Page No.# 1/28 GAHC020007792024 2026:GAU-NL:304 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/294/2024 K. AVIKA ACHUMI AND 10 ORS DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT, SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP KOHIMA NAGALAND 2: T. YIMLI KHUMZUK DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND 3: KULU KEZO DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE PHEK NAGALAND 4: EKONTHUNG EZUNG DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE MON NAGALAND 5: VIZOVOLIE VIVIAN SOLO EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP NAGALAND KOHIMA 6: SEKHOSAYI VERO DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE PHEK NAGALAND 7: JOHN ANAR Page No.# 2/28 DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE TUENSANG NAGALAND 8: KAHOTO DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND 9: NIBIZO NAGI DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DISTRICT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE DIMAPUR NAGALAND 10: LHOUSIENUO CHUCHA EMPLOYMENT OFFICER REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE KOHIMA NAGALAND 11: VIBEITUONUO RUPRE O EMPLOYMENT OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF EMPLOYMENT SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP NAGALAND KOHIM VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY P AND AR DEPT. NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP NAGALAND KOHIMA 5:ER. H. ALONGSE JOINT DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT Page No.# 3/28 SKILL DEVELOPMENT AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP NAGALAND KOHIM BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Zho, Sr. Advocate Mr. Taka Kichu, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. I. Imsong, Addl. A.G. Mr. N. Mozhui, Advocate Date on which judgment was reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 26.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment? : NA Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. A. Zho, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Taka Kichu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners and Mr. Imti Imsong, the learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. N. Mozhui, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No.5. 2. The Petitioners herein who are working in the Employment Page No.# 4/28 Wing of the Nagaland Employment and Craftsmen Training Services (Class-I and Class-II) and the Subordinate Employment and Craftsmen Training Services (hereinafter referred to as, “the Services”) have approached this Court seeking a writ in the nature of quo warranto for setting aside and quashing the promotional order dated 20.05.2024 whereby the Respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Joint Director. 3. The Petitioner No. 1 is working in the capacity of Deputy Director whereas the other Petitioners are working in the Employment Wing of the Services in various other capacities. 4. Taking into account that the Petitioners herein have sought for a writ in the nature of quo warranto, this Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of University of Mysore Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao & Another reported in 1963 SCC OnLine SC 15. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the said judgment delineated as to when a citizen can claim a writ in the nature of quo warranto. There are two conditions to be fulfilled. First, the citizen must satisfy the Court inter alia that the office in question is a public office and secondly, that the said public office is held by usurper without legal authority and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged Page No.# 5/28 usurper had been made in accordance with law or not. Paragraph No.6 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “6. The judgment of the High Court does not indicate that the attention of the High Court was drawn to the technical nature of the writ of quo warranto which was claimed by the respondent in the present proceedings, and the conditions which had to be satisfied before a writ could issue in such proceedings. As Halsbury has observed: "An information in the nature of a quo warranto took the place of the obsolate writ of quo warranto which lay against a person who claimed or usurped an office, franchise, or liberty, to enquire by what authority he supported his claim, in order that the right to the office or franchise might be determined." Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affords a judicial enquiry in which any person holding an independent substantive public office, or franchise, or liberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds the said office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads to the finding that the holder of the office has no valid title to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts him from that office. In other words, the procedure of quo warranto confers jurisdiction and authority on the judiciary to control executive action in the matter of making appointments to public offices against the relevant statutory provisions; it also protects a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he may have a right. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings are adopted subject to the conditions recognised in that behalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office; in some cases, persons, not entitled to public office may be allowed to occupy them and to continue to hold them as a result of the Page No.# 6/28 connivance of the executive or with its active help, and in such cases, if the jurisdiction of the courts to issue writ of quo warranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be ousted and the person entitled to the post allowed to occupy it. It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ of quo warranto, he must satisfy the court, inter alia, that the office in question is a public office and is held by usurper without legal authority, and that necessarily leads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the said alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not.” 5. In the backdrop of the above principles, let this Court proceed to adjudicate the present lis. CONSPECTUS OF FACTS 6. The Services i.e. the Nagaland Employment and Craftsmen Training Services (Class-I and Class-II) and the Subordinate Employment and Craftsmen Training Services are regulated by the Nagaland Employment and Craftsmen Training Service and Nagaland Subordinate Employment and Craftsmen Training Service Rules, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as, “the Rules of 1998”). 7. Rule 2 of the Rules of 1998 contains the various definitions. 8. Rule 3 of the Rules of 1998 stipulates the Constitution of Services. The said Rule being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “3. Constitution of Service: The service shall consist of the following Wings headed by Director and under Page No.# 7/28 the Wing of the following categories of posts shall be consisted. Director (Class-I) Selection Grade (A) Employment Wing: I. Nagaland Employment Service (Class-I) (a) Senior Grade-I:Joint Director (b) Senior Grade-II: Deputy Director/Regional Employment Officer (c) Junior Grade: Assistant Director/District Employment Officer II. Nagaland Employment Service (Class-II) (a) Employment Officer III. Nagaland Subordinate Employment Service (Class-III Non Gazette) Technical Assistant (B) Craftsmen Training Wing I. Nagaland Craftsmen Training Service (Class-I) (a) Senior Grade-I:Joint Director (b) Senior Grade-II: Deputy Director/Principal Senior Grade (c) Junior Grade: Assistant Director/Principal II. Nagaland Craftsmen Training Service (Class- II) (a) :Vice Principal III. Nagaland Craftsmen Training Subordinate Service (Class-III Non Gazette) (a) Foreman/Mill Wright Foreman/Related Instructor/Group Instructor. (b) Senior Instructor (C) Trade Instructor 9. From a perusal of the above quoted Rule, it would show that in the Services, there are 2 (two) Wings. One is the Employment Wing and the other is the Craftsmen Training Wing. Rule 3(A) of the Rules of 1998 deals with the Employment Wing and the various posts envisaged in the Employment Wing. Rule 3(B) relates to the Craftsmen Training Wing and the various posts brought within the fold of the Craftsmen Training Wing. Page No.# 8/28 Rule 3(A)I(a) of the Rules of 1998 envisages the post of Joint Director in the Employment Wing and similarly Rule 3(B)I(a) of the Rules of 1998 conceptualizes the post of Joint Director in the Craftsmen Training Wing. 10. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998 refers to the Strength of Service. The said Rule is relevant for the purpose of the instant dispute and as such, the same is reproduced hereinunder: “4. STRENGTH OF SERVICE: (a) The number of posts permanent as well as temporary under each wing and category shall such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. (b) On the Commencement of these Rules, the strength of the service permanent as well as temporary together with the scale of pay attached to the posts has been shown against each in Schedule-I (a) & (b), provided that the number of posts both permanent as well as temporary under each wing by the Govt. from time to time.” 11. From a perusal of the above quoted Rule, it would show that in terms with Sub-Rule (a) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998, the number of posts permanent as well as temporary under each Wing i.e. the Employment Wing as well as the Craftsmen Training Wing and the category shall be such as may be determined by the Government from time to time. In other words, the Government had been authorized to determine the Page No.# 9/28 numbers of posts, both permanent and temporary in both the Wings. This aspect is important as the said Sub-Rule empowers the Government to determine the requirement and if so necessary to create/abandon/upgrade etc., taking into account the administrative exigency. Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998 stipulates that the strength of the Services permanent as well as temporary together with the scale of pay attached to the posts as on the date of commencement of the Rules of 1998. The said aspect is discernable from Schedule-I(A) and Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998, which provides the posts which were created in the two Wings of the Services in existence as on the date, the Rules of 1998 came into force. The said Sub-Rule also authorizes the Government to determine the number of posts, both permanent as well as temporary under each Wing by the Government from time to time. 12. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1998 is very relevant for the purpose of the present dispute inasmuch as Rule 5 stipulates the method of recruitment, qualification etc. The said Rule 5 of the Rules of 1998, being relevant is reproduced hereinunder: “5. METHOD OF RECRUITMENT QUALIFICATION ETC. (a) Subject to provision in Schedule-II recruitment to the Service after Page No.# 10/28 Commencement of these Rules shall be made by the following methods viz. (a) by direct recruitment (b) by promotion of persons in the corresponding lower grade. (c) The Educational Qualification and other conditions for recruitment to the posts in the service shall be specified in Schedule-II.” 13. Rule 5(a) of the Rules of 1998 categorically mentions that the recruitment to the Services has to be made in terms with the manner stipulated in Schedule II. It could be either by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion of persons from the corresponding lower grade. The educational qualifications and other conditions which are necessary for recruitment to the posts of the Services were required to be specified in Schedule-II. 14. Let this Court now take note of the Schedules to the Rules of 1998 and more particularly Schedule-I(A), Schedule-I(B), Schedule-II(A) and Schedule-II(B). 15. Schedule-I(A) of the Rules of 1998 relates to the post, status, scale of pay, number of posts (permanent or temporary) in the Employment Wing of the Services. It is pertinent to observe that the post of Joint Director have been mentioned at Serial No.2 and shown as a temporary post. 16. Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998 is in respect to the Page No.# 11/28 posts, status, scale of pay, number of posts (permanent and temporary) in the Craftsmen Training Wing of the Services. Notable herein to mention that Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998 do not contain the post of a Joint Director. At this stage, if this Court relates back to Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 1998, it would show that the Schedule-I(A) and Schedule-I(B) refers to the strength of the Services as on the date, the Rules of 1998 came into force. At the cost of repetition, this Court reiterates that Schedule-I(A) and Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998 refers to the posts which were created and in existence on the date, the Rules of 1998 came into force. 17. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1998 though stipulates that the recruitment would be made in terms with Schedule-II of the Rules of 1998, but it appears that taking into account that there are 2 (two) Wings, Schedule II have been sub-divided into Schedule-II(A) and Schedule-II(B). 18. Schedule-II(A) of the Rules of 1998 pertains to the recruitment, qualification, etc. insofar as the Employment Wing is concerned. A perusal of Schedule-II(A) of the Rules of 1998 shows various posts including the post of Joint Director. The said post of Joint Director, as per the eligibility and conditions stipulated for promotion, is to be made from the confirmed Page No.# 12/28 officers mentioned in Rule 3(A)I(b) of the Rules of 1998, provided that the officer had completed qualifying and continuous service of 3 years in that grade on the first day of the year on merit-cum-seniority basis. 19. Schedule-II(B) of the Rules of 1998 is in respect to the Craftsmen Training Wing wherein also there is a post of Joint Director to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the confirmed officers as mentioned under Rule 3(B)I(b) of the Rules of 1998, provided that the officer had completed qualifying and continuous service of 3 years in that grade on the first day of the year on merit-cum-seniority basis. 20. In the backdrop of the above, it is the case of the Petitioners in the present writ petition that in terms with Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998, the post of the Deputy Director for Craftsmen Training Wing is the last promotional post. However, in contravention of the Rules of 1998 as well as the order dated 20.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.261/2021, the Respondent Authorities vide the impugned Notification dated 28.02.2024 had given officiating promotion to the Respondent No.5 to the post of Joint Director who hails from the Craftsmen Training Wing of the Services. It is also alleged in the writ petition that the Respondent No.5 who was granted officiating Page No.# 13/28 promotion was thereupon regularized on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) vide order dated 20.05.2024. The Petitioners alleged that the impugned regularization order dated 20.05.2024 is illegal as the Respondent No.5 was transferred from the Craftsmen Training Wing to the Employment Wing. 21. The records reveal that pursuant to the filing of the present writ petition, the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court vide an order dated 03.12.2024 issued notice, but did not pass any interim directions except observing that the promotion of the Respondent No.5 to the post of Joint Director would be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 22. The records reveal that the State Respondents have filed their affidavit-in-opposition pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 21.11.2025 wherein it is mentioned that there is a proposal to amend the Rules of 1998 inasmuch as not permitting a person from the Craftsmen Training Wing to the post of Director was discriminatory. In that regard, it was stated that a Draft Amendment Rules had already been prepared in the year 2026 whereby the defect in Schedule-II of the Rules of 1998 was sought to be rectified. The State Respondents also stated that steps were taken by them in the line of the proposed Draft Page No.# 14/28 Amendment Rules of 2026. Referring to the order dated 20.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.261/2021, it was averred that the said order does not hold the field in respect to the promotion of the Respondent No.5. The Rules of 1998 as well as the Draft Amended Rules so prepared in the year 2026 were enclosed as Annexures to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State Respondents. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the State Respondents would show that affidavit is vague and do not deal with the issue in the manner, the State Respondents were required to do. 23. The Respondent No.5 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition which is of relevance. The Respondent No. 5 justifies his promotion to the post of Joint Director. Emphasis was laid on Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5 and Schedule-II(B) of the Rules of 1998. It was mentioned that the Government in exercise of the powers under Rule 4(a) of the Rules of 1998 have created the post of Joint Director vide a notification dated 16.01.2015 by upgrading the post of Deputy Director. In that regard, reference was made to the Notification dated 16.01.2015 which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition. 24. The record further reveals that the Petitioners have also filed affidavits-in-reply to both the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Page No.# 15/28 the State Respondents as well as the Respondent No.5. 25. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Petitioners to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it was stated that the Rules of 1998, unless it is amended, in accordance with law still holds the field. The Drafts Amended Rules, 2026 are yet to be given effect to and no action could be taken on the basis of the Draft Amended Rules, 2026. Moreover, it is mentioned that the Respondent No.5 was appointed in the year 2024 to the post of the Joint Director and it was misconceived on the part of the State Respondents to state that on the basis of the Draft Amended Rules, 2026, the Respondent No. 5 was promoted. 26. In the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Petitioners to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No.5, it was mentioned that Schedule-I(A) of the Rules of 1998 shows the total strength of the manpower and posts creation with scale of pay up to the post of Director in the Employment Wing while Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998 shows the total strength of the manpower and posts creation with scale of pay up to the post of Deputy Director in the Craftsmen Training Wing. Schedule-II(A) of the Rules of 1998 vide Rule 5 deals with the Employment Wing for promotion of the officers in the Page No.# 16/28 Employment Wing which can go up to the post of Director whereas Schedule-II(B) of the Rules of 1998 vide Rule 5 deals with Craftsmen Training Wing wherein officers can go up to the post of Joint Director and the same has already been decided in WP(C) No. 261/2021 vide order dated 20.09.2023. 27. In addition to that, it is also mentioned that though a provision was made for the Craftsmen Training Wing under Schedule-II(B) of the Rules of 1998 for the post of Joint Director, no such post creation has been done till date and as such, the upgraded post belonged to the Employment Wing. In that regard, reference was also made to the RTI reply dated 17.04.2026 wherein information was provided regarding the post creation and upgraded status till 17.04.2026 in respect to the Employment Wing as well as the Craftsmen Training Wing. SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR THE PARTIES 28. Mr. A. Zho, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Petitioners submitted that a conjoint reading of Rule 3, Rule 4, Rule 5 as well as Schedule-I(A) and Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998 would show that no post of Joint Director in the Craftsmen Training Wing was ever created and as such, the very appointment of the Respondent No. 5, to the post of Joint Page No.# 17/28 Director, Craftsmen Training Wing is absolutely illegal and unauthorized, for which, this Court may issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto. 29. Elaborating his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners drew the attention of this Court to Schedule-I(A) of the Rules of 1998 and submitted that the post of the Joint Director is clearly shown, whereas a perusal of Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998 would show that there is no post of Joint Director. The highest promotional post in Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998 is the post of Deputy Director. The learned Senior Counsel further referred to Annexure-B to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Petitioners against the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No. 5, which is the RTI reply dated 17.04.2026, and submitted that no post of Joint Director in the Craftsmen Training Wing was ever created. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the post of the Deputy Director from the Employment Wing was upgraded to the post of Joint Director vide the Notification dated 16.01.2015. 30. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the stand which has been taken by the Respondent Authorities is an absurd stand inasmuch as how is it possible that the Respondent No. 5 was promoted in the year 2024 when admittedly the Draft Page No.# 18/28 Amended Rules were made in the year 2026. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the Draft Amended Rules, 2026 is yet to see the light of the day and as such the same has no effect. In that regard, the learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India, through Govt. of Pondicherry & Another Vs. V. Ramakrishnan & Others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 394 and specifically referred to paragraph Nos. 26 and 28 which stipulates that a Rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India continues to hold the field, unless, the said Rules are not repealed or modified. The modification of the said Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has to be done in the same manner in which the Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have been made. 31. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners also submitted that the fact that there was no creation of the post of Joint Director in the Craftsmen Training Wing is not only apparent from the reply to the RTI dated 17.04.2026, but also is apparent from a reading of paragraph No. 65 of the order of the learned Division Bench of this Court dated 20.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 261/2021. 32. Mr. I. Imsong, the learned Additional Advocate General Page No.# 19/28 appearing on behalf of the State Respondents submitted that the Rules of 1998 are discriminatory in nature and it is under such circumstances, steps have been taken for modifying the Rules of 1998 by the Draft Amendment Rules, 2026. The learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that keeping in mind the Draft Amendment Rules, 2026, the Respondent No. 5 was promoted to the post of Joint Director. 33. Mr. N. Mozhui, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 submitted that a combined reading of Rules 3, 4, and 5 of the Rules of 1998 would show that the post of Joint Director is there in the Craftsmen Training Wing of the Services. Schedule-I(A) and Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998 were made at the time when the Rules came into effect in the year 1998. The learned counsel submitted that the power has been conferred upon the State Government to vary or change the said Schedule-I(A) and Schedule-I(B) in terms with Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998, and as such, the State Government had in exercise of the powers under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998, had upgraded the post of the Deputy Director to the post of Joint Director vide the Notification dated 16.01.2015. The learned counsel further submitted that the present case is not a fit case for issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto without there being a challenge to the action on the part of the Respondent Page No.# 20/28 Authorities in upgrading the post of the Deputy Director of the Employment Wing to the post of the Joint Director of the Craftsmen Training Wing. 34. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 further submitted that once the post has been created vide the Notification dated 16.01.2015, there is no mention that the said post again has been reverted back to the post of Deputy Director. The person who was asked to man the post of Joint Director, vide the Notification dated 16.01.2015 was specifically asked only to look into the Craftsmen Training Wing and not to the Employment Wing. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that without any challenge to such creation, the question of Respondent No. 5 being a usurper upon appointment to the post of Joint Director does not arise and as such, the instant writ petition is misconceived. 35. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 in reply to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners that there was no creation of the post of Joint Director in Craftsmen Training Wing as observed by the learned Division Bench in the order dated 20.09.2023 in WP(C) No. 261/2021, submitted that the said observations would have no effect in the present litigation. He submitted that such Page No.# 21/28 observations can at best be said to be an obiter dictum inasmuch as the issue involved before the learned Division Bench in WP(C) No. 261/2021 was whether the Rules of 1998, more particularly Schedule-I(B) thereof, were ultra vires the Constitution for not taking into consideration the case of persons employed in the Craftsmen Training Wing. The learned counsel further submitted that any such observations, being obiter dictum, the same would not apply as a precedent upon this Court for deciding the present case. In that regard, the learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Others reported in AIR 1955 SC 661 as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B. Shama Rao Vs. The Union Territory of Pondicherry reported in 1967 SCC OnLine SC 29. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION 36. The scope of the present proceedings is whether this Court in the facts of the present case is required to exercise the powers of a writ in the nature of quo warranto. 37. The two preconditions for exercise of the writ of quo warranto are that the office in question is a public office, and the person who is appointed to the said public office is a usurper, having no authority to hold that office. Page No.# 22/28 38. In the foregoing paragraphs of the instant judgment, this Court had dealt with Rules 2, 3, 4, and 5 read with Schedule- I(A), Schedule-I(B), Schedule-II(A), and Schedule-II(B) of the Rules of 1998. From a perusal of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1998, it is apparent that the post of Joint Director is envisaged in the Craftsmen Training Wing. Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 1998 further makes it clear that Schedule-I(A) and Schedule-I(B) reflects the strength of the service, both permanent and temporary, together with the scale of pay attached to the posts, as created and in existence as on the date on which the Rules of 1998 came into force. It further stipulates that the number of posts, both permanent and temporary, may be determined by the Government from time to time under each Wing. This position is further made explicit by Rule 4(a), which empowers the Government to determine, from time to time, the number of posts, whether permanent or temporary, under each Wing and Category. The Government is hence empowered under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998 to vary the number of permanent and temporary posts in each Wing of the Services, but the categories thereof may also be determined by the Government from time to time. Therefore, solely on the basis of Schedule-I(A) and Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998, the present dispute cannot be decided, inasmuch as the said Schedules merely reflect the Page No.# 23/28 number of posts created and in existence as on 01.01.1998, i.e., the date, the Rules of 1998 came in force. It may not be out of place to observe that as on date, a post of Additional Director is functioning in the Employment Wing. But the Rules of 1998 as well as the Schedules to the Rules of 1998 are silent on the said aspect. 39. There is no quarrel with the fact that on the date when the Rules of 1998 were given effect to, there was no post of Joint Director in the Craftsmen Training Wing created and, therefore, the same could not have been included within the ambit of Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998. However, insofar as the Employment Wing is concerned, posts of both Director and Joint Director were created and in existence and accordingly, the posts of Director and Joint Director were mentioned in Schedule-I(A) of the Rules of 1998. 40. Be that as it may, Rule 3 of the Rules of 1998 would clearly show that the post of Joint Director in the Craftsmen Training Wing is envisaged in the Rules of 1998. This aspect would be further clear from Schedule-II(B) inasmuch as in Schedule-II(B), the post of the Joint Director is mentioned. In other words, a reading of the Rules 3, 4, 5, as well as the Schedules of the Rules of 1998, would show that the post of the Joint Director Page No.# 24/28 had been envisaged in the Craftsmen Training Wing though at the time, the Rules of 1998 were made and brought into effect, the post of the Joint Director was not created, which would be apparent from Schedule-I(B). 41. This Court now finds it very pertinent to take note of the submissions made by Mr. A. Zho, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners who submitted that the post of the Joint Director which was created by upgrading the post of Deputy Director was from the Employment Wing, and the person who was promoted vide the Notification dated 16.01.2015 was the Senior most Deputy Director belonging to the Employment Wing and therefore, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the post of the Joint Director was always within the Employment Wing of the Services. 42. This Court has duly taken note of the said Notification dated 16.01.2015, and a perusal of the said Notification reveals, amongst others, is that the post of the Deputy Director was upgraded to the post of Joint Director, and that person was specifically asked to man the Craftsmen Training Wing and not the Employment Wing. The manner in which the Government had chosen to determine/use the post of Joint Director by allowing a person from the Employment Wing to man the Page No.# 25/28 Craftsmen Training Wing, appears to be done in consonance with the powers reserved upon the Government under Rule 4(a) and Rule 4(b) of the Rules of 1998. In other words, the Government has interchangeably used the person from the Employment Wing to carry out functions as a Joint Director of the Craftsmen Training Wing. 43. The question, under such circumstances, is as to whether the Respondent No. 5, being allowed to officiate and thereafter being regularized to the post of the Joint Director which was created and to look after the Craftsmen Training Wing can be said to be a usurper. In the opinion of this Court, the same cannot be, unless, the Rules of 1998 categorically debarred the State Government from determining the posts, permanent and temporary under each Wing or category. Rather, Rule 4(a) of the Rules of 1998 confers such power. 44. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to take note of certain fundamentals of service law. There is a distinction between envisaging/describing/defining a post in the Service Rules and creation of a post envisaged in the Service Rules. 45. When a post is defined, described or envisaged within the framework of the Service Rules, the post exists only in theory or on paper within the framework of the Rules. It is relevant to Page No.# 26/28 mention that merely because a post is mentioned in the Service Rules, it does not necessarily mean the post has been sanctioned or brought into existence by a Government order. On the other hand, creation of a post by the Government in terms with Service Rules refers to a post that has been actually sanctioned and brought into existence by a formal Government order in conformity with the Service Rules. 46. The above principles upon being applied to the Rules of 1998 would show that Rule 3 of the Rules of 1998 envisages the post of Joint Director in the Craftsmen Training Wing. Rules 4(a) and 4(b) of the Rules of 1998 empowers the Government to determine the permanent and temporary posts in each Wing and Categories which have been already created and in existence as well as to determine in future. A combined reading of Rule 4(b) with Schedule-I(A) and Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998 would show that as on the date of the coming of the Rules of 1998, the posts which were created and in existence were mentioned in Schedule-I(A) and Schedule-I(B) of the Rules of 1998. The post of Joint Director in the Craftsmen Training Wing was admittedly not created when the Rules of 1998 came into force. Be that as it may, it cannot be said that the Rules of 1998 do not envisage the post of Joint Director in the Craftsmen Training Wing. At this Page No.# 27/28 stage, it is also apposite to observe that the term “determine” is of wide importance. It means create/abandon/fix/upgrade. This power is conferred upon the Government by Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998, taking into account the Government has to be granted the free play on account of administrative exigency. 47. In the instant case, it would be seen that the post of the Deputy Director, Employment Wing was upgraded to the post of Joint Director by the Government of Nagaland vide Notification dated 16.01.2015 in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 4 of the Rules of 1998. There is nothing on record to show that the post would revert after the person retirement or, for that matter that the post was reverted some time later. This post was allowed to be filled up by the Respondent No. 5 on promotion. The question as to whether the Respondent Authorities were justified in upgrading the post of the Deputy Director, Employment wing to the post of Joint Director and allowing the Respondent No. 5 to occupy on promotion is not the subject matter of the present challenge. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Respondent No. 5 is a usurper to the post of Joint Director. 48. Let this Court further take note of the submissions made by Mr. A. Zho, the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners as Page No.# 28/28 regards the observation of the learned Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 20.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 261/2021. 49. It may not be out of place to mention that a perusal of the order dated 20.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 261/2021 would show that the vires of the Rules of 1998 were challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires the Constitution of India. The learned Division Bench was only called upon to answer, as to whether the Rules of 1998, were ultra vires the Constitution. Any observation as regards the creation of the post or not, in the opinion of this Court, would not only fall within the ambit of obiter dictum, but would also attract the mischief of the doctrine of sub silentio and as such, the said observations would not be binding upon this Court. 50. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the instant writ petition, for which the same stands dismissed. 51. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant