Back
MARLI VANKUNG
Mhashekhol Richa, S/o Thinuzhosa Richa – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. A. Sophie, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. Moa Imchen, learned senior Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
2. The instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for a direction to the State respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Animal Attendant, Grade-IV at Veterinary Dispensary (VD), Jakhama under the Chief Veterinary Office, Kohima, Nagaland, on the strength of being one of the land owners and for setting aside the order dated 31.03.2023, in appointing the respondent No. 5 and to adhere to the agreement dated 08.12.1975, wherein, the land owners were made to declare that they will part with their respective plots of land for the establishment of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Outpost at Jakhama, for a consideration of Rs. 1,500/-per acre of land and with a condition that they will be given first opportunity in case a vacancy being created to a grade IV post.
3. Mr. A. Sophie, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is one of the land owners where the present Veterinary Dispensary is situated at Ja
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....
Landowner employment rights are limited to the original appointee and do not extend to descendants, as per government policy.
Appointment based on landownership was limited to the first landowner, confirming no perpetual employment rights for descendants under constitutional provisions.
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.
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.
A candidate who participates in a selection process cannot later contest the appointment made, especially when not challenging the entire selection process initially.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of principles of seniority, regularisation of ad-hoc appointments, and the constitutional provisions of Article 14, 16, and 21 in r....
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....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
