Back
2017 Supreme(Gau) 344
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO, J.
ASI. RM N. Orenthung Lotha and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Nagaland, represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland and Others – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.52 (K) of 2016
Decided On : 29-04-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Tongpok Pongener, Mr. E.Thiba Phom, Mr. S.Reopi Sangtam, Ms. Alika Sangtam, Ms. Purnima Paul, Advs.
For the Respondent: Ms. S. Mere, Govt. Adv.
For the Private Respondents: Mr. Wati Jamir, Mr. Imkong Jamir Mr. N. Longkumer, Advs.
Headnote:
Nagaland Police Telecommunication Organization, 2013 - Praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and or Mandamus - Praying for permission to withdraw the case as far as they are concerned - To fill up the vacancies by direct recruitment and promotion in the proportion - Expressly declares that in the matter of public employment or appointment to any office under the state, citizens of this country shall have equal opportunity while clause, declares that no citizen shall be discriminated in the said matter on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them - At the same time, care was taken to, declare in clause – Held, It is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates - If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc - It would be seen from the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that recruitment to public employment or Government service should be preceded by well circulated advertisement so that every person eligible and interested in such post or posts will have a chance of applying and competing for the same, In view of what has been stated above, the respondents are hereby directed to take steps for up-gradation of the existing posts/cadre of ASI to the posts/cadre of SI in the same organization – Petition disposed of.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari and or Mandamus or any other appropriate writ and or order or direction of the like nature directing the respondents to up-grade the posts of existing Assistant Sub-Inspectors to the post of Sub-Inspectors in the Nagaland Police Telecommunication Organization w.e.f. 27.05.2014, and also to direct the respondents to convert the promotion of 64 Havildars of the same organization to the post of ASI including the petitioners No. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20 and 21 vide order No. PHQ(VI)21/WRLS/2003/121, No. PHQ(VI)21/WRLS/2003/122 and No. PHQ(VI)21/WRLS/2003/123, dated 04.06.2014, to the post of SI and also to set aside the appointment of the respondents No. 5 to 24 to the post of SI, and to direct the State respondents to divide 25 existing SI posts among the Operators, Technicians and Cryptographers in the ratio of 75:15:10 and to fill up the vacancies by direct recruitment and promotion in the proportion of 33% and 67% respectively.
2. Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel who appeared for the petitioners and also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned Government Advocate, on behalf of the State respondents. I have also heard Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the private respondents.
During the pendency of the case, the petitioner Nos. 1, 11 & 12 filed I.A.(C) No. 71(K) of 2016 praying for permission to withdraw the case as far as they are concerned. The prayer of the petitioners was allowed by order dated 21.06.2016, passed in the I.A. Accordingly, their names were deleted. Similarly, the petitioner Nos. 3, 9, 10, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 29, and 30 also filed an I.A. being I.A.(C) No. 126(K) of 2016 praying for permission to withdraw the petition as far as they are concerned. Their prayer was also allowed by an order passed on 18.11.2016.
In view of withdrawal of the above petitioners, the petitioners who are left in this case are only petitioner Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 24, 27, 28, 31 & 32. The petitioners Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 15 & 17 are ASI and the petitioners No. 24, 27, 28, 31 and 32 are Havildars in NPTO.
3. The case of the petitioners as submitted by the learned counsel of the petitioners is as follows;
(i) That Nagaland Police Telecommunication Organization (which shall hereafter be referred to as NPTO) came into existence on the issuance of a Notification by the Government of Nagaland being No. POL-16/PR/8/83, dated 20.07.1995, wherein and whereby the erstwhile Nagaland Police Radio Organization and the Nagaland Armed Police Wireless were amalgamated. Thereafter, an Office Memorandum was issued by the Director General of Police, Nagaland being Memorandum No. PHQ(B-IV)9/3/89, dated 29.06.1996, whereby certain norms regulating the service conditions of the NPTO was laid down. However, the same was replaced by the NPTO Subordinate Service Rules, 2013 which was published in the Nagaland Gazette, dated 13.12.2013, (which shall hereinafter be referred to as 2013 Rules). The same was later amended by NPTO (Subordinate Service) (1st Amendment) Rules, 2014 (which shall be referred to as Amendment Rules, 2014).
According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, NPTO Subordinate Service has been classified into 3 (three) categories under Rule 5(b) of the 2013 Rules as follows:-
(i). Sub-Inspector (Operator/Technician/Cryptographer)
(ii). Havildar (Operator/Technician/Cryptographer)
(iii). Constable (Operator/Technician/Cryptographer)
And in view of this classification of the NPTO Subordinate Service Rule, the post of ASI (Operator/Technician/Cryptographer) which existed as per the old rule has to be deemed abolished, therefore, the posts of ASI which were in existence just before the Notification of the 2013 Rules should hav
