JUDGMENT & ORDER : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. WP(C)/52/2024 and WP(C)/73/2024 are disposed of by this common judgment as both petitions are arising out of the same cause of action. 2. The petitioners in the instant writ petitions are aggrieved by the termination order vide Notification No. SOIL/ESTT/32/2014(Pt)/985 dated 12.03.2024 by which the contract service of the petitioners was terminated w.e.f. 07.03.2024. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant writ petitions as set out in the pleadings is that both the petitioners were appointed as Junior Soil Conservation Officer (JSCO) vide appointment order No. SOIL-2/ESTT-32/2014 dated 03.06.2016 on contract basis against the existing sanctioned posts under the Soil & Water Conservation Department. Their services have been extended from time to time and they have been continuously serving the Government for a period of more than 7 (seven) years, with the latest extension order dated 09.10.2023 extending their services till 30.09.2024. During the course of service of about 7 years, the petitioners had been assigned duties and responsibilities as assigned to regular employees and the petitioner in WP(C)/52/2024 was even awarded an Achievement Certificate for undergoing training organized by the Department of Soil & Water Conservation. They have been discharging their duties with utmost sincerity and dedication. 4. The petitioners have also filed a writ petition, being WP(C)/128/2023 before this Court praying for a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization in terms of the O.M. dated 04.08.2008 and 11.08.2016, which is still pending for adjudication. 5. It is also stated by the petitioners that they have been allotted employment PIMS Code No. SOL01072 and SOL01084, respectively, under the establishment of the Directorate of Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland as per the standing O.M. dated 04.03.2022. It is stated that by virtue of allotment of the PIMS Code, the petitioners’ service stands on a similar footing as a regular employee in the context of the O.M. dated 04.03.2022 as the code has been allotted after due verification and scrutiny of the employees’ credentials. 6. While they were serving as such on contract basis for 7 years, the Combined Technical Association of Nagaland (CTAN), an NGO staged a protest and agitated against the posts held by the petitioners with the demand to terminate their services. 6. While they were serving as such on contract basis for 7 years, the Combined Technical Association of Nagaland (CTAN), an NGO staged a protest and agitated against the posts held by the petitioners with the demand to terminate their services. The CTAN, in their ultimatum published in the newspapers, demanded the termination of the two petitioners on or before 11.03.2024, and if not, threatened to lockdown the Directorate office. 7. Thereafter, the petitioners were served with a termination notice vide Notification dated 12.03.2024 and the reason given for the termination being the declaration of NPSC result vide notification No. NPSC/EXAM-3/2023 dated 06.03.2024. 8. The petitioners, thereafter, approached the respondent authorities for information regarding their termination and it was informed through reliable sources that a forwarding letter regarding the termination of contract service of the petitioners and the ultimatum given by CTAN had been forwarded by the Director, Directorate of Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland to the Commissioner & Secretary of the Department of Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland by a letter dated 01.03.2024. A perusal of the forwarding letter dated 01.03.2024 clearly revealed that the termination of the petitioners was done only at the behest of the CTAN and as such, the action taken by the respondent authorities cannot be said to be a justified decision as any decision that the employer takes should not be arbitrary, unreasonable or based on extraneous considerations and a third party/NGO cannot be allowed to dictate the actions of the respondent authorities. 9. The petitioners have, therefore, approached this Court praying for a direction to quash and set aside the impugned Termination Order dated 12.03.2024 and for a direction to reinstate the petitioners in service. 10. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. C.T. Jamir, assisted by Mr. Aliba Ozukum for the petitioner in WP(C)/52/2024, and Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/73/2024. Also heard learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. N. Angami for the State respondents. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/52/2024 submits that the appointment of the petitioner was made against a sanctioned post and he has been allotted employment PIMS Code number, meaning thereby that the post held by the petitioner is a valid sanctioned post. Also heard learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. N. Angami for the State respondents. 11. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/52/2024 submits that the appointment of the petitioner was made against a sanctioned post and he has been allotted employment PIMS Code number, meaning thereby that the post held by the petitioner is a valid sanctioned post. He has submitted that the sole reason for the termination of the petitioner is the pressure exercised by the CTAN, which is an NGO and the Government authorities cannot be allowed to function at the behest of such an NGO. 12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, relying on his additional affidavit submits that the petitioner had sought for specific information by filing an RTI application. As per the reply received to his RTI application, the total sanctioned strength of JSCO post in the Department of Soil & Water Conservation is 44. Out of these 44 posts 34 posts are presently occupied by persons recruited through NPSC. And that out of the remaining 10 posts, 6 posts had already been requisitioned to the NPSC and 4 posts are still lying vacant. As such, the claims made by the respondents that the post held by the petitioner has been occupied by the NPSC recruits are clearly baseless and not supported by any official record. 13. Learned senior counsel further submits that the claim made by the respondents that the post held by the petitioner is already occupied by NPSC recruit is belied by the fact that while requisitioning posts to the NPSC, the NPSC/Departmental Recruitment Board has to indicate the name and employee code of PIMS against each vacancy or enclose a copy of the post-creation order in the case of new posts in the requisition format, as per the O.M. dated 05.07.2019. However, this was not done. In fact, the PIMS records for the period 2023-2025 categorically reflect that the JSCO posts are occupied as follows: i. 1 (one) post in District Soil & Water Conservation Office, Longleng, ii. 1 (one) post in Sub-Divisional Office, Pughoboto, 1 (one) post inSub-Divisional Office, Aghunato, iii. 1 (one) post in District Soil & Water Conservation Office, Zunheboto,and iv. 1 (one) post in District Soil & Water Conservation Office, Wokha. 1 (one) post in Sub-Divisional Office, Pughoboto, 1 (one) post inSub-Divisional Office, Aghunato, iii. 1 (one) post in District Soil & Water Conservation Office, Zunheboto,and iv. 1 (one) post in District Soil & Water Conservation Office, Wokha. Therefore, the PIMS code of the petitioner is still unused till date which demonstrates that, all along, the post held by the petitioner was not requisitioned and is not occupied by the NPSC recruits. 14. The petitioner has also received the DDO–Wise Incumbent Salary Statement as on 31.08.2025 through RTI and according to the learned senior counsel, the said salary statement shows that in the districts of Dimapur, Niuland and Chumoukedima only one post of JSCO is holding the field, which appears at S.No. 13. As such, the claims made by the respondents, that the post held by the petitioner is occupied by the NPSC recruit, is entirely baseless. Learned senior counsel has also submitted that the petitioner being a contractual employee has very limited rights. However, in cases where the court has reasons to believe that the termination is unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal, then the court has the power to interfere in the matter, notwithstanding the contractual nature of the petitioner’s appointment. 15. Learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner was only served with the termination order at a belated stage denying his right to be heard and also denying his right to make any objection whatsoever as no opportunity was given. As such, the action of the respondent authorities clearly demonstrates the violation of principles of natural justice and administrative fairplay and it is prayed that the impugned Termination Order dated 12.03.2024 may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner against one of the vacant post of JSCO as shown by the RTI reply which was received on 06.10.2025. 16. In support of his submissions the learned senior counsel relies on the case of GRIDCO Ltd. & Another Versus Sadananda Doloi and Others reported in (2011) 15 SCC 16 and Jaggo Versus Union of India & Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 . By relying on the aforementioned judgments, the learned senior counsel submits that even though the petitioner was a contractual employee, the court should consider the continuous, long term service, indispensable duties in absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. By relying on the aforementioned judgments, the learned senior counsel submits that even though the petitioner was a contractual employee, the court should consider the continuous, long term service, indispensable duties in absence of any mala fide or illegalities in their appointments. Refusing regularization simply because the original terms of the appointment did not explicitly state so or because the relevant policy was belatedly introduced would be violative to the principles of fairness and equity. And after serving the government for more than 7 years, the respondent authorities are under an obligation to consider the regularization of the petitioner’s service. However, instead of such consideration the petitioner has been terminated without any notice and without any opportunity of being heard and at the behest of an NGO. 17. Learned counsel, Mr. Moa Jamir appearing for the petitioner in WP(C)/73/2024 has also adopted the submissions made by the learned senior counsel, Mr. C.T. Jamir. He additionally submits that the requisition letter sent by the Soil & Water Conservation Department to the NPSC vide letter dated 09.03.2021 only shows that 3 posts of JSCO were requisitioned. It does not indicate the PIMS number or other details regarding these 3 posts which were requisitioned. The petitioner, by filing an additional affidavit, has contended that the petitioner was terminated from service purportedly on the ground that the NPSC had declared its results vide Notification dated 06.03.2024, pursuant to the requisition for recruitment of posts of JSCO vide letter dated 09.03.2021. However, on perusal of the PIMS portal maintained for the State Government employees, it transpires that only 3 employees namely, Shri Jenibemo M. Patton bearing PIMS Code No. SOL01151, Shri T. Yanshen Ezung bearing PIMS Code No. SOL01126 and Smt. W. Elizabeth Kithan bearing PIMS Code No. SOL 01152 were appointed on 31.03.2024, 08.05.2024 and 17.02.2025, respectively, after the petitioner's termination order was issued, meaning thereby that the petitioner’s post with PIMS Code No. SOL01084 remains linked with the petitioner and the same is yet to be filled, which demonstrates that the State respondents issued the impugned termination order without application of mind. It was simply issued in a mechanical and routine manner stating that the NPSC result has been declared. It was simply issued in a mechanical and routine manner stating that the NPSC result has been declared. It goes to show that the post held by the petitioner was never part of any valid requisition, moreover, when the requisition was sent in violation of the O.M. dated 05.07.2019, by which the Soil & Water Conservation Department was mandated to indicate the name and employee code of PIMS against the vacancies requisitioned. Learned counsel also relies on the information received from the Department of Soil & Water Conservation on 06.10.2025, in reply to his RTI application. In the reply it is clearly shown that there are 44 sanctioned posts of JSCO in the Department, out of which 34 posts have been filled up through the NPSC and out of the remaining 10 posts, 6 posts have been requisitioned and there are still 4 vacancies available. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition may be allowed and the impugned Termination Order dated 12.03.2024 may be quashed and set aside, and the petitioner may be reinstated to one of the 4 vacant posts of JSCO, which is available. 18. Learned senior Government Advocate, Mr. N. Angami relies on the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and also the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. 19. Learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the petitioners were appointed to the post of JSCO vide Order dated 03.06.2016, purely on contract basis on the terms and conditions that the contract period is purely on temporary basis for a period of 6 months or till regular appointment is made through the NPSC, whichever is earlier. The petitioners accepted the appointment knowing fully well that their services were temporary and only till regular recruitment through the NPSC. They accepted the contractual appointment knowing fully well that the post of JSCO is a direct recruitment post. It is also stated that the policy decision of the State Government for regularization of contract/adhoc employees appointed prior to 06.06.2016 against sanctioned posts cannot apply to the petitioner as they had not completed 10 years of service. 20. It is also submitted that all categories of employees appointed under the State Government are registered in the Personnel Information Management System (PIMS) and they are given a PIMS code/number. 20. It is also submitted that all categories of employees appointed under the State Government are registered in the Personnel Information Management System (PIMS) and they are given a PIMS code/number. The employees include contractual, adhoc, fixed, casual and work-charged employees and not just regular government employees and thus, the allotment of a PIMS code to the petitioners does not mean that they are regular employees and it does not confer any legitimacy to their appointment. For contractual and adhoc employees such as the petitioners, temporary PIMS numbers are given. 21. Learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the petitioners were not appointed through a selection process but were appointed on contract basis against the posts which were to be requisitioned to the NPSC. Therefore, the posts against which the petitioners were appointed on contract basis was requisitioned to the NPSC by the State Government through the letter dated 09.03.2021 and after the State Government had requisitioned the posts, the NPSC advertised the posts, conducted the written examination as well as the viva-voce and by a Notification dated 06.03.2024, the NPSC had declared the result of the examination. After the declaration of the result by the NPSC, the services of the petitioners was terminated by the notification dated 12.03.2024, clearly stating in the termination notification that their contract service is terminated in view of the declaration of the NPSC result dated 06.03.2024 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent authorities took the decision to terminate the contract service of the petitioners due to the pressure exercised by the CTAN. In fact, the contract service of the petitioners was terminated purely because the post held by them had been filled up through the NPSC. 22. Learned Senior Government Advocate further submits that before requisition of the posts was made to the NPSC, the contract service of the petitioners had been extended by the Government from time to time through various office orders dated 17.11.2016, 02.06.2017, 30.11.2017 etc., for a period of 6 months every time. These contract extension orders were also issued with a specific condition that the contract period is purely on temporary basis for a period of 6 months or till regular appointment is made by NPSC, whichever is earlier and that they can be terminated at any time without prior notice from either side. These contract extension orders were also issued with a specific condition that the contract period is purely on temporary basis for a period of 6 months or till regular appointment is made by NPSC, whichever is earlier and that they can be terminated at any time without prior notice from either side. The learned Senior Government Advocate has drawn the attention of this Court especially to the extension order of the petitioners dated 22.06.2022 wherein at para-3 of the order, it is specifically stated that the posts of the incumbents were already sent for requisition to the NPSC vide letter No. SOIL-11/94 dated 08.05.2020 and 09.03.2021. The order also stated that once the post is recruited through the NPSC, the incumbents would be terminated automatically. Therefore the petitioners knew very well that their posts had been requisitioned to the NPSC and that they would be terminated automatically when recruitment was made. 23. The learned Senior Government Advocate, relying on the affidavit-in- reply of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, specifically denies that 4 posts of JCSO are lying vacant as on date. The learned Senior Government Advocate submits that out of the 44 sanctioned posts of JSCO, 34 posts have already been filled up through the NPSC. Out of the 10 remaining sanctioned posts another 6 has been already requisitioned to the NPSC. The 4 vacancies shown in the RTI reply dated 06.10.2025 are vacancies which occurred due to the promotion of 4 JSCOs during February 2025 and September 2025, vide notification dated 19.02.2025 and 11.09.2025 (Annexure-A and B to the affidavit-in-reply). He has further submitted that these 4 vacancies which occurred on account of promotion of the incumbent JSCOs has also been requisitioned vide letter No. SC/ESTT-99/79/4093 dated 09.12.2025 (Annexure-C to the affidavit-in-reply). Therefore, it is incorrect on the part of the petitioners to state that there are still 4 vacant posts of JSCO in the Department of Soil & Water Conservation. As far as the districts of Niuland and Chumoukedima are concerned, it is submitted that no separate posts of JSCO has been created for the newly created districts and, therefore at present, the existing manpower posted at Dimapur district are deployed to man the establishment of the newly created districts. 24. As far as the districts of Niuland and Chumoukedima are concerned, it is submitted that no separate posts of JSCO has been created for the newly created districts and, therefore at present, the existing manpower posted at Dimapur district are deployed to man the establishment of the newly created districts. 24. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the learned Senior Government advocate submits that the petitioners are contractual employees appointed specifically on the condition that their contract service is to be terminated upon recruitment through the NPSC. The appointment order as well as their extension orders also specifically stated that once the post was filled up through the NPSC, the incumbents would be terminated automatically and as such there is no violation of principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that the termination of the petitioners has nothing to do with the pressure or agitation by the CTAN. It is very clear from the records that the petitioners were also fully aware that the posts held by them had already been requisitioned to the NPSC vide letter dated 09.03.2021. The fact that they were allotted PIMS Code also does not give them any right or claim to the posts as stated by them as even casual/adhoc/contract employees are given temporary PIMS numbers by the government in order to facilitate the payment of their salaries. The learned Senior Government Advocate submits that the petitioners have been unable to make out a case for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the petitions may be dismissed. 25. The submissions of the counsel for the parties have been duly considered by the Court and the pleadings have been perused and the authorities relied upon have been examined. 26. Contractual appointees in Government service do not enjoy the same status or protections as regular/permanent employees. Their rights will only be limited to the terms of the contract, the rules governing the post, and the constitutional protections under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless, contractual employees are also protected from arbitrary termination if the termination is mala fide, stigmatic and punitive in nature or if it violates contractual procedure. In such circumstances, the Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 27. Nevertheless, contractual employees are also protected from arbitrary termination if the termination is mala fide, stigmatic and punitive in nature or if it violates contractual procedure. In such circumstances, the Court can interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. 27. In order to ascertain the rights of the petitioners herein, their appointment order has to be perused. The Appointment Order dated 03.06.2016 expressly states that the appointment is purely on contractual basis for a period of 6 months or till regular appointment is made by the NPSC, whichever is earlier. In view of such conditions in the appointment order, this Court is of the view that the petitioners accepted the appointment with full knowledge of the condition and, therefore, cannot later claim continuation against regularly selected candidates. Once the Public Service Commission recruits are appointed, the contractual employee will be replaced and they cannot claim regularization or continuation. What is most significant and pertinent is the Extension Order dated 22.06.2022 which is reproduced herein below: “ GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT NAGALAND: KOHIMA *********** ORDER Kohima, Dated the 22nd June, 2022 NO. SOIL-2/ESTT-32/2014(Pt): - In continuation to this Department’s Order of even number dated 23 rd Sep, 2021, the Governor is pleased to extend the contract services of the following candidates to the post of JSCO for a period of 6 (six) months w.e.f. 01.04.2022 Sl. No. Name Designation Posting Place 1. Shri H. Agape Yeputhomi JSCO DSCO Office, Dimapur 2. Shri Avilie Nagi JSCO SDO(SC) Office, Chozuba 2. The contract period is purely on contractual basis for a period of six months. 3. The posts of the incumbents are already sent for requisition to NPSC vide letter No. SOIL-11/94 dated 08/05/2020 and 09/03/2021. Hence, once the post is recruited through NPSC the incumbents will be terminated automatically. 4. This confers no right to claim regularisation in any case. This has the approval of the Hon’ble Minister, Soil & Water Conservation, Government of Nagaland. Sd/- K. LIBANTHUNG LOTHA, IAS Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. Kohima, Dated the 22 nd June, 2022 NO. SOIL-2/ESTT-32/2014(Pt)/165 Copy to:- 1. The Principal Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima. 2. The OSD to Hon’ble Minister Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland, Kohima, for information. 3. The Director, Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland, Kohima. 4. The Treasury Officer, Dimapur/Phek, Nagaland. 5. The DSCO, Dimaour/Phek, Nagaland. 6. Officers concerned. 7. Office copy. Kohima, Dated the 22 nd June, 2022 NO. SOIL-2/ESTT-32/2014(Pt)/165 Copy to:- 1. The Principal Accountant General, Nagaland, Kohima. 2. The OSD to Hon’ble Minister Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland, Kohima, for information. 3. The Director, Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland, Kohima. 4. The Treasury Officer, Dimapur/Phek, Nagaland. 5. The DSCO, Dimaour/Phek, Nagaland. 6. Officers concerned. 7. Office copy. (VIKUONUO VIZO) Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland” 28. However, even when the contractual appointment states, “…Till regular appointment is made by NPSC, whichever is earlier”, this Court can still interfere if the NPSC recruitment had not actually taken place, or the posts still exist and similarly situated persons are retained, or the termination is discriminatory or mala fide or punitive or if the employee is replaced by another contractual employee. 29. The Extension Order dated 22.06.2022, therefore, categorically states that the posts held by the petitioners are already sent for requisition to NPSC vide letter No. SOIL-11/94 dated 08.05.2020 and 09.03.2021. Therefore, the petitioners knew fully well that their posts had already been requisitioned to the NPSC. The order dated 22.06.2022 also states that once the post is requisitioned through NPSC, the incumbents will be terminated automatically. It is the view of this Court therefore, that the petitioners having accepted the conditions cannot claim at this stage that they were not given opportunity of being heard before the impugned Termination Order were issued. This Court, therefore, finds that the terms and conditions under which the petitioners were appointed was very clear and unambiguous from the time they were appointed by order dated 03.05.2016 and through the various Extension Orders also that their appointments/continuation in service would be subject to the regular appointment through the NPSC. 30. As far as the claim of the petitioners that there are still 4 vacancies of JSCO lying vacant in the Department of Soil & Water Conservation, this Court is unable to accept this contention of the petitioners inasmuch as the State respondents by filing their affidavit and the affidavit-in reply has been able to show that out of 44 sanctioned posts of JSCO, 34 posts have already been filled up by recruitment through the NPSC. The RTI reply dated 06.10.2025 also clearly shows that 6 posts out of the remaining 10 had already been requisitioned to the NPSC. The RTI reply dated 06.10.2025 also clearly shows that 6 posts out of the remaining 10 had already been requisitioned to the NPSC. As far as the 4 vacancies which are shown in the RTI reply dated 06.10.2025 are concerned, the respondents by filing their affidavit-in-reply has shown that these posts had been vacated due to the promotion of 4 JSCOs by Orders dated 19.02.2025 and 11.09.2025. And the Government respondents have also shown that these 4 vacancies have been requisitioned vide letter dated 09.12.2025. Hence, it is incorrect to state that there are 4 vacant posts of JSCO available in the Department of Soil & Water Conservation as on date. Even assuming that there are 4 vacant posts of JSCO lying vacant the petitioners cannot claim to be reinstated against these posts as the posts which they were holding have already been requisitioned to the NPSC. 31. In the case of GRIDCO Ltd. (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a situation where the appellant/GRIDCO Ltd. Corporation had terminated a contractual employee, based on the terms and conditions of the appointment. The Apex Court allowed the appeal of the Corporation, upholding the termination and held that: “39. A writ court is entitled to judicially review the action and determine whether there was any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality that would vitiate the action, no matter the action is in the realm of contract. Having said that we must add that judicial review cannot extend to the Court acting as an appellate authority sitting in judgment over the decision. The Court cannot sit in the armchair of the Administrator to decide whether a more reasonable decision or course of action could have been taken in the circumstances. So long as the action taken by the authority is not shown to be vitiated by the infirmities referred to above and so long as the action is not demonstrably in outrageous defiance of logic, the writ court would do well to respect the decision under challenge. 40. Applying the above principles to the case at hand, we have no hesitation in saying that there is no material to show that there is any unreasonableness, unfairness, perversity or irrationality in the action taken by the Corporation. 40. Applying the above principles to the case at hand, we have no hesitation in saying that there is no material to show that there is any unreasonableness, unfairness, perversity or irrationality in the action taken by the Corporation. The Regulations governing the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation, make it clear, that officers in the category above E-9 had to be appointed only on contractual basis.” In the instant case also the petitioners have not been able to show any illegality, perversity, unreasonableness, unfairness or irrationality in the impugned termination order. 32. In view of the above discussion, it is clear that a contractual employee engaged, pending regular recruitment through the Public Service Commission, does not acquire any vested right to continue in service or seek regularization merely by length of service. In any case, the petitioners have only served for 7 years on contractual basis. And as such, such appointees can legitimately be replaced by a regularly selected candidate. The petitioners cannot claim as a matter of right to be regularized or to continue in the post of JSCO. 33. The petitions are accordingly dismissed being devoid of merit. 34. No orders as to costs.