IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH), KOHIMA BENCH
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Limakumba, S/o. Shri Tongpangnungba – Petitioner
Versus
State of Nagaland, Through the Chief Secretary, to the Government of Nagaland and 5 Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) No.49 Of 2020
Decided On : 29-07-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 16, (1), 226 – Power of High Courts to issue certain writs – Equality before law State shall not deny to any person equality before law or equal protection – It provided for equality of opportunity in all government employment – Petitioner has instituted writ petition under Article of Constitution of India seeking setting aside and quashing of an Office Order bearing issued under hand of the respondent Engineer-In-Chief, Nagaland Public Works Department [NPWD], Nagaland, whereby respondent has been appointed in a Grade post of Chowkidar on temporary basis with effect from date of his joining post and posted in establishment of respondent i.e. Executive Engineer, P.W.D. [R&B], Feeder Roads Division, District – Nagaland and also for a direction to respondent authorities to appoint petitioner against said post – Held, In light of above discussion and in view of findings recorded hereinabove resulting in setting aside of appointment of respondent as a result of which, there would arise a vacancy in Grade post of Chowkidar in office of respondent this Court is of considered view that before proceeding to fill up post by way of an open advertisement in consonance with Article of Constitution of India, as have been indicated above, respondent authorities shall examine whether there was any oral agreement and if answer is in affirmative, then claim of petitioner is to be considered in terms of Clause of policy, notified vide the Notification by undertaking exercise laid down therein in respect of petitioner or any other candidate[s] who is/are found to have made similar claim[s] – Petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner has instituted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside and quashing of an Office Order bearing no. E-In-C/ESTT- 7/APPP/17[TULI]/2020 dated 04.03.2020 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Engineer-In-Chief, Nagaland Public Works Department [NPWD], Nagaland, Kohima whereby the respondent no. 6 has been appointed in a Grade - IV post of Chowkidar on temporary basis with effect from the date of his joining the post and posted in the establishment of the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. [R&B], Feeder Roads Division, Tuli, District – Mokokchung, Nagaland and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner against the said post.
2. The case that is laid before the Court by the petitioner, in brief, is that :
2.1. The Government of Nagaland in the Land Revenue Department having considered the peculiar land holding system prevailing in the State of Nagaland, has framed a policy relating to appointments in Grade - IV posts under the Government of Nagaland on landownership basis and the said policy has been notified by a Notification bearing no. LR/6-181/LIT/2015 dated 05.03.2018. The guidelines framed in the policy is followed by the State Government in making appointments in Grade - IV posts whenever it is found that the piece of land where any Government office is set up, was donated freely by individuals, villages or people of that area, as the case may be, and there is either a specific written agreement or an oral agreement, entered into at the time of taking the piece of land, to provide employment to the members of the families of the landowners.
2.2. In the year 1967, the Merangkong Village Council, District – Mokokchung had donated a plot of land, measuring about 15 acres, at Tuli for establishment of the office of the then Sub-Divisional Officer [SDO], PWD [R&B], Tuli and the said office had, later on, been upgraded to the present office of the Executive Engineer [R&B], Feeder Roads Division, Tuli [the respondent no. 5].
2.3. A vacancy in a Grade - IV post of Chowkidar in establishment of the respondent no. 5 was likely to arise on 30.11.2019 due to retirement of one Sri Probin Gogoi. In view of the impending vacancy in the said Grade - IV post of Chowkidar on 30.11.2019, the petitioner decided to submit his candidature for the said post on landownership basis in terms of the policy of the State Government for appointment in Grade - IV posts, notified vide the Notification dated 05.03.2018. To support the petitioner’s such claim for the said Grade - IV post on landownership basis, the petitioner was issued a certificate by the Merangkong Medemsanger Putu Menden on 22.06.2019 recommending the petitioner’s name for appointment against the post of Chowkidar in the establishment of the respondent no. 5 which was to arise with the retirement of Sri Probin Gogoi. The petitioner stated to have submitted his candidature for the likely vacancy in the Grade - IV post of Chowkidar along with the said certificate issued by the concerned Village Council. On receipt of the application from the petitioner, the respondent no. 5 had forwarded the same vide his letter bearing no. EE/FR/TLI/ESTT-02/115 dated 25.06.2019 to the respondent no. 3 strongly recommending the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, when the petitioner was expecting his appointment in the said Grade - IV post of Chowkidar in the establishment of the respondent no. 5, the impugned Office Order bearing E-In-C/ESTT-7/APPP/17[TULI]/2020 dated 04.03.2020 came to be issued under the hand of the respondent no. 3 and the same has been assailed in the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs, mentioned above.
3. I have heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Junior Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent nos. 1 – 5; and Mr. Taka Kichu, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.
4. Mr. Jamir, le
State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mahanty
Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others
State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh
Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others
Arun Tewari and others vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and others
Binod Kumar Gupta and others vs. Ram Ashray Mahoto and others
National Fertilizers Limited and others vs. Somvir Singh
Telecom District Manager and others vs. Keshab Deb
State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others
State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Mohd. Abrahim
State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayarn Singh and others
State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Sandhya Tomar and another
Binod Kumar Gupta and others vs. Ram Ashray Mahoto and others
V. Sivamurthy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others
Gazula Dasaratha rama Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
Yogender Pal Singh vs. Union of India
Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana
The court established that agreements favoring landowners for government employment do not negate the requirement for a fair and transparent recruitment process, as mandated by constitutional provisi....
Employment benefits based on historical land agreements are governed by current policy and limited in scope, not perpetuity. Additionally, the judiciary is restricted to the pleadings presented and c....
A petitioner must come to court with clean hands and disclose all material facts; failure to do so can result in dismissal of the claim.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an agreement for appointment on landownership basis must comply with government policies on land acquisition and appointment to Grade-IV posts....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principles of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India in appointments, and the directive to fill....
Employment benefits derived from land donation are not perpetual or hereditary and are exhausted upon the initial appointment. Furthermore, a candidate who participates in a selection process is esto....
The appointment of a public servant based on land ownership is valid if made prior to the enactment of a policy limiting such appointments, which does not have retrospective effect.
Appointment based on landownership was limited to the first landowner, confirming no perpetual employment rights for descendants under constitutional provisions.
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.