WA 246/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C. R. SARMA (Ansari,J) Heard Mr. S. S. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mrs. T. Khro, l earned Addl. Senior Govt. Advocate, Nagaland. By a writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the app ellant put to challenge the notification, dated 17th October, 1997, issued by th e Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Industries and Commerce , promoting respondent Nos.4 and 5 along with 7 others from the posts of Assista nt Director/Functional Manager to the posts of Deputy Director/ General Manager, on officiating basis, but with retrospective effect, i.e. with effect from 30th of October, 1991, in order to protect and restore the seniority of the persons, who were promoted, after the present appellant, who had been, in terms of a dec ision of the State Cabinet, promoted to the post of Deputy Director, on officiat ing basis, as far back as on 30th November, 1991. This writ petition, which gave rise to WP(C) No.179(K)/2010, was resisted on the ground that though respondent Nos.4, 5 and 7 others were senior to the appellant in the rank of Assistant Dir ector, the appellant was given the benefit of officiating promotion to the rank of Deputy Director by notification, dated 30th October, 1991, without considerin g the cases of the respondent Nos.4, 5 and the said 7. The writ petition was dis posed of, on 08.03.2011, by a learned Single Judge of this Court with direction to the State respondents to finalise the gradation list of the members of the De partment of Industries and Commerce. Aggrieved by the fact that the writ petitio n was disposed of without a specific direction given to the State respondents to treat the appellant as senior, in the rank of Deputy Director, to the responden t Nos.4, 5 and the said 7 others, the present appeal has been preferred. While considering the appellant’s case, it needs to be noted that the order, dat ed 30th October, 1991, whereby he had been promoted to the post of Deputy Direct or, was on officiating basis. As the appellant had been promoted on officiating basis, the promotion could not have vested, and did not vest, in the petitioner, an indefeasible right to be treated as senior to the respondent Nos.4, 5 and th e said 7 others. If the appellant was junior to the respondent Nos.4, 5 and the said 7 others, in the rank of Assistant Director, the mere fact that he was prom oted earlier, on officiating basis, to the post of Deputy Director, could not ha ve made him senior to the remaining persons. Whether the appellant was, or was n ot, in the rank of Assistant Director, senior to the respondent Nos.4, 5 and the said 7 others is a question of fact and, interestingly enough, the appellant di d not bring on record any material to show that on the date, when he was promote d, on officiating basis, to the post of Deputy Director, he was senior to the ot her persons aforementioned. In such circumstances, as indicated above, the direction, which the learned Sing le Judge has given to the State respondents to finalise the gradation list, is w holly justified, when the learned Single Judge has been cautious not to express any opinion with regard to the seniority of the appellant vis-à-vis other intere sted persons. Thus, we are clearly of the view that the direction, so given by t he learned Single Judge, was, in the facts and attending circumstances of the pr esent case, wholly justified and in accordance with law. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the directions, which stand impug ned in this appeal. We make it, however, clear that the appellant would remain a t liberty to challenge, by taking recourse to such provisions of law as may be p ermissible, the gradation list, which would be published by the State respondent s, in terms of the directions given by the learned Single Judge. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, while we decline to admit thi s appeal, it is made clear that the appellant shall remain at liberty to challen ge, by taking recourse to such provisions of law as may be permissible, the grad ation list if he finds that his interest is adversely affected by the gradation list, which may be published. The appeal shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to cost.