Page No.# 1/25 GAHC020003572026 2026:GAU-NL:404-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WA/21/2026 SMTI. JENNY NDANG ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, NAGALAND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, KOHIMA, NAGALAND. RESIDENT OF NEW ASSEMBLY COMPLEX KOHIMA, NAGALAND - 797001 VERSUS THE SPEAKER, NLAS AND 3 ORS NAGALAND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT, KOHIMA, NAGALAND. 2:THE SECRETARY NAGALAND LEGISLATIVE ASSSEMBLY SECRETARIAT KOHIMA NAGALAND 3:THE JOINT SECRETARY NAGALAND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT KOHIMA NAGALAND 4:SMTI. KHRUOHITUONUO RIO SECRETARY NAGALAND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT KOHIMA NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : C. T. JAMIR, SR. ADV, O TEMJEN JAMIR,JAWAMONG YADEN,IMTILA PONGEN,NUNGSANG AIER,KROVI TSUKRU,TOSHI JAMIR,ASA RUTSA,ALIBA OZUKUM,I IMCHEN MEININ GLUNGL IU GONMEI Digitally signed by MEININGLUNGL IU GONMEI Date: 2026.07.23 13:17:49 +05'30' Page No.# 2/25 Advocate for the Respondent : T. B. JAMIR (R-1), ASEN T JAMIR,MEYIREN JAMIR,I JAMIR Advocates: For the Appellant : C.T. Jamir, Sr. Advocate : I. Imchen For the Respondents : T.B. Jamir, R/1-3 : Taka Masa, Sr. Advocate, R-4 : Sentilong Date on which Judgment was reserved : 16.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 23.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : -- operative part of the Judgment? Whether the full Judgment has been : Yes pronounced? BEFORE: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER :JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV): (Y. Longkumer, J) This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/40/2026. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. C.T. Jamir, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. I. Imchen, for the Appellant; learned counsel, Mr. T.B. Jamir, for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Taka Masa, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Sentilong, for the Respondent No. 4. Page No.# 3/25 FACTS OF THE CASE IN WP(C)/40/2026: 3. In pursuance of an advertisement dated 20.12.1995 issued by the Nagaland Legislative Assembly a selection process was undertaken and the Respondent No. 4 was appointed to the post of Assistant Transport Officer (ATO) w.e.f. 02.09.1996. In the same selection process the Appellant/Petitioner was also appointed to the post of Assistant Research Officer (ARO) w.e.f. 02.09.1996, both in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat (NLAS). Both the posts to which the Appellant and the Respondent No. 4 were appointed were Class-II Gazetted posts but they fall under different Schedules to the Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1999). As per the Schedules the ATO falls within the 3rd Schedule-C, whereas the ARO falls within the Third Schedule-A. The posts which come under the Third Schedule-A are eligible for promotion to a higher post till the post of Secretary but the posts which come within the Third Schedule-C had limited avenues for promotion to higher post. The career progression in the case of the Appellant/Petitioner continued as provided in the Third Schedule-A but in the case of the Respondent No. 4, the progression happened by upgradation of her post from time to time. By a notification dated 30.11.2019, the Respondent No. 4 who was the then Joint Secretary (Transport) in the NLAS was appointed to the post of Additional Secretary (Transport) by way of upgradation personal to her w.e.f. 02.12.2019 and on the same day vide notification dated 30.11.2019, the Appellant/Petitioner was also promoted to the post of Additional Secretary. Page No.# 4/25 4. In the year 2021, vide office memorandum dated 01.11.2021, the Speaker of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly restructured the cadre of the upgraded post of Additional Secretary (Transport) held by the Respondent No. 4 and ordered its encadrement in the Third Schedule-A of the Rules of 1999 with immediate effect. In pursuance of the office memorandum dated 01.11.2021 another notification No. AS/ESTT/10/2010/1174 dated 01.11.2021 was issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, Nagaland Legislative Assembly on the same day by which the service of the Respondent No. 4 as Additional Secretary (Transport) was regularized to the sanctioned post of Additional Secretary of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly in the same pay matrix level, along with all other allowances as admissible in the case of any other Additional Secretary, w.e.f. 01.11.2021. 5. Aggrieved by the said office memorandum dated 01.11.2021 and the notification of same date dated 01.11.2021, WP(C)/323/2021 was filed by four members of the Nagaland Legislative Assembly Service belonging to the Third Schedule-A. 6. After hearing the parties the Writ Court, by order dated 12.05.2022 allowed WP(C)/323/2021. In the judgment dated 12.05.2022 the Writ Court held that the office memorandum dated 01.11.2021 and the notification dated 01.11.2021 cannot be sustained as they were issued in exercise of the powers given under Article 22 of the Rules of 1999, which is a residuary power and does not confer such power to restructure the cadre. Page No.# 5/25 7. Consequently, vide office order dated 30.05.2022, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary, NLAS, the said office memorandum and the notification dated 01.11.2021 were cancelled with immediate effect and the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 to the upgraded post of Additional Secretary issued vide notification dated 30.11.2019 was revived. 8. In the meantime, the Rules of 1999 was amended again and it was notified vide notification No. AS/ESTT/15/99/271 dated 18.05.2022 and termed as the 3rd Amendment Rules of 2022. 9. Being aggrieved by the amendment of the Rules of 1999, by the 3rd amendment, especially the amendment in Rule 10, Rule 12 and Third Schedule-A, the Appellant/Petitioner and three others filed WP(C)/92/2022 challenging the amendment and praying for its quashing and setting aside, and, in the interim, prayed for suspension of the impugned amendment/notification. On 26.05.2022, the Division Bench in WP(C)/92/2022 passed an order that the interim prayer made by the Petitioners shall be heard on the next returnable date. However, it was also directed that any promotion or appointment made pursuant to the 3rd Amendment of the Rules of 2022 vide notification dated 18.05.2022 shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 10. On 12.06.2022, the then Principal Secretary, NLAS submitted his resignation and in view of his resignation the post of Secretary in the NLAS became vacant on 01.07.2022. Hence, the Speaker, on 05.07.2022, in exercise of his powers conferred under Rule 18 of the Rules of 1999, Page No.# 6/25 delegated the charge of Secretary, NLA to the Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 05.07.2022 on a temporary officiating basis. The order dated 05.07.2022 also stated that the said order shall stand cancelled automatically on the day the appointment of a full-fledged Secretary is made and takes over charge. 11. Being aggrieved by the order of temporary officiating charge dated 05.07.2022 made in favour of the Respondent No. 4, the Appellant/Petitioner filed WP(C)/144/2022 on 21.07.2022. On 22.07.2022, the Writ Court passed an interim order suspending operation of the temporary officiating charge order dated 05.07.2022 till the returnable date. Being aggrieved by the interim order dated 22.07.2022, the Respondent No. 4 filed I.A.(Civil)/116/2022 praying for vacation/modification/alteration of the interim order dated 22.07.2022. After hearing the parties, the I.A.(Civil)/116/2022 was allowed and the interim order dated 22.07.2022 was recalled by order dated 12.08.2022. Hence, the respondent no.4 continued to hold the post of Secretary NLA on temporary officiating charge. 12. Being aggrieved by the order dated 12.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in I.A.(Civil)/116/2022 arising out of WP(C)/144/2022, the Appellant/Petitioner preferred a writ appeal which was registered as WA/28/2022. WA/28/2022 was dismissed by judgment and order dated 03.09.2024 by holding that the Court is not inclined to interfere with the order dated 12.08.2022 vacating the interim order dated 22.07.2022. However, the Division Bench also held that there should be no further delay in filling up the post of Secretary, NLA on regular basis in Page No.# 7/25 accordance with law. 13. Subsequently, WP(C)/144/2022 was withdrawn by the Appellant/Petitioner and accordingly, WP(C)/144/2022 was disposed of on 05.09.2024 as withdrawn. 14. The Respondent No. 4, therefore, continued to hold the post of Secretary, NLA on temporary officiating charge till the notification dated 09.03.2026 was issued regularizing the Respondent No. 4 as Secretary of the NLA. The said notification dated 09.03.2026 was assailed by the Appellant in WP(C)/33/2026. During the pendency of WP(C)/33/2026, the respondent authorities issued a fresh notification dated 25.03.2026 superseding the earlier notification dated 09.03.2026 and by the fresh notification dated 25.03.2026 the Respondent No. 4 was promoted to the post of Secretary. Consequently, WP(C)/33/2026 was withdrawn with liberty to file afresh and the Appellant/Petitioner instituted WP(C)/40/2026. By filing WP(C)/40/2026 the appellant/writ petitioner contended that Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 mandatorily requires constitution of a DPC for all cases of recruitment by promotion and selection and that the Respondent No. 4 did not hold any substantive cadre post capable of being treated as an equivalent post for promotion to the post of Secretary. The Appellant also contended that Rule 12 of the Rules of 1999 merely prescribes the Appointing Authority and cannot override or exclude the mandatory procedural safeguard contemplated under Rule 15. DECISION OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE: Page No.# 8/25 15. The main point for consideration before the learned single judge was the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 11 of the 1999 Rules corresponding to Rule 12 of the 3rd Amendment of 2022 and Rule 14 of the 1999 Rules corresponding to Rule 15 as amended by the Second Amendment of 2022. 16. The learned single judge was also called upon to decide whether the post of Secretary of the NLA is a selection post. The learned Single Judge held that no select list was published pursuant to the recruitment process after the advertisement dated 22.01.1995 and that while the Service Rules of 1966 did not place the Appellant/Petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 in separate cadres, the distinction came for the first time under the Second Schedule to the 1999 Rules. The learned Single Judge held that by the 3rd Amendment of 2022, the Third Schedule-A was amended to include “persons in the grade of Additional Secretary” or “equivalent in the Assembly Secretariat with a minimum of 2 (two) years of continued service in the grade”, “if deemed fit by the Appointing Authority to be eligible for promotion to the post of Secretary of the NLA”. It was held that a reading of Rule 15 of the 1999 Rules would show that the Rule does not envisage that persons in the rank of Additional Secretary or lower would constitute a DPC for appointment of the Secretary. It was held that the post of Secretary is not based on seniority alone and that the Appointing Authority is the Governor and the Speaker is the recommending authority and, therefore, no DPC is required for appointment/promotion to the post of Secretary in the NLA. 17. The learned Single Judge dismissed WP(C)/40/2026 by the impugned Page No.# 9/25 judgment and order dated 08.05.2026 holding that the post of Secretary is a “selection post” and, therefore, Rule 15 relating to DPC would not apply in case of promotion/selection to the post of Secretary and further held that Rule 12 operates independently. The learned Single Judge also accepted the contention that the 3rd Amendment to the 1999 Rules placed the Appellant and the Respondent No. 4 at par for consideration to the post of Secretary. Being aggrieved, the instant writ appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Petitioner. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: 18. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. C.T. Jamir has argued that the learned Single Judge had committed an error by failing to appreciate that once the 1999 Rules came into force, a clear distinction was created between the general cadre and the cadre held by the Respondent No. 4. The mere fact that both the Appellant and the Respondent No. 4 were originally appointed as Class-II Gazetted Officers under the earlier Rules of 1966 did not obliterate the cadre distinction subsequently created under the 1999 Rules. The learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the 3rd Amendment of 2022 merely introduced eligibility from the Grade of Additional Secretary or equivalent and did not merge the cadres, did not alter cadre distinction or encadred Respondent No. 4 into the general cadre. 19. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the judgment in WP(C)/323/2021 had itself recognized that the Respondent No. 4 belonged to a separate cadre and had Page No.# 10/25 interfered with the attempted encadrement of her post into the general cadre. Therefore, the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 28 of the impugned judgment is contrary to the statutory scheme and unsupported by the service rules. 20. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the impugned judgment has equated the post held by the Appellant/Petitioner in the rank of Additional Secretary, which is defined in the Service Rules with that of the upgraded post of Secretary held by the Respondent No. 4 as personal to her, which does not exist in the Service Rules. It is further submitted that Rule 12(1) of the 3rd Amendment of 2022 only specifies the Appointing Authority. However, the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the mandatory procedure prescribed under Rule 15 relating to selection/promotion through DPC cannot be done away with. The Rules must be read harmoniously and not in isolation. Merely because the Governor is the Appointing Authority does not mean that the statutory requirement of recommendation through the DPC before appointment/promotion can be dispensed with. The finding that Rule 12 operates independently of Rule 15 is contrary to settled principles of statutory interpretation. 21. It is further submitted that the impugned judgment has wrongly held that no DPC is envisaged for the post of Secretary, whereas Rule 15 expressly provides that “For all cases of recruitment by promotion and selection there shall be a Departmental Promotion Committee”. Therefore, Rule 15 contains no exception for the post of Secretary, and the learned Single Judge could not have judicially created exclusion where none exists Page No.# 11/25 in the statutory rules. 22. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the post of Secretary is a ‘selection post’ outside the DPC mechanism. It is strenuously argued that even for selection posts, under service jurisprudence they are ordinarily processed through the duly constituted selection committee/DPC unless expressly excluded by statute. The concept of “selection” does not eliminate procedural safeguards under the Rules and in the case of Respondent No. 4 being a case of promotion she could not have been promoted without undergoing the DPC. Further, nowhere in the Service Rules is it stated that the post of Secretary is a selection post and a bare reading of the Service Rules clearly manifests that the principle of seniority is to be applied. It has to be appreciated that Rule 12 and Rule 15 operate in different fields and are complementary and not contradictory. In fact, the interpretation adopted by the learned Single Judge renders Rule 15 otiose in respect of the post of Secretary despite Rule 15 using the expression “All cases of recruitment by promotion and selection”. Such an interpretation defeats the legislative intent and violates the settled principles of interpretation. 23. Another contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant is that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the Respondent No. 4 was never borne in the feeder cadre contemplated under the Third Schedule-A and was only holding a post upgraded and personal to her. A post upgraded and personal to an incumbent does not automatically become part of the regular cadre unless specifically encadred by a valid statutory amendment. In fact, the learned Single Judge failed to Page No.# 12/25 appreciate that the earlier restructuring/encadrement of the post held by the Respondent No. 4 vide office memorandum dated 01.11.2021 had already been set aside by the writ Court in WP(C)/323/2021. Consequently, the legal foundation for treating Respondent No. 4 as part of the general cadre did not exist. Moreover, an officiating charge/arrangement does not create any vested right or confer eligibility on the Respondent No. 4. The learned Single Judge had also misconstrued the Division Bench judgment dated 24.04.2024 in WP(C)/92/2022. The Division Bench had merely observed that both the parties were eligible to be considered under the amended rules and did not adjudicate upon the legality of promotion without DPC, cadre eligibility, or substantive entitlement of Respondent No. 4 and in none of the earlier judgments the eligibility of the Respondent No. 4 for regular promotion to the rank of Secretary has been decided. 24. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 in WP(C)/40/2026 is a promotion order and it is not a direct recruitment, nor a deputation nor a contractual appointment. By holding that Rule 15 is not applicable to the post of Secretary, the impugned judgment has effectively created an exception not contemplated under the Rules, thereby adding words to the statute. The finding that application of Rule 15 to the post of Secretary would render Rule 12 redundant is ex facie erroneous inasmuch as Rule 12 and Rule 15 operate in distinct and separate fields. Rule 12 merely identifies the Appointing Authority as the Governor, whereas Rule 15 prescribes the mandatory procedural mechanism governing recruitment by promotion and selection. Page No.# 13/25 25. Learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of the record, misinterpretation of statutory rules, failure to harmoniously interpret the rules and non-consideration of binding principles governing cadre post, promotions and DPC procedure and accordingly, prays that the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/40/2026 may be quashed and set aside and the writ petition may be allowed. 26. The learned Senior Counsel for the Appellant has relied on the following judgments in support of his contentions: i. Sanjay K. Sinha-II & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2004) 10 SCC 734. ii. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., (2022) 11 SCC 392. iii. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. R. Santhakumari Velusamy & Ors., (2011) 9 SCC 510. iv. Arun Kumar Aggarwal v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1706-1708 of 2011. v. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. J.R. William Singh, (2021) 12 SCC 127. vi. Arun Kumar Mishra v. Anil Kumar Verma & Ors., (2017) 12 SCC 657. vii. Satyendra Kumar & Ors. v. Raj Nath Dubey & Ors., (2016) 14 SCC 49. Page No.# 14/25 SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 1, 2, 3: 27. Learned counsel, Mr. T.B. Jamir appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at the outset submits that the Appellant herself has admitted in her pleadings that Respondent No. 4 became eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Secretary w.e.f. 18.05.2022, i.e., upon the amendment of the Service Rules by which she was brought within the zone of consideration. Learned counsel submits that in WP(C)/40/2026, the Petitioner had pleaded that as per the applicable Service Rules a minimum of 2 (two) years service in the rank of Additional Secretary is required to be promoted to the post of Secretary. The Petitioner became eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Secretary well before the Respondent No. 4 became eligible for consideration only w.e.f. 18.05.2022. It was also pleaded that the Petitioner being the senior most eligible officer should have been considered for promotion to the post of Secretary. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that there is no dispute that the Respondent No. 4 is also eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Secretary. 28. Learned counsel submits that the prayer of the Petitioner/Appellant in WP(C)/40/2026 is to direct the respondent authorities to constitute a DPC for regular promotion by duly considering the cases of all those who are in the zone of consideration for the post of Secretary. However, a perusal of Rule 15 of the principal Rules of 1999 would show that the Secretary is the Chairman of the DPC and the Secretary cannot be replaced by any other officer. Further, the learned Single Judge in I.A. (Civil)/116/2022 by order dated 12.08.2022 had also arrived at a finding Page No.# 15/25 that the Respondent No. 4 being one of the senior most officers in the NLA is eligible and can be considered for appointment/promotion as Secretary by selection. The learned Single Judge also held that the words “If deemed fit by the Appointing Authority” makes it amply clear that promotion to the post of Secretary to the Assembly Secretariat is by selection and not by seniority. 29. Learned counsel submits that the 3rd Amendment of 2022 has been upheld by the Writ Court vide order dated 24.04.2024 in WP(C)/92/2022. The amended Rule 12 states as follows:”The Secretary and Additional Secretary shall be appointed by the Governor, on the recommendation of the Speaker, in consultation with the Chief Minister.” In view of such amendment, learned counsel submits that the promotion to the post of Secretary of the NLA cannot be recommended by both the DPC and the Speaker. In the case of promotion to the post of Secretary, it is only the Speaker who is to make the recommendation and not the DPC. In view of the amended Rule 12, the Speaker assumes the role of the DPC and upon his recommendation in consultation with the Chief Minister, the Governor shall make the appointment as Appointing Authority. Therefore, there is no ambiguity with regard to the role and function of Rule 12 and Rule 15 of the Rules of 1999 as amended by the 3rd Amendment of 2022. 30. The learned counsel further submits that when the impugned judgment involves the exercise of judicial discretion, the appellate court can interfere only if the distinction was exercised arbitrarily, or relevant considerations were ignored, or the decision is manifestly unreasonable or perverse or if the order suffers from an error of law. Learned counsel has Page No.# 16/25 further submitted that the impugned order dated 25.03.2026 uses the word “promotion” which means that in fact it is a promotion by way of selection. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that there is no perversity or unreasonableness in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and, prays that the same may be upheld. 31. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 relies on the following cases in support of his contention: i. Sofika Hussain Ara Begum & Ors. v. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner & Ors., 2025 (7) GLT 501. ii. N. Ramachandra Reddy v. State of Telangana & Ors., (2020) 16 SCC 478. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT 4: 32. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Taka Masa appearing for the Respondent No. 4 has also adopted the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and further submits that the principle of constructive res judicata will apply in the instant case as the question of eligibility of the Respondent No. 4 to be considered for promotion to the post of Secretary has already been decided in the earlier writ petitions and writ appeals between the parties as can be seen from the records. He has further submitted that there is no specific prayer made in the instant Appeal as the appellant has merely prayed that the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2026 may be quashed and set aside and WP(C)/40/2026 may be allowed. Learned Senior Counsel submits that Order VII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that Page No.# 17/25 relief has to be specifically stated. However, there is no prayer in the writ appeal for any specific relief. Learned Senior Counsel submits that WP(C)/40/2026 is the seventh round of litigation on the same issue and the learned Single Judge was bound by the decision and the observations made by the earlier Coordinate Benches and by the two orders of the Division Bench. 33. Learned Senior Counsel has also raised the issue of non-joinder of necessary party as the Governor and Chief Minister have not been parties in the writ petition in spite of the fact that the Governor is the Appointing Authority and also the decision-making authority for the post of Secretary. 34. Learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that the Service Rules of the NLA are framed under Article 187 of the Constitution of India and not under Article 309 of the Constitution. Under Article 187 of the Constitution of India, the Speaker has the residuary powers and the plenary powers unlike Rules framed under Article 309. The learned Senior Counsel submits that the 1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment to the Rules of 1999 have been quashed and, therefore, only the principal Rules of 1999 and the 3rd Amendment of 2022 are presently holding the field. Learned senior counsel also submits that both the Appellant and the Respondent No. 4 were appointed on the same day and there is no merit list showing the Appellant as senior. He also submits that after the 3rd Amendment of 2022, there is no distinction of cadre above the level of Joint Secretary in the assignment of duties/distribution of work and other service matters. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 10 of the 3rd Amendment of 2022, the Respondent No. 4 has become eligible to be considered for promotion to Page No.# 18/25 the post of Secretary. He also relies on the provisions of Rule 22 of the principal Rules which states that all questions relating to the interpretation of these rules shall be referred to the Speaker whose decision shall be final. Moreover, the Third Schedule-A, Sl. No. 1, Column 7 has now been amended by the 3rd Amendment which states that the post of Secretary shall be filled up “by promotion from the grade of Additional Secretary or equivalent in the Assembly Secretariat with a minimum of 2 (two) years continuous service in the grade, if deemed fit by the Appointing Authority.” Therefore, till the post of Joint Secretary, the different cadres/wings are kept separate. However, after reaching the post of Additional Secretary all the wings/cadres are amalgamated and all the officers above the rank of Joint Secretary become equal and eligible. Moreover, there is a clear distinction between Rule 12 and Rule 15 inasmuch as under Rule 12, the Speaker is the recommending authority whereas under Rule 15 the DPC is the recommending authority. 35. In view of the submissions made hereinabove, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 submits that the appellant has not made out a case for this Court to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 08.05.2026 passed in WP(C)/40/2026. 36. The learned Senior Counsel relies on the following judgments in support of his submissions: i. Ranbir Singh v. Executive Engineer, (2011) 15 SCC 453. ii. Poonam v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 779. Page No.# 19/25 iii. Shiv Chander More & Ors. v. Lieutenant Governor & Ors., (2014) 11 SCC 744. iv. Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation v. Sanjay Gajanan Gharat & Anr., (2024) 20 SCC 238. ANALYSIS AND DECISION: 37. We have duly considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, perused the records and examined the judgments relied upon. 38. In an intra-court appeal, the scope of interference by the appellate court is narrowly confined. The division bench can correct errors of law, jurisdiction, or perverse findings, but does not act as a fresh fact-finding body or re-exercise the discretion of the learned single judge. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sofika Hussain Ara Begum (Supra) and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Ramachandra Reddy (Supra) have held that interference is warranted only when the single judge order is illegal, without jurisdiction, perverse or based on omission of material evidence. This Court cannot substitute its own discretion merely because it might have taken a different view. This Court can interfere with discretionary orders only if discretion was exercised arbitrarily, capriciously or perversely or by ignoring settled principles. In the instant intra-court appeal, we are called upon to examine the legality of the impugned judgment dated 08.05.2026 in WP(C)/40/2026. This Court has to, therefore, examine whether the impugned judgment suffers from any error of law, any jurisdictional defect, or any perversity. Only if one of these conditions or all are satisfied, this Court can interfere and either reverse or modify the judgment. Page No.# 20/25 39. Rule 12 (1) of the 3rd Amendment of 2022 and Rule 15 of the 1999 Rules (as amended) are reproduced hereunder for convenient reading: 12. Appointing Authority. 1) The Secretary and Additional Secretary shall be appointed by the Governor, on the recommendation of the Speaker, in consultation with the Chief Minister. 15. Departmental Promotion Committee. For all cases of recruitment by promotion and selection there shall be a Departmental Promotion Committee consisting of the following: 1) Secretary : Chairman 2) Addl. Secretary (E) : Member 3) Joint Secretary (E) : -do- 4) Deputy Secretary (E) : -do- 5) Under Secretary (E): Member Secretary 6) Chief Editor of Debates : Member for Stenos. Provided that the service records of the eligible officials in the “Zone of consideration” shall be compared on the basis of their Annual Confidential Report for preceding 5 (five) years. Provided further that as and when the case of any of the members of the DPC is under consideration for promotion, he/she shall desist from attending the DPC meeting. While considering the selection/promotion, the DPC will also take into consideration the following factor: i. Availability of clear vacancy. ii. Completion of qualifying length of service for promotion as provided in the Third schedule. iii.Confirmation/regularization of promotion in the lower grade by the DPC. iv. ACR of preceding 5 (five) years. Page No.# 21/25 v. Vigilance Clearance of all Gazetted Officers. 40. The Third Schedule-A, Sl. No. 1, Column 7 was also amended by the 3rd Amendment of 2022 and the said amendment of the 3rd Schedule-A is also reproduced here below. “By promotion from the grade of Additional Secretary or equivalent, in the Assembly Secretariat with a minimum of 2 years continuous service in the grade, if deemed fit by the Appointing Authority”. 41. We have examined the Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1966, the Rules of 1999, the First Amendment of 2005, the Second Amendment of 2012 and the 3rd Amendment of 2022 in detail. It is an admitted fact that at present the principal Rules of 1999 and the 3rd Amendment of 2022 hold the field. The composition of the DPC in Rule 15 makes it clear that appointment/promotion to the post of Secretary cannot be recommended by the DPC as the Secretary is the Chairman of the DPC. On the other hand, Rule 12 of the Rules as amended by the 3rd Amendment of 2022 makes it abundantly clear that for appointment/promotion to the post of Additional Secretary and Secretary, the Speaker is the recommending authority, who plays the role of the DPC and the appointment is to be made on the basis of such recommendation, in consultation with the chief minister, by the Governor. Such a provision would mean that the post of Secretary of the NLA is meant to be a “selection post”, even though it is not specifically mentioned as such in the Rules. We have also noted that in many of the States in India, the post of Secretary of the Legislative Assembly Secretariat is projected as a selection post. For instance, in the Meghalaya Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions Page No.# 22/25 of Service) Rules of 2011, Rule 4 and 8 are reproduced as under which have similar provisions with Rule 12 (1) and Rule 15 of the Nagaland Rules: 4. Appointing & Removal Authority: (1) The Governor, on the recommendation of the Speaker, shall be the appointing authority in the case of appointing to the grade of Secretary. (2) The Speaker shall be the appointing authority in the case of appointment to all grades in gazetted category other than the grade of Secretary. (3) A Board comprising the Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Leader of Opposition, Chairman of Public Accounts Committee, and the Secretary shall be the appointing authority in the case of appointment to all grades in non-gazetted category. (4) The appointing authority is the respective removal authority. ... 8. Departmental Promotion Committee: There shall be a permanent Departmental Promotion Committee comprising the Secretary, an Additional Secretary and a Joint Secretary, nominated by the Speaker, which shall meet from time to time to consider and recommend promotion to posts in various grades to the respecting appointing authorities: Provided that in the case of appointment to the post of Secretary, the Speaker himself shall make suitable recommendation to the Governor in that behalf. 42. Consequently, we are of the view that even though the Rules do not specify in so many words that the post of Secretary is a selection post, the language of Rule 12(1) is obvious that the intent of the rule-maker was to deliberately exclude the Secretary from the normal promotion process. Rule 12 (1) provides that the Speaker shall recommend the Additional Page No.# 23/25 Secretary and Secretary and the Governor shall appoint. This indicates a distinct method of appointment/promotion different from the normal promotion method through the DPC. The amended Third Schedule-A, Sl. No. 1, Column 7 specifies that the post of Secretary shall be filled up by promotion from the rank of Additional Secretary or an equivalent rank. But this does not necessarily mean that the senior-most officer must be promoted/appointed. The Speaker has the discretion to recommend the most suitable officer. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the post of Secretary is a selection post to be filled up by the mode prescribed in Rule 12 (1), rather than by the normal promotion mode prescribed in Rule 15. This, however, does not mean that the Speaker has unfettered discretion. The Speaker has to exercise the discretion on objective and relevant considerations and by making a bona fide assessment of the comparative merit and suitability of eligible candidates. In order to ascertain the same we have also gone through the office notings in the records produced by the counsel for the Respondent No. 1. There is nothing to indicate therein that the Speaker has made an arbitrary or discriminatory decision by recommending the Respondent No. 4. We have also seen that the Speaker has made a bona fide assessment of the comparative merit and suitability of the Appellant/Petitioner as well as the Respondent No. 4. 43. Another pertinent consideration in the instant case is that under Article 187 of the Constitution of India, the Speaker holds the power of appointing, posting and absorption of the staff of the Legislative Assembly and the Assembly Secretariat staff operates under complete, direct control of the Speaker. The core difference between the Rules under Article 309 Page No.# 24/25 and 187 of the Constitution lies in their operational scope. Under Article 187, the Speaker holds the ultimate administrative and disciplinary authority over the Assembly staff, ensuring functional independence from the executive. 44. The appellant has also argued that the respondent no.4 was not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Secretary. In our view this argument is not tenable as after the 3rd Amendment of 2022, there is no distinction of cadre above the level of Joint Secretary in the assignment of duties/distribution of work and other service matters. Therefore, by virtue of Rule 10 of the 3rd Amendment of 2022, the Respondent No. 4 has become eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Secretary as rightly held by the learned single judge. 45. Having arrived at the findings as narrated above, we are of the view that the judgments relied upon by the Appellant/Petitioner are not relevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 46. In the light of the discussions above, we are of the considered view that this is not a case where the learned Single Judge has committed any perversity in dismissing WP(C)/40/2026. The Appellant has not been able to show that the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge was hit by any blatant illegality or that the decision was arbitrary or against settled principles of law. Therefore, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. 47. No order as to cost. Page No.# 25/25 The Registry shall return the records to the learned counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant