(1.) THE Appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and Order dated 9 -9 -10 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 158(K)09.
(2.) AT the outset, it may be mentioned that Respondent No. 4 has retired and therefore, learned Counsel for the Appellant does not press the writ appeal as against Respondent No. 4. We also find that Respondent No. 4 is only a proforma party.
(3.) WE are concerned with promotions to the post of Superintendent of Taxes in the Taxes Department of the Government of Nagaland.