Page No.# 1/40 GAHC020005102026 2026:GAU-NL:502-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WA/35/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE, KRISH BHAWAN, NEW DELHI - 110001 2: THE HORTICULTURE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATION AND FARMERS WELFARE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE GOVT. OF INDIA KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001 3: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (HORTI - FRUIT) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE DEPT OF AGRICULTURE GOVT. OF INDIA KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001 4: THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAN VERSUS SHRI PRABIN DAS S/O SHRI LALIT CHANDRA DAS PRESENTLY SERVING AS MARKETING SPECIALIST, CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF Page No.# 2/40 HORTICULTURE, MEDZIPHEMA, CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND - 797106 Advocate for the Petitioner : KROVI TSUKRU, Advocate for the Respondent : T. B. JAMIR, ASEN T JAMIR,MEYIREN JAMIR,I JAMIR Linked Case : WA/36/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE KRISH BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001 2: THE HORTICULTURE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATION AND FARMERS WELFARE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE GOVT. OF INDIA KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001 3: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (HORT - FRUIT) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE DEPT OF AGRICULTURE GOVT. OF INDIA KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001 4: THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI. MERIBENI SHITIRI D/O SHRI EZAMO SHITIRI PRESENTLY SERVING AS HORTICULTURE SPECIALIST CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF HORTICULTURE MEDZIPHEMA CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND - 797106 ------------ Page No.# 3/40 Advocate for : KROVI TSUKRU Advocate for : T. B. JAMIR appearing for SMTI. MERIBENI SHITIRI Linked Case : WA/37/2026 UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE KRISH BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001 2: THE HORTICULTURE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATION AND FARMERS WELFARE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE GOVT. OF INDIA KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001 3: THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (HORT - FRUIT) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE DEPT OF AGRICULTURE GOVT. OF INDIA KRISHI BHAWAN NEW DELHI - 110001 4: THE DIRECTOR CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FARMERS WELFARE GOVT. OF INDIA CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND VERSUS SMTI. IMTINARO JAMIR D/O SHRI I. CHUBATEMSU JAMIR PRESENTLY SERVING AS ADMIN AND ACCOUNTS EXPERT CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF HORTICULTURE MEDZIPHEMA CHUMOUKEDIMA NAGALAND - 797106 ------------ BEFORE Page No.# 4/40 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH HONBLE MRS JUSTICE HELEN DAWNGLIANI For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Deka, CGC For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T.B. Jamir, Advocate Date on which judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 16.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : YES Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : NO JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) (Devashis Baruah, J.) Heard Mr. B. Deka, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Appellants in the 3 (three) Writ Appeals. Mr. T.B. Jamir, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondents in the 3 (three) Writ Appeals. PROLOGUE 2. The 3 (three) Writ Appeals arise out of 3 (three) separate judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Writ Appeal No. 35/2026 arises out of the judgment and order dated 19.05.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 304/2024. Page No.# 5/40 Writ Appeal No. 36/2026 arises out of the judgment and order dated 19.05.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 305/2024. Writ Appeal No. 37/2026 arises out of the judgment and order dated 19.05.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 310/2024. 3. Taking into account the similarity of facts, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the 3 (three) Appeals by this common judgment and order. 4. Before dealing with the 3 (three) impugned judgment and order, we deem it appropriate to take note of the similar issues which arose in the cases of Union of India & Others Vs. Shri Anjani Kumar Singh and Union of India & Others Vs. Shri Arvind Singh [W.A. No. 12/2025 & W.A. No. 13/2025]. 5. By a common judgment and order dated 07.04.2026, this Court dismissed both the Writ Appeals thereby affirming the judgment and order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 38/2023 and WP(C) No. 39/2023. This Court, however, modified the directions passed by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 27.11.2024 in WP(C) No. 38/2023 and WP(C) No. 39/2023 by issuing specific directions at paragraph No. 34 of the said judgment and order dated 07.04.2026 passed in the case of Union of India (supra). The directions passed in paragraph No. Page No.# 6/40 34 being relevant is reproduced herein under: “34. The Judgment & Order dated 27.11.2024 in WP(C)/38/2023 and WP(C)/39/2023 stands modified as herein under: I. The appellants herein are directed to forthwith regularize the services of the Respondents herein against the sanctioned posts to which they were appointed. II. For the sake of clarity we observe that the petitioner in WP(C)/38/2023 shall be regularized against the sanctioned post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist and the petitioner in WP(C)/39/2023 shall be regularized against the sanctioned post of Horticulture Specialist. The Petitioners/Respondents herein shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. III. Advertisement No. 05/2023 is interfered with only to the extent of filling up of the vacancy of one post of Horticulture Specialist in so far as Serial No. 2 (Vacancy No. 23030502311) and one post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist at Serial No. 3 (Vacancy No. 23030503311). The remaining posts advertised in the Advertisement being No. 05/2023 are not interfered with. IV. The process of regularization be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the present judgment.” 6. We also take note that from a perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in 3 (three) separate writ petitions, the learned Single Judge had relied upon the judgment and order dated 07.04.2026 passed in Page No.# 7/40 the case of Union of India (supra). 7. At this stage, it is relevant to observe that 2 (two) Special Leave Petitions were filed against the common judgment and order dated 07.04.2026 passed in the case of Union of India (supra). The said Special Leave Petitions were registered and numbered as SLP(C) Nos. 25501/2026 and 25502/2026. By a common order dated 03.08.2026, the Supreme Court did not interfere with the directions passed in the judgment and order dated 07.04.2026 in the case of Union of India (supra). However, the Supreme Court observed that the judgment and order dated 07.04.2026 passed in the case of Union of India (supra) shall not be treated as a precedent. The order passed by the Supreme Court dated 03.08.2026, being relevant, is reproduced hereinbelow: 1. Having heard the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the petitioner(s), in the facts obtained in the instant case namely, having regard to the fact that the respondents have worked for 19 and 20 years, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) and order(s). We make it clear that impugned order(s) shall not be treated as precedents. Special Leave Petitions stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.” 8. Before proceeding further, we find it appropriate to understand the observation made by the Supreme Court in the Page No.# 8/40 order dated 03.08.2026 whereby the Supreme Court made it clear that the judgment and order dated 07.04.2026 passed in the case of Union of India (supra) shall not be treated as precedents. 9. A precedent is said to be a judicial decision which contains its principles. The stated principle which thus forms its authoritative element is called the ratio decidendi. The concrete decision is binding between the parties to the lis but the abstract decision which is the ratio decidendi, alone has the force of law as regards to the world at large. 10. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh & Another Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad & Another reported in (2007) 3 SCC 720 explains the concept of a precedent. The Supreme Court in the said judgment observed that a decision of the Court has 3 (three) elements. They are: (a) the facts and the points in issue; (b) the reasons for the decision; and (c) the final order containing the decision. The Supreme Court observed that the reason for the decision which constitutes the ratio decidendi forms a precedent. The Page No.# 9/40 final order containing the decision is not the ratio decidendi and hence not to be construed as precedent. Paragraph No. 10 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “10. The contention of the Commission also overlooks the fundamental difference between challenge to the final order forming part of the judgment and challenge to the ratio decidendi of the judgment. Broadly speaking, every judgment of superior courts has three segments, namely, (i) the facts and the point at issue; (ii) the reasons for the decision; and (iii) the final order containing the decision. The reasons for the decision or the ratio decidendi is not the final order containing the decision. In fact, in a judgment of this Court, though the ratio decidendi may point to a particular result, the decision (final order relating to relief) may be different and not a natural consequence of the ratio decidendi of the judgment. This may happen either on account of any subsequent event or the need to mould the relief to do complete justice in the matter. It is the ratio decidendi of a judgment and not the final order in the judgment, which forms a precedent. The term "judgment" and "decision" are used, rather loosely, to refer to the entire judgment or the final order or the ratio decidendi of a judgment. Rupa Ashok Hurra is of course, an authority for the proposition that a petition under Article 32 would not be maintainable to challenge or set aside or quash the final order contained in a judgment of this Court. It does not lay down a proposition that the ratio decidendi of any earlier decision cannot be examined or differed in another case. Where violation of a fundamental right of a citizen is alleged in a petition under Article 32, it cannot be dismissed, as not maintainable, merely because it seeks to distinguish or challenge the ratio decidendi of an earlier judgment, except where it is between the same parties and in respect of the same cause of action. Where a legal issue raised in a petition under Article 32 is covered by a decision of this Court, the Court may dismiss the petition following the ratio decidendi of the earlier decision. Such dismissal is not on the ground of "maintainability" but on the Page No.# 10/40 ground that the issue raised is not tenable, in view of the law laid down in the earlier decision. But if the Court is satisfied that the issue raised in the later petition requires consideration and in that context the earlier decision requires re-examination, the Court can certainly proceed to examine the matter (or refer the matter to a larger Bench, if the earlier decision is not of a smaller Bench). When the issue is re-examined and a view is taken different from the one taken earlier, a new ratio is laid down. When the ratio decidendi of the earlier decision undergoes such change, the final order of the earlier decision as applicable to the parties to the earlier decision, is in no way altered or disturbed. Therefore, the contention that a writ petition under Article 32 is barred or not maintainable with reference to an issue which is the subject-matter of an earlier decision, is rejected.” 11. In the backdrop of the above, in view of the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by the Supreme Court, the ratio decidendi in the common judgment and order dated 07.04.2026 in the case of Union of India (supra), cannot be treated as precedent. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2014) 16 SCC 623 observed that a decision or judgment can be per incuriam, if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench. The Supreme Court also observed that the aforesaid principle, i.e., the per incuriam Rule is strictly and correctly applicable to the ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta. In other words, a ratio decidendi of a co-equal Bench is binding as a precedent and if Page No.# 11/40 not followed, the later judgment or decision would come within the mischief of the Rule of per incuriam. Paragraph No. 19 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “19. It cannot be overemphasised that the discipline demanded by a precedent or the disqualification or diminution of a decision on the application of the per incuriam rule is of great importance, since without it, certainty of law, consistency of rulings and comity of courts would become a costly casualty. A decision or judgment can be per incuriam any provision in a statute, rule or regulation, which was not brought to the notice of the court. A decision or judgment can also be per incuriam if it is not possible to reconcile its ratio with that of a previously pronounced judgment of a co-equal or larger Bench; or if the decision of a High Court is not in consonance with the views of this Court. It must immediately be clarified that the per incuriam rule is strictly and correctly applicable to the ratio decidendi and not to obiter dicta. It is often encountered in High Courts that two or more mutually irreconcilable decisions of the Supreme Court are cited at the Bar. We think that the inviolable recourse is to apply the earliest view as the succeeding ones would fall in the category of per incuriam.” 13. In the backdrop of the above analysis, it is, therefore, clear that the ratio decidendi of the common judgment and order dated 07.04.2026 passed in the case of Union of India (supra) would have otherwise bound us in the present proceedings, had the order dated 03.08.2026 passed by the Supreme Court, as quoted hereinabove, not observed that the judgment in the case of Union of India (supra) would not be treated as a precedent. Page No.# 12/40 14. In the backdrop of the above, we find it relevant to deal with the facts which led to the filing of the present Writ Appeals before us. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 15. The Central Institute of Horticulture, Medziphema, Nagaland was established on 16.01.2006 with the Union Cabinet approval. Initially, it was proposed to engage Consultants (technical) on a monthly contract basis for a period of one year to take up various development activities of the Institute till the appointment of regular staff. 16. On 23.06.2006, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure (DoE) sanctioned 17 (seventeen) posts for setting up the Central Institute of Horticulture in Nagaland. Amongst the 17 posts, the posts of Marketing Specialist, Assistant Horticulture Specialist and Personal Assistant to Director were created. 17. Subsequent thereto, in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the President of India made the Rules called the Central Institute of Horticulture (Group “A”, “B” and “C” Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2007 (for short, “the Rules of 2007”). 18. Rule 3 of the Rules of 2007 stipulated the “Number of Page No.# 13/40 posts, Classification and Scale of pay, etc.” and the details were given in Columns 2 to 4 of the Schedule to the Rules. 19. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2007 stipulated the “Method of recruitment, age limit, and other qualifications” which were mentioned at Columns 5 to 14 of the Schedule to the said Rules. 20. Rule 7 of the Rules of 2007 conferred power upon the Central Government to relax the Rules for reasons to be recorded in writing and in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. 21. Taking into account that the present Writ Appeals deal with the posts of Marketing Specialist, Assistant Horticulture Specialist and Personal Assistant to the Director, it is relevant to take note that the Rules of 2007 specifically mandated that all these 3 (three) categories of posts were to be filled up by way of deputation. The post of Marketing Specialist was to be filled up by deputation from officers under the Central Government/ State Government / Union Territory / Agricultural Universities / recognized Research Institute/Indian Council of Agricultural Research including its Research Institutions. The posts of Assistant Horticulture Specialist were to be Page No.# 14/40 filled up by deputation from officers under the Central Government /State Government/Union Territories / Agricultural Universities / Recognized Research Institutes/Indian Council of Agricultural Research including its Research Institutions. The post of Personal Assistant to the Director was to be filled up by deputation from officers under the Central Government/State Government/Union Territories. 22. Factually, it is admitted that after the setting up of the Central Institute of Horticulture at Medziphema, Nagaland various attempts were made to fill up the 17 posts by way of deputation. However, except for the post of Director, all other posts could not be filled up by deputation. Under such circumstances, an Advertisement was issued on 13.02.2009 inviting applications for appointment to various posts of the Central Institute of Horticulture, Medziphema, Nagaland on a contractual basis for a period of 6 (six) months or till regular appointments were made against various posts including 1 (one) post of Marketing Specialist and 3 (three) posts of Assistant Horticulture Specialist. Pursuant thereto, an Addendum dated 17.02.2009 was issued to the Advertisement dated 13.02.2009, whereby 2 (two) more posts were advertised, i.e., the post of Administrative Officer and the post of Personal Assistant to Page No.# 15/40 Director. The Advertisement was widely published in various newspapers, i.e., The Assam Tribune, The Nagaland Post, and The Morung Express. 23. A selection was carried out by a Selection Committee constituted by the Ministry of Agriculture headed by the Director, CIH, Medziphema, Nagaland on 10.06.2009 and 11.06.2009. In respect to the post of Marketing Specialist, out of 11 (eleven) candidates who were called for interview, 9 (nine) turned up, and the Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 35/2026 was selected. As regards the 3 (three) posts of Assistant Horticulture Specialist were concerned, 19 (nineteen) candidates were called for interview, out of whom 14 (fourteen) turned up. The Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 36/2026, along with two others, was selected. Insofar as the post of Personal Assistant to the Director was concerned, out of 9 (nine) candidates who were called for interview, 4 (four) turned up and the Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 37/2026 was selected. 24. Pursuant to the selection proceedings carried out, the recommendations of the Selection Committee were sent to the Page No.# 16/40 Horticulture Commissioner, Department of Agriculture & Co- operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India vide communication dated 25.06.2009. A communication was issued by the Department of Agriculture & Co-operation, Ministry of Agriculture, Horticulture Division thereby granting approval for hiring the 14 (fourteen) personnel who were selected on a short- term contract basis for 6 (six) months, with a stipulation that the appointments would be governed by a bilateral contract agreement between the Government (CIH) and the individual. 25. The Respondents in the present 3 (three) Writ Appeals were issued Offer of Appointment on the same date, i.e., 27.11.2009. In the said Offer of Appointment, all dated 27.11.2009, it was specifically mentioned that the appointments were purely temporary for a period of 6 (six) months only from the date of joining. 26. Be that as it may, all the 3 (three) Respondents in the present Writ Appeals were continued without any break and their services were extended from time to time. Presently also, they continue to render their services. 27. The records reveal that though vide order dated 23.06.2006, 17 posts were created, but only 1 (one) post, i.e., the post of the Director was filled. In respect to the remaining 16 Page No.# 17/40 (sixteen) posts, they were filled up on contractual basis. Under such circumstances, 15 (fifteen) contractual employees jointly submitted a representation on 03.12.2020 to the Additional Commissioner (Hort-Fruit), Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmer’s Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer’s Welfare, Government of India requesting that their services be regularized. It is relevant to take note of that the Respondents in the case of Union of India (supra) were also signatories to the said representation including the Respondents in the present Appeals. 28. At this stage, we find it relevant to take note of certain facts specific to the Respondents in the present Writ Appeals, as the same would also aid in the adjudication of the present Appeals. RESPONDENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 35/2026 29. The Respondent in the instant Writ Appeal was appointed as a Marketing Specialist on 27.11.2009 and thereafter, his services were extended from time to time. In the meantime, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare made a set of Rules in supersession of the earlier Rules, known as the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Central Institute of Horticulture, Medziphema, Page No.# 18/40 Campus, Dimapur, Nagaland, Marketing Specialist or Economist (Group “A” Post) Recruitment Rules, 2022 (for short, the “Marketing Specialist Recruitment Rules, 2022”). 30. The nomenclature of the post of Marketing Specialist was changed to Marketing Specialist or Economist. The earlier requirement that the said post had to be filled up by way of deputation was done away with by the new Rules and direct recruitment was made permissible. The age limit for direct recruitment was fixed at 40 years, relaxable for Government servants by up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government and the crucial date for determining the age limit was to be as advertised by the Union Public Service Commission. 31. In pursuance of these Rules, an Advertisement was issued by the Union Public Service Commission bearing Advertisement No. 02/2023 dated 28.01.2023. The Respondent herein submitted his application for the post of Marketing Specialist. Amongst 123 candidates, the Respondent and another candidate were the only two candidates shortlisted for the interview. However, subsequently, vide notice dated 15.07.2024, the UPSC notified that the recruitment process initiated to fill up the post of Marketing Specialist/Economist in the Central Institute of Page No.# 19/40 Horticulture, Nagaland, had become infructuous. It is also seen from the affidavit filed by the Director of Central Institute of Horticulture that, as on the date of filing of the affidavit-in- opposition, the services of the Respondent in the Writ Appeal was continued in the sanctioned post of Marketing Specialist. RESPONDENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 36/2026 32. The Respondent in the present Writ Appeal was initially appointed on 27.11.2009 as an Assistant Horticulture Specialist. While the said Respondent continued to discharge her functions and her services were extended from time to time without any break. The Central Government made a new set of Rules called the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Central Institute of Horticulture, Medziphema, Campus, Dimapur, Nagaland, Assistant Horticulture Specialist (Group “A” Post) Recruitment Rules, 2022 (for short, the “Assistant Horticulture Specialist Recruitment Rules”). 33. From a perusal of the said Rules, it is seen that engagement by way of deputation was done away with and out of the 3 (three) posts, 2 (two) posts were to be filled up by way of direct recruitment and 1 (one) post was to be filled up by way of promotion, failing which by deputation. The age limit Page No.# 20/40 mentioned was 35 years, which was relaxable for Government servants by up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions or orders issued by the Central Government. As on the date of filing of the affidavit-in-opposition by the Director of the Central Institute of Horticulture, it was shown that the service of the Respondent was continued in the post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist. RESPONDENT IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 37/2026 34. The present Respondent was appointed as a Personal Assistant to the Director vide offer of appointment dated 27.11.2009. The extension granted to the Respondent on 11.01.2022 was up to 12.07.2022. 35. While the said Respondent in the present Writ Appeal was serving as the Personal Assistant/Stenographer Grade-I to the Director, the Central Institute of Horticulture issued an Advertisement dated 23.01.2024 inviting applications, inter alia, for appointment to 1 (one) post of Admin & Accounts Resource Person on a contractual basis for 1 (one) year which would further renew from time to time. The Respondent, being duly qualified applied for the said post of Admin & Accounts Resource Person. Page No.# 21/40 36. In the selection held by a Committee constituted by the Additional Commissioner (Horticulture), Department of Agriculture and Family Welfare, and Director-in-Charge, Central Institute of Horticulture, the Respondent in the present Writ Appeal was selected for the post of Admin & Accounts Expert. 37. Pursuant thereto, an offer of appointment was issued on 20.08.2024 to the Respondent in the present Writ Appeal for the post of Admin & Accounts Expert. As on the date of filing of the affidavit by the Director, Central Institute of Horticulture, the services of the Respondent in the present Writ Appeal continued. 38. The materials on record show that the Respondents in the 3 (three) Writ Appeals, continue to render their services for more than 17 years as on date. The Respondents in the 3 (three) Writ Appeals being aggrieved, by the inaction on the part of the Appellants to regularize their services filed respective Writ Petitions seeking directions to regularize their services in the posts held by them. 39. The Appellants herein, who were the Respondents in the Writ Petitions filed their affidavit-in-opposition through the Director of the Central Institute of Horticulture, Medziphema, contending inter alia that the Petitioners/Respondents in the present Appeals had no right to seek regularization, taking into Page No.# 22/40 account that their appointment letters made it clear that they were appointed on a temporary contractual basis and would not be considered for regularization. 40. The learned Single Judge vide 3 (three) separate judgment and order which are impugned in the present Appeals directed regularization of the services of the Respondents in the present Appeals to the respective posts held by them. It is, however, relevant to take note of that insofar as the Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 37/2026 is concerned, the direction was issued to regularize her against the post of Personal Assistant to the Director of the Central Institute of Horticulture, Medziphema (now re-designated as Stenographer Grade-I). SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 41. Mr. B. Deka, the learned CGC appearing on behalf of the Appellants in the 3 (three) Writ Appeals submitted as follows: (i) Selection of permanent staff can be made through the UPSC only by a process of conducting examination and interviews. Therefore, the posts held by the Respondents in the Writ Appeals can only be filled up by regular selection process. Page No.# 23/40 (ii) The engagement of the Respondents in the present Appeals in the year 2009 was exclusively on terms and conditions that the engagement would be purely on a contractual basis, which the Respondents herein have also duly accepted. The Respondents in the 3 (three) Writ Appeals were aware right from the initiation that they were only temporarily engaged to the posts. (iii) The question of regularization of the Respondents herein does not arise at all because the Rules of 2007 prescribed appointment by deputation only, whereas the Rules of 2022 prescribe appointment by direct recruitment only. The Respondents further do not meet the various conditions laid down in the Recruitment Rules of 2007 as well as 2022. It was also contended that had the Respondents herein met the conditions of the Recruitment Rules of 2007 or 2022, they would still have to qualify and compete in the examination/screening/interview test conducted by the UPSC. (iv) Further, it was contended that the contractual appointments of the Respondents ought not to be regularized, as they were not appointed by following the proper selection procedure as per the various conditions of Page No.# 24/40 the Recruitment Rules. The Respondents are seeking regularization of the contractual periods against Group “A” posts (Pay Level-11 and Level-10), and not Group “C” and Group “D” posts. Group “A” posts can only be filled up by the UPSC. It was further contended that, if regularization is permitted to the Respondents, it would amount to backdoor entry into Government service and be in violation of equal opportunity in public employment. It was further contended that the Respondents never met the conditions of the initial Rules of 2007 and, if they are regularized, it would open the floodgates for other contractual employees all over India. (v) The learned counsel for the Appellants also submitted that the judgment rendered in the case of Union of India (supra) though was not interfered with by the Supreme Court but the said judgment was held by the Supreme Court to be a precedent. 42. On the other hand, Mr. T.B. Jamir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents in the Writ Appeals submitted that the Central Institute of Horticulture, Medziphema was established on 16.01.2006. The Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, had sanctioned 17 posts for setting up the Central Institute of Horticulture in Nagaland on Page No.# 25/40 23.06.2006. Subsequently, the Rules of 2007 were made. Except one post, i.e., the post of Director, none of the remaining 16 posts could be filled up in terms of the Rules of 2007. Resultantly, an Advertisement was issued on 13.02.2009 along with an Addendum dated 17.02.2009 which was circulated in various newspapers. Pursuant to a selection process conducted on 10th and 11th June, 2009, the Respondents in the present Writ Appeals were selected against sanctioned posts and thereupon the recommendations of the Selection Committee were sent to the Horticulture Commissioner, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. The Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture approved such selection, though on a temporary contractual basis. The Respondents in the present Appeals though appointed on a contractual basis were appointed against sanctioned posts of Marketing Specialist, Assistant Horticulture Specialist and Personal Assistant to the Director. The Respondents have continued to serve the Institute for the last 17 years as on date and therefore, they should be regularized. 43. The learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that the instant Appeals are not maintainable inasmuch as before the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the Appellants Page No.# 26/40 duly admitted that the Respondents in the present Appeals are similarly situated to the Respondents in the case of Union of India (supra). Under such circumstances, it does not lie in the mouth of the Appellants to contend that the Respondents in the 3 (three) Writ Appeals are not entitled to the relief of regularization. The learned counsel for the Respondents in that regard placed reliance on the Memo of Appeals as well as the impugned judgment and order where the said stand is apparent. 44. The learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that though the Supreme Court in the order dated 03.08.2026 held that the common judgment and order dated 07.04.2026 passed in the case of Union of India (supra) shall not be treated as a precedent, but taking into account that the Respondents in the present Appeals are similarly situated to the Respondents in the case of Union of India (supra), and the directions issued in the said judgment were not interfered with by the Supreme Court, any inequities situated would result if pari materia treatment is not granted in the present Appeals, and would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 45. The learned counsel for the Respondents further submitted that as on the date of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the order of the Supreme Court dated 03.08.2026 was Page No.# 27/40 not there and under such circumstances, the learned Single Judge was bound by law to follow the common judgment and order passed in Union of India (supra). Accordingly, there cannot be any ground to interfere with the impugned judgments and orders assailed in the present Appeals before this Court. 46. The learned counsel for the Respondents also referred to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhola Nath Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 129. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 47. On 16.01.2006, the Central Institute of Horticulture, Medziphema, Dimapur, Nagaland was established with the approval of the Union Cabinet. Subsequent thereto, on 23.06.2006, the Department of Expenditure (DoE), Ministry of Finance sanctioned 17 (seventeen) posts. A perusal of the said Sanction order would show that all the posts were required to be filled up by deputation/re-deployment basis. The sanction order further shows that the posts of Marketing Specialist/Economist, Assistant Horticulture Specialist and Personal Assistant to the Director were sanctioned posts. Page No.# 28/40 48. It is an admitted fact that in spite of various steps being taken, 16 (sixteen) out of 17 (seventeen) posts could not be filled up. Under such circumstances, it became unworkable for the Central Institute of Horticulture to function. 49. The Respondents in the case of Union of India (supra) were initially appointed temporarily on contractual basis pursuant to a selection in the year 2006 itself. 50. Subsequent thereto, the Rules of 2007 were made whereby all the posts were to be filled up by way of deputation including the posts of Marketing Specialist/Economist, Assistant Horticulture Specialist and Personal Assistant to the Director, the details of which have already been referred in the previous segments of our judgment. 51. As 16 (sixteen) out of 17 (seventeen) posts could not be filled up in terms with the Rules of 2007 and in order to make the Central Institute of Horticulture functional, an Advertisement on 13.02.2009 was issued inviting applications for various posts including the posts of Marketing Specialist and Assistant Horticulture Specialist to be filled up on contractual basis for a period of 6 (six) months or till regular appointment were made. Page No.# 29/40 Subsequently, vide Addendum dated 17.02.2009, the post of Personal Assistant to the Director was also advertised. 52. The Selection Committee which was to select the candidates for the advertised posts was approved by the Ministry of Agriculture vide letter No. 43-1/2008-Horti.IV-4 dated 15.12.2008. Subsequently, the said Selection Committee, which consisted of five members, i.e., (1) Director, Central Institute of Horticulture, Medziphema; (2) Director, DAC, Government of India, New Delhi; (3) Mission Director (HTM-NE), Department of Horticulture, Government of Nagaland; (4) Head, Division of Horticulture, ICAR, Barapani, Meghalaya; and (5) Lecturer, Department of Horticulture, SASRD, NU, interviewed the various candidates. 11 (eleven) candidates were called for interview for filling up the post of Marketing Specialists and out of them only 9 (nine) appeared and the Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 35/2026 was selected. For the 3 (three) posts of Assistant Horticulture Specialist, 19 (nineteen) candidates were called for interview, 14 (fourteen) appeared and the Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 36/2026 along Page No.# 30/40 with two others was selected. Insofar as the post of Personal Assistant to the Director was concerned, out of 9 (nine) candidates who were called for interview, 4 appeared. After further screening through shorthand and typing tests only 3 (three) top scorers were selected for oral interview. Thereupon, the Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 37/2026 was selected. 53. Subsequent thereto, the recommendations of the Selection Committee so constituted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India were sent to the Horticulture Commissioner, Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India vide communication dated 25.06.2009. 54. The Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture vide communication dated 19.11.2009 granted approval to the selection and observed that the services be purely on a short-term contract basis for 6 (six) months to be governed by bilateral contract agreements between the Government (CIH) and the individual. It was also mentioned that the Agreement should contain the conditions/TORs of the said contract specifying clearly the financial obligations/liability and Page No.# 31/40 such other terms and conditions on the part of the Government to remain in force for the period under the contract. 55. Subsequent thereto, all the Respondents in the present Appeals along with others were issued respective offers of appointment dated 27.11.2009. It was stipulated in the offers of appointment that the appointments were purely temporary for a period of 6 (six) months only from the date of joining. 56. The records further reveal that the services of the Respondents in the Writ Appeals were extended from time to time and presently as submitted by Mr. B. Deka, the learned CGC, the Respondents herein continue to render service. 57. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that the Respondents in the Writ Appeals were engaged on 27.11.2009 pursuant to a due and lawful selection procedure. They are being continued in the sanctioned posts for the last 17 (seventeen) years as contractual employees. The affidavit filed by the Appellants in the writ proceedings shows that out of 16 (sixteen) posts only 2 (two) posts could be filled up. One in the year 2024 and the other in the year 2025. The remaining posts could not be filled up. Page No.# 32/40 58. In the backdrop of the above, the issue which we are required to adjudicate is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in passing directions to regularize the services of the Respondents in the Writ Appeals. 59. Let us first consider as to whether the Respondents in the Writ Appeals are entitled for regularization of their services. The facts delineated above would show that the Respondents herein were appointed on contractual basis after due and lawful selection as far back as in the year 2009 and they have already rendered 17 years of service. In this regard, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhola Nath (Supra), wherein the Supreme Court formulated at paragraph No. 8 of the said Judgment two issues of which the Issue No. II pertains to whether the action/inaction of the Respondent State in not recognizing the continuous service of Appellants therein for the purpose of regularization was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 60. The Supreme Court observed that when employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual basis for a considerable length of time, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would, at some stage, Page No.# 33/40 recognize their long and continuous service. It was further observed that repeated extensions granted by the Executive, bolster the hopes and aspirations of such employees to continue in service and refrain from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement. The Supreme Court further observed that under such circumstances, it results in a legitimate expectation. Paragraph No. 13 of the said Judgment is reproduced herein under: “13. Another facet requiring consideration in the case of contractual employees, such as the present appellants, is the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Where employees have continued to discharge their duties on contractual posts for a considerable length of time, as in the present case, it is but natural that a legitimate expectation arises that the State would, at some stage, recognize their long and continuous service. It is in this belief, bolstered by repeated extensions granted by the Executive, that such employees continue in service and refrain from seeking alternative employment, notwithstanding the contractual nature of their engagement.At this juncture, it is thus apposite to advert to the principles governing the doctrine of legitimate expectation as enunciated by this Court in Army Welfare Education Society v. Sunil Kumar Sharma, 8 wherein it was held as follows: - “63. A reading of the aforesaid decisions brings forth the following features regarding the doctrine of legitimate expectation: 63.1. First, legitimate expectation must be based on a right as opposed to a mere hope, wish or anticipation; Page No.# 34/40 63.2. Secondly, legitimate expectation must arise either from an express or implied promise; or a consistent past practice or custom followed by an authority in its dealings; . . . 63.5. Fifthly, legitimate expectation operates in the realm of public law, that is, a plea of legitimate action can be taken only when a public authority breaches a promise or deviates from a consistent past practice, without any reasonable basis. . . . 64. The aforesaid features, although not exhaustive in nature, are sufficient to help us in deciding the applicability of the doctrine of legitimate expectation to the facts of the case at hand. It is clear that legitimate expectation, jurisprudentially, was a device created in order to maintain a check on arbitrariness in State action. It does not extend to and cannot govern the operation of contracts between private parties, wherein the doctrine of promissory estoppel holds the field.” It is, therefore, not difficult to comprehend the expectation with which such contractual employees continue in the service of the State. The repeated conduct of the employer-State in expressing confidence in their performance and consistently granting monetary upgrades & tenure extensions reasonably nurtures an expectation that their long and continuous service would receive further recognition.” 61. The Supreme Court further observed in the context of the Page No.# 35/40 facts before the Supreme Court that the Appellants therein were engaged into the sanctioned post since the year 2012 and it was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the Respondent State communicated that no further extension of the Appellants’ engagement were likely to be granted. It was observed in that context by the Supreme Court that the said actions were not only vitiated by arbitrariness, but also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. Paragraph Nos. 13.2 and 13.3 being relevant are reproduced herein under: “13.2. In the present case, the respondent-State had engaged the services of the appellants on sanctioned posts since the year 2012. It was only towards the end of the year 2022 that the respondents communicated that no further extension of the appellants’ engagement was likely to be granted. 13.3. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid action is not only vitiated by arbitrariness but is also in clear derogation of the equality principles enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. The respondent-State initially engaged the appellants in their youth to discharge public duties and functions. Having rendered long and dedicated service, the appellants cannot now be left to fend for themselves, particularly when the employment opportunities that may have been available to them a decade ago are no longer accessible owing to age constraints.” 62. Going back to the facts involved in the instant cases, we find Page No.# 36/40 that the Respondents in the present Writ Appeals were appointed pursuant to valid selection procedure preceded by an Advertisement in the year 2009 to sanctioned posts and they having been continuing in their posts since then till date as would appear from the undisputed materials on record. There are also no materials placed that the Respondents in the present Appeals are not qualified to hold the posts presently held by them. These Respondents have given years of their life to the Central Institute of Horticulture since a time when the very working of the Central Institute of Horticulture was at stake as no person would be interested to come on deputation to the Central Institute of Horticulture. Insofar as the Respondent in W.A. No. 35/2026, he was even shortlisted for interview along with another out of various candidates pursuant to the Advertisement No. 2/2023 and thereupon the Union Public Service Commission informed that the recruitment process was given up. In the meantime, the Respondents in the present Appeals have crossed the age limit. 63. Considering the above, we are of the opinion that the Respondents in the present batch of Appeals are entitled to regularization of their services and denying such rights to the Respondents in the Writ Appeals would not be in consonance Page No.# 37/40 with the equality principles guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. We also find it relevant to take note of paragraph No. 14 of the judgment in the case of Bhola Nath (Supra) which is also extracted hereinunder: “14. In light of our discussion, in the foregoing paragraphs, we summarize our conclusions as follows: I. The respondent-State was not justified in continuing the appellants on sanctioned vacant posts for over a decade under the nomenclature of contractual engagement and thereafter denying them consideration for regularization. II. Abrupt discontinuance of such long-standing engagement solely on the basis of contractual nomenclature, without either recording cogent reasons or passing a speaking order, is manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. III. Contractual stipulations purporting to bar claims for regularization cannot override constitutional guarantees. Acceptance of contractual terms does not amount to waiver of fundamental rights, and contractual stipulations cannot immunize arbitrary State action from constitutional scrutiny. IV. The State, as a model employer, cannot rely on contractual labels or mechanical application of Umadevi (supra) to justify prolonged ad- hocism or to discard long-serving employees in a manner inconsistent with fairness, dignity and constitutional governance. Page No.# 38/40 V. In view of the foregoing discussion, we direct the respondent-State to forthwith regularize the services of all the appellants against the sanctioned posts to which they were initially appointed. The appellants shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of this judgment.” 64. In the backdrop of the above, we are therefore of the opinion that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order passed in the 3 (three) writ petitions assailed in the present Appeals is in consonance with the directions passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bhola Nath (supra). 65. We also take note that at the time when the learned Single Judge passed the impugned judgment and order in the 3 (three) writ proceedings, i.e., on 19.05.2026, the order of the Supreme Court dated 03.08.2026 was not available and as such, the judgment of the learned Coordinate Bench dated 07.04.2026 in the case of Union of India (supra) was binding upon the learned Single Judge. 66. We are also of the view that the Respondents in the present Appeals are similarly situated to the Respondents in the case of Union of India (supra). The Supreme Court in the order dated 03.08.2026 did not interfere with the directions passed in the common judgment and order dated 07.04.2026 in the case Page No.# 39/40 of Union of India (supra). The resultant effect is that the Respondents in the case of Union of India (supra) by now have been regularized or in the process of being regularized. The Respondents in the present Appeals are in the homogenous class with that of the Respondents in the case of Union of India (supra) and not passing a direction for regularization in favour of the Respondents in the present Appeals would result in violation of the equality Clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. CONCLUSIONS 67. Accordingly, we dispose of the present Appeals with the following observations and directions: (i) The impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 304/2024 is not interfered with. (ii) The impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 305/2024 is not interfered with. (iii) The impugned judgment and order dated 19.05.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 310/2024 is not interfered with. (iv) The Appellants in the present Writ Appeals are directed to forthwith regularize the services of the Respondents in the instant Writ Appeals against the sanctioned posts to Page No.# 40/40 which they were appointed. For the sake of clarity, we observe that the services of the Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 35/2026 shall be regularized against the sanctioned post of Marketing Specialist/Economist. The Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 36/2026 shall be regularized against the sanctioned post of Assistant Horticulture Specialist. The Respondent in Writ Appeal No. 37/2026 shall be regularized against the post of Stenographer Grade-I inasmuch as the post of Personal Assistant to the Director has been re- designated. (v) The Respondents in the instant Writ Appeals shall be entitled to all consequential service benefits accruing from the date of passing of the impugned judgments and orders in the Writ Petitions by the learned Single Judge, i.e., 19.05.2026. (vi) The process of regularization shall be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of the present judgment. (vii) There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant