IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, KOHIMA BENCH
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
Against Corruption & Unabated Taxation (ACAUT) and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
State of Nagaland and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 145 (K) of 2017
Decided On : 03-08-2018
Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 226, 309, 14 and 16 - Contractual Appointments - Backdoor Appointments - Vacancies - Petitioners case in brief is that State respondents have been making rampant backdoor appointments to various Class I Class II Class III and Class IV posts under Government on contract/ad hoc basis and regularizing said appointees by way of impugned OM which is in violation of directions of Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka Vs reported - Petitioners counsel submits that no advertisements have been issued by State respondents before appointing persons on contract/ad hoc basis and without following recruitment rules made for said post - She submits that appointments made on contract/ad hoc basis by State respondents are being made on a pick and choose policy and as same has been done without any selection process same has resulted in depriving thousands of educated youth of State from participating in selection process - She submits that as recruitment rules have been framed vacancies should be filled up as per rules after vacancies are notified and advertised - Held, Petitioners will have to show that they are aggrieved by appointments made - Thus they will have to give material particulars to challenge appointments made keeping in mind relevant recruitment rules - petitioners have however made a sweeping challenge to appointments made in various grades of posts pertaining to approximately Government Departments thereby trying to brush aside all alleged irregularities and illegalities with one sweep of broom - It is very difficult for this Court to sift through facts of this case in absence of complete material facts in respect to challenge made to allegedly irregular/illegal appointments - petitioners will have to file separate petitions making a challenge to various appointments by giving specific particulars as their grievance relates to different appointments in various department of Government - Further this writ petition cannot be decided piece meal - They shall also have to implead all persons whose rights may be affected by petitions - Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Michael Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Ms. Zhimomi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K. Sema, learned Sr. Addl. Advocate General appears for the State Government assisted by Ms. Livika for respondent Nos. 1 to 26, except 7 and 19. Mr. Taka Masa, learned Counsel appears for the respondent No. 7. Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 80 to 137. Mr. K. Ndang, learned Counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 64 to 68 and 70 to 73. Ms. Naomy Sale, learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 21 and Mr. K. Kire, learned Counsel appears for the respondent No. 19.
2. The petitioners' case in brief is that the State respondents have been making rampant backdoor appointments to various Class I, Class II, Class III and Class IV posts under the Government of Nagaland on contract/ad hoc basis and regularizing the said appointees by way of the impugned O.M. dated 04.08.2008 and O.M. dated 11.08.2016, which is in violation of the directions of the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1.
3. The petitioner's counsel submits that no advertisements have been issued by the State respondents before appointing persons on contract/ad hoc basis and without following the recruitment rules made for the said post. She submits that the appointments made on contract/ad hoc basis by the State respondents are being made on a pick and choose policy and as the same has been done without any selection process, the same has resulted in depriving thousands of educated youth of the State from participating in the selection process. The petitioner's counsel has produced recruitment rules pertaining to various posts under all the Departments under the Government of Nagaland, except the Art and Culture Department. She submits that as recruitment rules have been framed, the vacancies should be filled up as per rules, after vacancies are notified and advertised.
4. The petitioner's counsel thus prays for setting aside the impugned OMs dated 4.8.2008 and 11.8.2016. She has also prayed for setting aside appointments orders made on contract/ad hoc basis and to terminate the services of 706 backdoor appointees, appointed before and after 06.06.2016, including the impleaded 110 private respondents and to fill up the said posts as per the recruitment rules, after calling for advertisements. The petitioner's Counsel also submits that though the petitioner No. 1 is an unregistered association/body, the petitioner No. 1 has the locus standi to file this writ petition as they stand on behalf of the people of Nagaland and in support of her submission, she has relied upon the case of the State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyanysayik Prishikshan Kendra Singh, reported in 2011 (6) SCC 597. In support of her submission that regularization of contractual employees are sought to be made in violation of the directions laid down by the Apex Court, the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka Vs Uma Devi, reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1.
5. Mr. K. Sema, learned Senior Addl. Advocate General submits that the writ petition is not maintainable and the same is defective due to non joinder of necessary parties, inasmuch as, the writ petitioners have prayed for terminating the appointments of 706 persons, while impleading only 110 persons in the writ petition. He also submits that the petitioner No. 1 is an unregistered body and accordingly, the petitioner No. 1 has no locus standi to file the writ petition. He further submits that the other petitioners are not aggrieved persons, they have no locus standi to file the writ petition, as no legal or fundamental right of theirs has been violated. He also submits that as the writ petition is not a Public Interest Litigation, the writ petition, not being maintainable, should be dismissed.
6. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Addl. Advocate General has relied upon the
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Jammu and Kashmir Vs. District Bar Association Bandipura
Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association & Anr. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Mina Ram Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.
Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamata Bisht & Ors.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyanysayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh
State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. 2010 (9) SCC 247
State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi
State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr
Union of India Vs. Rajpal Singh
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vagera
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Jammu and Kashmir Vs. District Bar Association Bandipura
Meghalaya Wine Dealers Association & Anr. Vs. State of Meghalaya & Ors.
Mina Ram Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors.
Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal Vs. Mamata Bisht & Ors.
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Himachal Pradesh Nizi Vyanysayik Prishikshan Kendra Sangh
State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. M.L. Kesari & Ors. 2010 (9) SCC 247
State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi
State of Orissa Vs. Mamata Mohanty
Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia Vs. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar & Anr
Union of India Vs. Rajpal Singh
Union Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal Vagera
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.