IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that public appointments must adhere to a fair process, including advertisement and proper selection, as required by law, and must maintain transparency and fairness, as emphasized in relevant case laws.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The appointment of the respondent no. 5 as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) in the Junheboto Government College is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

2. Before going to the grounds of challenge, it would be convenient if the facts, bereft of details, are narrated herein-below.

3. The Junheboto Government College (hereafter called as College) was established in the year 1985 and at that time, agreements were executed between the land owners for donation of the land. It is projected case of the petitioner that his father was one of the land donors. The lands were, however, purchased by the State Government in the year 2008. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the mother of the respondent no. 5 was an employee of the College who had taken voluntary retirement on 11.01.2023 whereafter the respondent no. 5 was appointed. According to the petitioner, such appointment was not preceded by any recognized process of recruitment whereby the petitioner along with other eligible candidates was deprived from a fair opportunity. It is this appointment of the respondent no. 5 which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition, as indicated above.

4. I have heard Shri Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Shri Mosemsa Longkumar, learned State Counsel, Nagaland as well as Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

5. The contesting parties have filed their respective pleadings.

6. Shri Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner by relying the Office Memorandum dated 04.06.2016 has submitted that all Grade-III and Grade-IV posts are to be filled up by a validly held recruitment process. He submits that the said office memorandum is in consonance with the settled principles of public appointments. Reliance has also been placed upon the Office Memorandum dated 14.02.2005 by which a restriction has been imposed for appointment of the kith and kins of government employees who availed voluntary retirement. It is submitted by Shri Jamir, learned counsel that though one of the legs of challenge as well as the claim was on the aspect of land donation, in view of the facts emerging that the land was subsequently purchased by the State, the learned counsel has submitted that the other grounds of challenge would still be available to him. He has relied upon the cases of State of Orissa and Another vs. Mamata Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436 and Limaakum vs. State of Nagaland and Others, 2019 (2) GLT 277 wherein the aspect of maintaining transparency and fairness in public appointments has been laid down which necessarily require publication of advertisements.

7. Per contra, the learned State Counsel, by referring to the affidavit-in- opposition filed on 21.03.2024 has submitted that there were justifications for appointment of the respondent no. 5 as she was the lone candidate who had applied and there was an urgent need for filling up the post. Shri Longkumar has also submitted that the respondent no. 5 fulfills all the eligibility criteria.

8. Supporting the stand of the State, Ms. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 has, however, questioned the locus of the petitioner to maintain the present challenge. It is submitted that 6 nos. of appointments of land donors were already done which includes the father of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner cannot made a further claim for appointment on the basis of land donor. The learned counsel has specifically referred to the prayer no. 2 in the writ petition in this regard. As regards the restrictions imposed by the Office Memorandum dated 14.02.2005, it has been contended that the mother of the petitioner who was an employee had to take voluntary retirement due to ill-health and taking a sympathetic view, the respondent no. 5 was appointed. It is reiterated that the respondent no. 5 fulfills all the necessary qualifications and eligibility for such appointment.

9. In his rejoinder, learned c