JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. Mr. N. Angami, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3. 2. The Petitioners herein who were initially appointed as Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Staff vide office orders dated 12.09.2023 and 27.09.2023 respectively were subsequently terminated vide separate office orders both dated 23.02.2024 enclosed as Annexure-3 and Annexure-4 to the writ petition on the ground of keeping the O&M staff strength within the Ceiling Limit fixed by the Government. 3. It may not be out of place to mention that similar to the present Petitioners, 72 other persons were also initially appointed and subsequently terminated vide office orders dated 23.02.2024 and 20.04.2024. These 72 persons being aggrieved by their termination jointly approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No. 77/2024 wherein they inter alia sought the following reliefs: (i) set aside and quash the impugned Office orders dated 23.02.2024 and 20.04.2024, terminating the service of the Petitioners, (ii) the Petitioners have also prayed for a direction to be reinstated in service and to allow them to serve the probation period of 2 years following which they may be allowed to appear for suitability test in terms of the service conditions laid down in the respective appointment orders; and/or (iii) direct the State Respondents to pay the back wages to the Petitioners as they were debarred from attending duties owing to their illegal termination. 4. During the course of hearing, Mr. N. Angami, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted that when the said writ petition being WP(C) No. 77/2024 was filed, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice had directed that the said 72 posts should not be filled up. Accordingly, the said 72 posts pertaining to the Petitioners in WP(C) No. 77/2024 were not filled up. 5. The records further reveal that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide a detailed judgment and order dated 23.10.2025. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment and order are at paragraph Nos. 39 and 40. The said paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow: “39. 5. The records further reveal that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the said writ petition vide a detailed judgment and order dated 23.10.2025. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment and order are at paragraph Nos. 39 and 40. The said paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow: “39. In the wake of the foregoing discussions, it is held that all the petitioners were appointed on temporary basis and one of the conditions was that appointment is liable to be terminated within the probation period within one month's notice. The petitioners' appointment has already been terminated within the probation period. Annexure-2 is one of the office orders of appointment which is similar to the office orders of appointment of other petitioners who were appointed in the month of September on various dates. The respondents have already filed an affidavit that the posts which have been fallen vacant after the termination of the petitioners have not been filled up. The RTI reply also relied upon by the petitioners indicates that at present there are some vacant posts. The respondents have submitted that although ceiling limit was 2000 and the existing staff are 1916, denoting 84 vacancies, these vacancies have arisen after the termination of the petitioners. The termination cannot be held to be illegal. 40. At this juncture, the respondents have strongly resisted the prayer for reinstatement of the petitioners. It appears that equity will prevail if the petitioners are allowed to take part in the suitability test as per the condition in the appointment order. Thereby, the respondents are directed to consider the prayer of the petitioners to participate in a suitability test against the vacant posts as reflected in the RTI reply or in event of any vacancies in the future, as per the existing norms and rules. The respondents are also directed to consider age relaxation of some of the petitioners, who may have crossed age limit, by considering their age according to their appointment orders. This process is to be completed as expeditiously as possible, from the date of this order and as per norms as well as the prevailing office memoranda and orders.” 6. The respondents are also directed to consider age relaxation of some of the petitioners, who may have crossed age limit, by considering their age according to their appointment orders. This process is to be completed as expeditiously as possible, from the date of this order and as per norms as well as the prevailing office memoranda and orders.” 6. From the observations and findings of the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 23.10.2025, the following can be deduced: (A) The Petitioners therein were appointed on temporary basis and their appointment categorically mandated that they could be terminated within the probation period by issuing a one month’s notice. (B) The Respondents therein by way of an affidavit had submitted that the posts which fell vacant on account of the termination of the Petitioners have not been filled up. (C) The reply to the application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 also revealed that on the date of passing of the judgement, there were vacant posts. (D) The Respondents therein submitted that there was a ceiling limit of 2000 posts. The existing staff were 1916. 84 posts were vacant which arose out of the termination. (E) The learned Coordinate Bench upheld the termination by holding that the termination of the Petitioners therein cannot be said to be illegal. (F) On the grounds of equity, the learned Coordinate Bench permitted that the Petitioners therein should be allowed to take part in the suitability test as per the conditions of the appointment order against the vacant posts, or in the event of any vacancies that arise in future. This should be permitted as per the existing norms and rules. (G) The Respondents were directed to consider age relaxation of some of the Petitioners, who may have crossed the age limit, by considering their age according to their appointment orders. (H) The process be expedited as per the norms as well as the prevailing Office Memorandum and Orders. 7. The records further reveal that the Respondents herein accepted the said judgment and did not prefer any Appeal thereagainst. This aspect is further apparent from the communication dated 20.04.2026 issued by the Chief Engineer, PHED, Nagaland whereby the Executive Engineers, PHED of various divisions were directed to issue immediate call letters for conducting the suitability test. 8. 7. The records further reveal that the Respondents herein accepted the said judgment and did not prefer any Appeal thereagainst. This aspect is further apparent from the communication dated 20.04.2026 issued by the Chief Engineer, PHED, Nagaland whereby the Executive Engineers, PHED of various divisions were directed to issue immediate call letters for conducting the suitability test. 8. The case of the present Petitioners is that they were not parties to the said writ petition being WP(C) No. 77/2024 and as such, no call letters were issued to them. It is the specific case of the Petitioners herein that they are similarly situated to the Petitioners in WP(C) No. 77/2024 and, therefore, are entitled to similar treatment. Merely, because of the fact that the present Petitioners had not approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition, they ought not to be denied the opportunity to participate in the suitability test. 9. This Court has duly taken note of the directions passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the judgment and order dated 23.10.2025 which granted an opportunity to the Petitioners therein to participate in a test for evaluating their suitability for the posts. There was no direction passed by the learned Coordinate Bench that the Petitioners therein participating in the suitability test have to be granted appointment. Rather the termination of the Petitioners therein were upheld and as such the vacant posts were to be filled up. 10. It is also very pertinent to observe that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had categorically mentioned that the suitability test should be conducted in terms with the prevailing Office Memorandum as well as orders, which in the opinion of this Court would also include the requirement of following the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. In that view of the matter, it is the opinion of this Court that merely because of the fact that the Petitioners herein were not the Petitioners in WP(C) No. 77/2024, the Petitioners cannot be denied their right to participate in the suitability test so proposed to be conducted to fill up the vacant posts which came into existence on the basis of the termination of the Petitioners herein as well as the Petitioners in WP(C) No. 77/2024. The facts delineated above would also show that the Petitioners herein are similarly situated with the Petitioners in WP(C) No. 77/2024. It is the further opinion of this Court that denying the Petitioners herein would not only violate the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution qua the present Petitioners, but also against all similarly situated persons entitled to be considered for appointment to the vacant posts. 12. Considering the above, this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioners herein ought to be granted the opportunity to participate in the process for evaluation of suitability, taking into account that they are similarly situated to the Petitioners in WP(C) No. 77/2024. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions: (i) This Court observes and directs that the directions passed by the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 77/2024 vide judgment and order dated 23.10.2025 cannot be limited only to those Petitioners who had approached this Court in WP(C) No. 77/2024. The benefit has to be also granted to all other similarly situated persons, including the present Petitioners, else, it would amount to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) This Court further directs the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to permit the present Petitioners as well as all other persons similarly situated to the Petitioners in WP(C) No. 77/2024 to participate in the said test conducted for evaluation of their suitability. (iii) This Court further observes and directs that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide the judgment and order dated 23.10.2025 had only directed evaluation of suitability for the post of O&M Staff and had not directed appointment of the Petitioners therein. It shall purely lie within the domain of the Respondent Authorities who would evaluate on the aspect of suitability to appointment to the said vacant posts which arose on account of termination. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs.