence of locus standi of the writ petitioners to question the appointment of the private respondents as CDPOs, as they were appointed against 50% direct recruitment quota. The learned Single Judge was also of the opinion that the challenge to the appointments of the private respondents by the writ petitioners is made belatedly, and as such, same is barred by the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence. 13. Mr. K. N. Choudhury, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the WP (C) No. 126(K)/2019 on the ground of want of locus standi of the present appellants in as much as the appellants after being promoted as CDPOs are the substantive members of the service in the cadre of CDPOs and as such they are entitled to question the back door appointment of the private respondents and thereafter, their regularization de-hors the service rules namely, the Nagaland Social Security and Welfare Service (Revised) Rules, 1997. 14. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that there is no provision for regularization of services of any contractual 10 WA/5/2024 Page 10 employee under the said Rules. He submits that the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were not appointed to the post of CDPOs in accordance with the Nagaland Social Security and Welfare Service (Revised) Rules, 1997. He submits that the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 not being appointed in accordance with the relevant service rules cannot be granted seniority over the appellants, who were duly promoted as CDPOs. He submits that being members of the service in the cadre of CDPOs, the appellants do have right to challenge an illegal appointment in the said cadre as the illegal appointment and subsequent regularization of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 has blocked the promotional avenues of the present appellants. 15. He further submits that the learned Single Judge also failed to take into consideration the fact that while in the WP(C) No.247(K)/2016, the contractual appointment of respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 was challenged, however, the judgment dated 06.06.2018, passed in the aforesaid writ petition did not discuss the issue regarding legality of contractual appointments of the aforesaid respondents on merit. 16. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has cited following rulings: i. State of U.P Vs. Rafiquddin & Others reported in 1987 Supplementary SCC 401; ii. Keshav Chandra Joshi Vs. The Union of India reported in 1992 Supplementary 1 SCC 272; and iii. State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagdish Narain Chaturvedi reported in 2009 12 SCC 49. 11 WA/5/2024 Page 11 17. The learned senior counsel for the appellants also submitted that the learned Single Judge has also erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the same is hit by delay and laches in as much as he did not consider the settled proposition of law that there is no inviolable rule that when there is delay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain a writ petition. 18. He further submits that there is no period of limitation prescribed for preferring a writ petition seeking redressal for violation of fundamental rights. He submits that the question of delay would depend upon as to what breach of fundamental rights has been alleged as well as what remedy is claimed and the reason as to why delay arose. He submits that in the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge has not assigned any reason for holding that the writ petition is barred by delay and laches. He submits that in the instant case, the services of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were regularized in the cadre of CDPO in the years 2015 to 2016 and the tentative seniority list has been published on 30.07.2018 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2019. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has also submitted that considering the issue raised by the present appellants in their writ petition, the learned Single Judge ought to have decided the issue involved in the said writ petition, on merit, instead of dismissing the same on preliminary grounds of delay and laches as well as locus standi of the appellants. As such, he submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that the writ petition is hit by the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence. In support of his submissions, he has cited following rulings: 12 WA/5/2024 Page 12 i. Ramchandra Shanker Devdhar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (1974) 1 SCC 317 ii. Trilokchand and Motichand and Others Vs. HB Munshi and Another reported in (1969) 1 SCC 110 19. On the other hand, Mr. R. Iralu, the learned senior counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 has submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the WP (C) No. 126(K)/2019 due to want of locus standi of the present appellants as well as for the reason of delay, laches and acquiescence. He submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly declined to reopen the long- settled regularization of the private respondents at the behest of the present appellants, who failed to show any enforceable rights against the vacancies in which the private respondents Nos. 4 to 11 were appointed. 20. He submits that the Nagaland Social Security Welfare Service (Revised) Rules, 1997 provides that the 50% of vacancies in the posts of CDPOs and equivalent Class-II Gazetted post were to be filled up by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. He submits that the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 being direct recruitees to the posts of CDPOs, whereas, the appellants who entered as supervisors and were praying for consideration of their appointment as CDPOs through promotional stream only, hence, they stand on a different footing and have no enforceable right against the posts to which the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 are appointed. He submits that the appellant could have challenged the regularisation of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 8 only if any of their enforceable rights is thereby prejudiced, however, in the 13 WA/5/2024 Page 13 instant case the appellants claimed promotion as CDPOs through regular promotion only, the regularisation of private respondent Nos. 4 to 8, who were directly appointed as CDPOs does not come in conflict with the rights of the appellants. He submits that the appellants have failed to show as to how by regularising the service of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 8, their own enforceable rights were infringed. 21. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 also submits that after their regularisation, the respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 7 had approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing No. WP(C) No. 83(K)/2017 for upgradation of their posts to equivalent to Class-II posts and the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the State respondents to immediately consider the case of the aforesaid respondents for upgradation of their posts. Thereafter, during pendency of the contempt case bearing COP(C) No.9(K)/2019, the Government issued notification dated 11.06.2019 for upgradation of the posts as well as consequential seniority. The learned senior counsel for the respondents, therefore, submits that the regularisation and upgradation of the posts held by the aforesaid respondents have also been acknowledged by this Court in the aforesaid writ proceedings. 22. The learned senior counsel for the respondents has further submitted that in the WP (C) No. 126(K)/2019, the present appellants have not only questioned the tentative seniority list, but also have impugned the initial appointments of the private respondents, which were made in the year 2008 to 2011 as well as subsequent regularisation of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 during the 14 WA/5/2024 Page 14 year 2015 to 2016, whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 2019. He submits that the appellants and their association were aware about the appointments of the private respondents, however, they chose to sleep over their right and remain indolent. Hence, he submits that the learned Single Judge was correct in holding that the writ petition is hit by the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence. In support of his submissions, the learned senior counsel for the respondents has cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of “Mrinmoy Maity Vs. Chhanda Koley” reported in (2024) 15 SCC 215. 23. The learned senior counsel for the respondents also submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, admittedly, the appellant Nos. 1 to 12 were promoted to the post of Child Development Project Officers (Class-I Gazetted Post), as such their grievance in the writ petition that the private respondents were blocking their promotional avenues no longer survives. He submits that the issue raised by the learned senior counsel for the appellants regarding inter se seniority in the cadre of CDPOs is a different issue which was not raised in the writ petition. He submits that the issue of inter se seniority amongst the parties to the writ petition, in the cadre of CDPOs, may not be raised in the instant writ proceeding as same was not the main contention in the writ petition filed by the present appellants in WP(C) No.126(K)/2019. 24. On the other hand, Mr. N. Mozhui, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that the services of the appellants as well as that of private respondents are from different streams. Whereas the appellants were entitled to be considered 15 WA/5/2024 Page 15 for appointment to the post of CDPOs by way of promotion only, on the other hand, the private respondents were recruited directly to the post of CDPOs and equivalent post thereto. He further submits that the appointments of private respondents to the post of CDPOs, though, were initially on contractual basis, however, later on, their services were regularized on the strength of Cabinet decision to that effect. 25. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. We have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their respective submissions. 26. At the outset, we deem it appropriate to take note of the settled legal proposition regarding the principles on which, in an intra-court appeal, a Division Bench of High Court may interfere into the judgment rendered by a Single Bench of the said Court. In a catena of judgments [for example, “Wander Ltd. Vs. Antox India (P) Ltd.” reported in 1990 Supp SCC 727 and Narendra & Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. Workmen reported in (2016) 3 SCC 340, etc.], the Supreme Court of India has held that in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of the fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely, because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Bench, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief. Similarly, in appeals before the Division Bench where the exercise of discretion by Single Bence is put to 16 WA/5/2024 Page 16 challenge, the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the Court of the first instance in substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the learned Single Judge had ignored the settled principles of law regarding exercise of such discretion. Keeping in view the aforesaid settled legal propositions, we shall now examine the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, which has been impugned in this intra-court appeal. 27. After going through the writ petition filed by the present appellants in WP(C) No. 126(K)/2019, it appears to us that the present appellants, as writ petitioners, in the prayer portion of their writ petition, inter-alia, had prayed for quashing and setting aside of the Notification by which the respondent Nos. 4 to11 were appointed as CDPOs/Probation Officers. The dates of the said Notification ranges from 31.10.2008 to 28.05.2013. The writ petitioners had also prayed for quashing and setting aside the Notifications by which the services of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 were regularized as CDPOs. The dates of the said Notification regularizing the services of the aforementioned respondents ranges from 11.03.2015 to 17.06.2016. Admittedly, the writ petition was filed by the present appellants on 16.08.2019. Thus, apparently there has been a delay of more than 6 to 11 years in challenging the relevant Notifications of appointment of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. There is also delay of more than three years in challenging the relevant Notifications by which the services of the respondent No. 4 to 8 were regularized. 17 WA/5/2024 Page 17 28. The relief granted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is an extraordinary remedy, which is discretionary in nature and is governed by equitable principles. Although, there is no specific period of limitation prescribed by any law for seeking a remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, a writ petition may be held to be barred by delay, laches and acquiescence, when the petitioners have slept over their rights and accepted the state of affairs, or allowed third party rights to crystalize to an extent where equitable relief cannot be granted. In the instant case, as observed by us in the foregoing paragraphs that there has been a delay of 6 to 11 years in challenging the relevant Notifications of appointment of the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. Similarly, there is also delay in challenging the regularization of services of the said respondents. The said delay has not been sufficiently explained by the writ petitioners. Under such circumstances, the observation by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment to the effect “that challenge made to the appointment of the private respondents as CDPOs and other equivalent posts is made belatedly and accordingly, the actions of the petitioners are hit by principles of delay, laches and acquiescence” may not be regarded as perverse, capricious or arbitrary on any count. 29. As regards, the observation regarding absence of locus standi of the present petitioners to challenge the appointment of private respondents as CDPOs is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge committed no perversity in arriving at the aforesaid findings for the following reasons. 18 WA/5/2024 Page 18 30. The writ petitioners were initially appointed to the post of Supervisors Class-III in different batches in the years ranging from 2003 to 2008. As per the Nagaland Social Security and Welfare Service (Revised) Rules 1997, the posts of Child Development Project Officers (CDPOs) were included as Class-II Gazetted post. As per Rule 5 (2) of the aforesaid Rules, the recruitment to the post of CDPOs and any other equivalent Class-II Gazetted post has to be 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by departmental promotion of the lower grade. The writ petitioners were eligible for the 50% quota of departmental promotion, whereas the respondent Nos. 4 to 11 are direct recruitees to the post of CDPOs. As such, the appointments of respondent Nos. 4 to 11 as CDPOs and/or to equivalent posts did not, in any manner affected the prospects of the writ petitioners to be considered for promotion to the posts of CDPOs and/or equivalent posts against 50% promotional quota. Moreover, in the meanwhile, most of the writ petitioner have already been promoted to the posts of CDPOs and other equivalent posts. Under such circumstances, the finding by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the writ petitioner does not have any locus standi to challenge the appointment of private respondents as CDPOs and other equivalent posts does not appear to be perverse, arbitrary or capricious, justifying any interference with the same by us in this intra-court appeal. 31. As regards the last prayer made by the writ petitioners in the writ petition, i.e., to stay the notification dated 11.06.2019 fixing seniority of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 from the date of approval of the Cabinet, is concerned, since the said prayer is dependent on 19 WA/5/2024 Page 19 the reliefs sought by the writ petitioners in their earlier prayers, i.e., quashing of the relevant Notification of appointment of private respondents and their regularization as CDPOs and since said reliefs have been held to be barred for want of locus standi as well as barred by the principles of delay, laches and acquiescence, the writ petitioners cannot agitate the aforesaid Notification. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge made no perversity in dismissing the writ petition warranting any interference by us in this intra-court appeal. 32. In view of the discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, this writ appeal is hereby dismissed. 33. Parties are left to bear their own cost. 34. The Registry of the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court at Guwahati is directed to transmit the record of this Writ Appeal along with a copy of this judgment immediately to the Registry of Permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court at Kohima. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant Amita Sharma 2026.08.20 12:23:18 +05'30'