IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Nelson Sailo, J.
Lijamo Odyuo and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Nagaland Represented By the Chief Secretary and Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/293/2022
Decided On : 13-02-2024
Regular Appointment - Staff Nurse Recruitment - Nagaland Nursing Service Rules, 1988 - The court discussed the Advertisement dated 16.07.2020, Corrigendum dated 17.07.2020, Notification dated 02.11.2022, and the Cabinet meeting minutes. The court found that the recruitment was meant to be on a temporary basis until a regular appointment could be made through a special NPSC recruitment drive as decided by the Cabinet. The petitioners' claim for regular appointment based on the mistake made in the Advertisement was found to be not tenable. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners cannot insist on regular appointments as advertised.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, serving as Staff Nurse under various health centers in Nagaland, challenged the appointment process for 129 Staff Nurse posts, claiming that the appointments were made on a temporary basis despite the Advertisement stating regular appointments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recruitment was meant to be temporary until a regular appointment could be made through a special NPSC recruitment drive as decided by the Cabinet. The petitioners' claim for regular appointment based on the mistake made in the Advertisement was found to be not tenable.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to regular appointments as advertised in the Advertisement dated 16.07.2020 despite the subsequent Corrigendum and Cabinet decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recruitment was meant to be temporary until a regular appointment could be made through a special NPSC recruitment drive as decided by the Cabinet. The petitioners' claim for regular appointment based on the mistake made in the Advertisement was found to be not tenable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners cannot insist on regular appointments as advertised.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
2. 124 writ petitioners have joined hands to file the instant writ petition claiming to have common grievance and cause of action and they have made the following prayer:-
Quash and set-aside:
“In the premise aforesaid, it is most respectfully pray that your Lordship will graciously be pleased to admit this petition, called for records and issue a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause(s) as to why a writ in the nature of Certiorari and/or Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ or direction should not be granted and upon cause/causes being shown be pleased to make the rule absolute in the following terms:
Quash and set-aside:
(a) Impugned Corrigendum dated 17.7.2020 in respect of Clause C: ”Regular appointment” converted into “Temporary appointment” confining to Staff Nurse.
(d) Impugned Letter dated 4.10.2022 proposing Special Recruitment Drive through NPSC in respect of to 129(one hundred twenty nine)/124 posts of Staff Nurse.
(b) Impugned Notification dated 2.11.2022 in respect of SL.NO.7 confining to 129(one hundred twenty nine) posts of Staff Nurse for NPSC advertisement.
(c) Impugned minutes of the Cabinet meeting letter dated 26.5.2022 relaxing Service Rules for special recruitment of Health workers in respect of Staff Nurse. - AND-
Direct the Respondents:
(1) To send 5 posts of Staff Nurse to NPSC for recruitment.
(2) To exclude the petitioners from the purview of NPSC recruitment and to consider the terms and conditions of the petitioners’ service strictly as per the Advertisement dated 16.7.2022.
And in the interim, pending disposal of the writ petition, be pleased to stay impugned Clause 7, in respect 129(hundred twenty nine)/124 Staff Nurse Post for NPSC advertisement.
AND/or pass any such further order(s)/direction(s) as your Lordship may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case.“
3. It is the case of the petitioners that they are serving as Staff Nurse under various District Hospitals, Community Health Centers and Primary Health Centers in the State of Nagaland. In the backdrop of Covid-19 pandemic, the State Cabinet in its meeting held on 11.06.2020 approved the proposal of the Health & Family Welfare Department to create 143 posts of Staff Nurse amongst others to be deployed in all the district hospitals. Accordingly, a formal order was issued vide Notification dated 26.06.2020. Thereafter, the State Government in the Health & Family Welfare Department created 78 additional posts of Staff Nurse amongst others in terms of the recommendation of the Cabinet vide No. CAB-2/2013 dated Kohima the 25th June, 2020 bringing the total sanctioned posts to 221 posts.
4. The Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of Nagaland then issued an advertisement for filling up of 110 posts of Staff Nurse vide Advertisement dated 16.07.2020, which was also put up in the local daily on 17.07.2020. It is the case of the petitioners that as per the said advertisement, the post of Staff Nurse was to be filled up on regular basis through Department Recruitment Board in Level 8 of the Pay Matrix.
5. The above decision of the Government to fill up 110 posts by Department Recruitment Board was put to challenge by the Unemployed Trained Nurses Association (UTNA) through WP(C) No. 93/2020 claiming that the entire posts advertised should be filled up by queue system. The writ petition was dispose
K. Manjuree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (2008) 3 SCC 512
Ramesh Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi & Anr. (2010) 3 SCC 104
Asangla T. Aier Vs. Thungdeno Mozhui & Ors. (2021) 3 GauLR 238
Madan Mohan Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 724
Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 540
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recruitment for Staff Nurse positions was meant to be temporary until a regular appointment could be made through a special NPSC recruitme....
An ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad hoc employee. They can only be replaced by a candidate who is regularly appointed by following a regular procedure prescribed.
The judgment establishes that long-term contractual employees may be entitled to regularization if their appointments were made through a proper selection process, ensuring compliance with constituti....
The doctrine of legitimate expectations and promissory estoppel justifies claims for permanent absorption and establishes hostile discrimination by the government.
The recruitment process cannot be altered post-advertisement; candidates retain rights if the selection was conducted properly.
The appointments of Grade-IV staff must comply with statutory requirements, and failure to adhere results in illegality, leading to dismissal without entitlements to remuneration.
Employment and Service matter - Qualification and experience - Posts of Sericulture Demonstrator - Doctrine of estoppels - Principle of estoppel as applicable to Petitioners therein, it is seen that ....
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.