IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI AT KOHIMA BENCH
Kakheto Sema, J.
Tosheli – Appellant
Versus
The State of Nagaland and Ors. – Respondents
WP (C) 176 of 2019 and WP (C) 194 of 2020
Decided On : 04-03-2022
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 - Power of High Court to issue Certain Writs - Whether respondent No. 4 is an Indigenous Inhabitant of State of Nagaland as provided for in notification will require a detail verification/enquiry by authorities concerned - Whether petitioner after having participated in the selection process without raising any objection and on being unsuccessful can question selection process and the consequent appointment of the respondent No. 4 - Whether impugned acts of Vidhan Sabha violated norms that should be respected in relation to sub-judice matters has inter-alia held - Whether principle of natural justice was followed by authorities before issuing the impugned order – Held, In doing so, all reasonable opportunity shall be afforded to the petitioner and all stakeholder - The Addl. D.C., shall also summon and examine village authorities/elders to authenticate - The Addl. D.C., shall be at liberty to take recourse to all reasonable measure as may be deemed necessary in the conduct of the enquiry - On completion of the exercise, the Addl. D.C shall forward his findings along with all the records of the enquiry to Government of Nagaland, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms Branch) and/or appropriate authority, for a decision in terms of the Office Memorandum and in accordance with law - While taking decision Government shall also take into consideration the judgment & passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court in case of the State of Nagaland -versus- reported - All such exercises and decision(s) on the matter shall be completed by respondents authorities within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment & order - The action taken by the Government consequent to the direction passed by the Court shall be immediately intimated to the petitioner and all the stakeholder – Order accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
Kakheto Sema, J.
1. The case in W.P.(C) No. 176/2019 being analogous to that in W.P.(C) No. 194/2020 both are dealt with by this common judgment & order.
2. In WP(C) No. 176/2019, the petitioner has sought for the following relief;
(ii) Quash and set aside the recommendation dated 28/02/2019 of SDLRB in respect of private respondent No. 4 and appointment Order dated 01/08/2019 (Annexure-F & G).
(iii) Direct the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sweeper under the establishment of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto in terms of her merit position in the select list dated 28/02/2019.
And/or pass any other further order/orders as your Lordship may deem fit and proper.
3. Brief fact of the case in W.P.(C) No. 176/2019 is that vide the Advertisement No. CNE-A/RECT-BRD/17 dated 17/01/2018 issued by the Government of Nagaland, Office of the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima, applications were invited from eligible candidates for filling up of various post under the District Administration in Nagaland. In Serial No. 14 of the said advertisement, one Grade-IV post was also advertised for Pughoboto under the district of Zunheboto, Nagaland. Clause-IV of the advertisement prescribed the eligibility criteria for the Grade-IV post as under;
2. Land ownership claims as per standing Government order.
3. Minimum age-18 and maximum age-35 as on 19/02/2019.
The present case pertains to the appointment for Grade-IV post under Pughoboto in the district of Zunheboto.
Consequent to the advertisement dated 17/01/2018 the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 and others applied for the post. All the applicants being eligible were issued the admit card and called to appear for the interview before the Sub-Divisional Level Recruitment Board (SDLRB) on 28/02/2019 at 12:00 Noon.
4. The interview (Oral) was conducted by the SDLRB on 28/02/2019 and the mark secured by the candidates in order of merit was declared by the SDLRB on 28/02/2019. The petitioner secured 63.75% marks and was placed in Rank-2, while the respondent No. 4 secured 72.5% marks and placed in Rank-1. The mark secured by the candidates in the interview in order of merit is reproduced as under;
Sl. No. Name Marks obtained Rank
1 Khutoli Sheqi 72.5% 1
2 Tosheli 63.75% 2
3 Kimiyekali 62.5% 3
4 Hovito James Kitho 61.75% 4
5 Kashito A Swu 61.21% 5
6 Nikiqhe Assumi 60% 6
7 Khakuto Sheqi 58.75% 7
8 Ghovili Swu 55.25% 8
9 Boholi Achumi 53.75% 9
10 Toliho 53.5% 10
11 Jetoli 51% 11
12 Khuvili Absent
5. That in the light of the mark secured by the candidates and the recommendation made by the SDLRB, Pughoboto, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto, on the approval of the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima issued the Order No. ESTT-2/2018-19 dated 01/08/2019 appointing the respondent No. 4 as the Sweeper under the establishment of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto.
6. Impugning the order dated 01/08/2019, Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4 is not an "Indigenous Inhabitant of the State of Nagaland" and cannot be appointed to the said post. Mr. Limawapang submits that Lt. Kumar @ Inaxu Sheqi @ Inakhu, the father of the respondent No. 4 is a Non-Naga who came to Pughoboto as a carpenter in search of livelihood in between the year 1975-80 and therefore, the question of issuing the indigenous inhabitant certificate to the respondent No. 4 can never arise for the consideration. The learned counsel in support of his submission has drawn the Court's attention to the Notification No. AR-8/8/76 dated 28/04/1977 which is reproduced as under;
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms
(Administrative Reforms Branch)
NOTIFICATION
Dated Kohima, the 28th April, 1977
No. AR-8/8/76:- The Governor of Naga
A select list challenged during its validity period remains operative until the final disposal of the case; an ineligible candidate must be removed, and the next candidate on the merit list is entitl....
A candidate whose indigenous status is cancelled post-selection is ineligible for appointment, and a select list subjected to litigation remains valid beyond its standard expiry period until the conc....
The court confirmed that the burden of proof for indigenous identity lies with the petitioner, reinforcing that DNA testing cannot be mandated without consent and administrative decisions must adhere....
The court upheld the validity of appointments made following a proper recruitment process, emphasizing adherence to constitutional mandates in public employment.
The State must comply with court orders regarding compassionate appointments, and cannot disregard judicial decisions based on non-indigenous status or qualifications without proper legal grounds.
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.