A person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot subsequently turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome.

JUDGMENT :

KAKHETO SEMA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Asi Kire, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Angami, learned Sr. Government Advocate for the State respondents No. 1 to 4 and Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to quash and set aside the order dated 17/02/2016 passed by the Principal Director, Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima, appointing the respondent No. 5 to the post of Dark Room Assistant under the establishment of the Medical Superintendent, T B and Chest Diseases Hospital, Khuzama and to direct the State respondents to fill up the post from amongst the landowners.

3. The case in brief is that, by an advertisement dated 31/05/2013, issued by the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima, applications were invited from amongst the landowners of the district Chest & TB, Hospital, Khuzama for filling up one post each of Dark Room Assistant and Medical Attendant. The petitioner applied for the post of the Dark Room Assistant and qualified the selection process. Accordingly, by the order dated 26/08/2013 issued by the Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Dark Room Assistant at TB & Chest Diseases Hospital, Khuzama. The respondent No. 5 however did not qualify for the post of the Medical Attendant. Subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner, Smti. Helena, the mother of the respondent No. 5 filed a complaint to the Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima, alleging fraud and impersonation in the recruitment to the post of the Dark Room Assistant. Against the complaint, the Song Song Village Authority, Mao, Senapati District, Manipur, one of the village which had donated land for the establishment of the hospital, submitted the letter dated 11/11/2013 to the department stating therein that as the respondent No. 5 is married to a person from another village i.e. Makhel village, the respondent No. 5 is no longer eligible to be appointed on landownership basis and therefore requested the authority to reject the complaint filed by the mother of the respondent No. 5 and to continue with the appointment of the petitioner. The said village also on 23/11/2013 adopted the resolution to appoint the petitioner to the post of Dark Room Assistant and communicated the same to the department.

4. The department accordingly summoned the petitioner, the respondent No. 5 and others for resolving the issue. However, as the petitioner did not respond to the notice despite receiving the same, the petitioner was terminated from her service. The department thereafter, issued the order dated 03/03/2014 appointing the respondent No. 5 to the post of Dark Room Assistant at District T.B & Chest Diseases Hospital, Khuzama.

5. Against the appointment of the respondent No. 5, the petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 43(K) of 2014 which was disposed of by this Hon’ble Court by the judgment & order dated 29/07/2015. Paragraph-8, 9 and 10 of the said judgment is reproduced below:

“8. This Court has also considered the complaint made by the mother of the private respondent to the respondent No. 3 as well as the communication made by the Song Song Village Authority with regard to the complaint made by the mother of the private respondent. It is also noticed that on the basis of the complaint, the official respondents had issued three circulars on three different dates directing the petitioner, the private respondent and others to appear before them for clarification. The Peon Book which has been annexed in the affidavit-in-opposition as Annexure B and B1 filed by the State respondents has also been considered by this Court. From the Peon Book it can be seen that the petitioner has received the said circulars however the petitioner chose not to appear before the concerned authority. When the petitioner has not appeared before the concerned authority to clarif