JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the advertisement bearing No. ED/EST/GR-IV/APPT/DEO-LLG/2017 and further seeking a direction upon the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Night Chowkidar at GHS, Tamlu on land ownership basis on the basis of a directions passed by this Court in the judgment and order dated 29/11/2019 in W.P. (C) No. 6/2018 and also in accordance with the Notification dated 5/3/2018.

2. The facts involved in the instant writ petition is that the grandfather of the petitioner had admittedly donated a plot of land measuring 250 x 105 sq. ft. in the year 1971 without taking any compensation. It has also been mentioned that together with the petitioner’s grandfather two other persons namely, Shri Lungshem and Shri Hennyei Phom also donated land for the establishment of the said school though amongst the three lands, the bigger portion of the land was donated by the petitioner’s grand father. It has been also alleged in the writ petition that the Inspector of School had given verbal assurance that land owners would be given appointment to Grade-IV Post. However, no appointment were given to the family members of the petitioner inspite of submission of various representations. On 31/5/2017, a vacant post arose in the post of Night Chowkidar at GHS Tamlu on retirement of one Shri Bongshong Phom. Accordingly, the petitioner duly submitted a representation for consideration of his appointment to the said vacant post on the basis of land ownership. On the basis of the said application, the DEO Longleng forwarded the petitioner’s application to the respondent No. 3 mentioning that the petitioner is the real land owner and despite donating a large area of land, no post of grade-IV was allotted to him and he was the most deserving candidate. The DEO forwarded the case of the petitioner against the existing vacancy.

3. Be that as it may, ignoring the petitioner’s application and the recommendation, the Government vide letter dated 6/12/2017 conveyed approval of one Shri Phamnya Phom who belonged to a different village and was not a land owner candidate. On the basis of the said approval made by the Government the said Shri Phamnya Phom was appointed on ad-hoc basis as Night Chowkidar at GHSS on 11/1/2018. The petitioner being aggrieved there upon preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered and numbered as W.P. (C) No. 6/2018 seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for the purpose of quashing the appointment of Shri Phamnya Phom and to direct the State respondents to appoint the petitioner in accordance to the Notification dated 6/3/2000. The said writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 29/11/2019 whereby appointment of Shri Phamnya Phom was set aside and quashed. This Court further directed the respondents to initiate a fresh process to appoint a suitable person as per law by giving due weightage to the land owners like the petitioner, if there existed any oral agreement or assurance from the Government through its agents as claimed by the petitioner in the said proceedings. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment being relevant is reproduced herein-under:

8. Careful reading of the notification dated 26.07.2005, in particular, Para-3 which is reproduced herein above shows that the policy adopted and notified is prospective in nature, therefore, it cannot be applied in the case of the petitioner whose claim is that the land was donated in 1971 and verbal assurance for appointment was given at that time. Further, on careful perusal of the notification dated 05.03.2018, particularly, Para-3(b) of the same, it appears also that it does not apply to agreements already made and, agreement in the oral form is also recognised. Furthermore, the judgment passed by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 18(K) of 2013 also did not nullify all agreements made in the past if they were made in proper form and in th