JUDGMENT :

1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - Smti. Nsungbeni has put to challenge the letter, No.UDD/USTT- 06/98 (pt.), dated 20.05.2014, and appointment order, No. UD/ESTT-14/07/504, dated 09.06.2014, issued in favour of Smti. Kecalhounuo, the respondent No. 5.

2. It is to be noted here that vide letter, dated 20.05.2014, No.UDD/USTT- 06/98(pt.), administrative approval for appointment of the respondent No. 5 Smti. Kecalhounuo, to the post of sweeper, against the vacancy arose on account of death of Lt. Dopari, Sweeper is accorded to and vide impugned letter, dated 09.06.2014 No. UD/ESTT-14/07/504, the Director-in-Charge, Nagaland, Kohima, has appointed respondent No. 5 against the said vacancy.

3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:-

“The petitioner was working as senior most work-charged Sweeper on fixed pay basis, in the Office of the Executive Engineer (Town and Planning Work Division, Department of Town Planning, vide office order No. TPWD/ESTT/W/C/77/94, dated 01.02.1994, and her service was extended from time to time and vide order No. EE/TPWD/W/C/77/96-97/308, dated 14.02.1998, she was appointed on scale pay with effect from 01.10.1998. She served in the Department for more than 20 years in the said capacity. Thereafter, on account of death of one Smti. Dopari, one post of Sweeper fell vacant in the Department. The petitioner then submitted an application requesting the authorities to regularize her service. The petition was forwarded to the respondent No. 4, for further necessary action vide letter, dated 16.08.2013. The petitioner, being the senior most work-charged Sweeper in the Department was expecting that her case will be considered for regularization in terms of O.M., dated 22.09.2004. The Govt. of Nagaland has issued one O.M. No. AR-3/GEN-64/2001, (pt.) dated 22.09.2004, by which a policy has been adopted for regularization of service of workcharged employees, whereby, it has been formulated that 50% of the regular vacancies of similar nature, arising in a year will be reserved for regularization of the work-charged employees and the remaining 50% will be filled up as per normal rules of recruitment. However, the respondent authorities without considering the case of the petitioner for regularization and ignoring the mandate of O.M., dated 22.09.2004, issued the impugned approval letter, dated 20.05.2014, whereby approval of private respondent No. 5 for fresh appointment was accorded, and subsequently, vide impugned order, dated 09.06.2014, respondent No. 5 was appointed to the post of sweeper on regular basis and thereby deprived the petitioner from regularization of her work-charged service. Being highly aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court challenging the impugned approval letter, 20.05.2014 and the appointment order, dated 09.06.2014.”

4. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed one additional affidavit on 17.09.2020, stating therein that challenging the appointment of private respondent No. 5, another writ petition, being WP (C) No. 102 (K) 2014 was filed by one Smti. Kezhanguu Khromo claiming appointment to the said post on land ownership basis and that the petitioner had no knowledge about filing of the said petition and that vide order, dated 11.02.2015, this Court was pleased to allow the writ petition by setting aside the approval letter, dated 20.05.2014 and appointment letter, dated 09.06.2014, appointing the respondent No. 5 to the post of sweeper, with a direction to the respondent authorities to forthwith take steps for consideration of the petitioner along with any other eligible work-charged employees in the Department for regularization to the said vacant post of Sweeper that arose due to the death of Late Dopari in the Department of Urban Development, as stipulated in the O.M., dated 22.09.2004. Thereafter, vide order, dated 18.03.2015, the authority had regularized the servi