IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
Kevineisienuo – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Nagaland and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 65 of 2021
Decided On : 27-05-2024
Seniority - Appointment Dispute - DHFW-3/117/Kma/Part-II/2018/6871-75 - The court discussed the appointment dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 5, both ad-hoc employees, for the post of Office Peon. The court highlighted the principles of seniority, regularisation of ad-hoc appointments, and the constitutional provisions of Article 14, 16, and 21. The court dismissed the petition but directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's appointment against a sanctioned post as per the government's terms and policies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an ad-hoc Medical Attendant, filed a petition against the appointment of respondent No. 5 as Office Peon, alleging that she was senior and deserving of the post. The respondents argued that the posts were distinct and that the petitioner's service did not guarantee extension or regularisation.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the petition but directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's appointment against a sanctioned post as per the terms and policies of the Government.
Issues: The main issue was the appointment dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 5 for the post of Office Peon, based on their ad-hoc appointments and seniority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of seniority, regularisation of ad-hoc appointments, and the constitutional provisions of Article 14, 16, and 21. It held that the petition lacked merit but directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's appointment against a sanctioned post.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, but the court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's appointment against a sanctioned post as per the terms and policies of the Government.
JUDGMENT :
SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J.
1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Moa Jamir and Mr. M. Solo for the petitioner. Also heard learned Sr. Government Advocate Ms. S. Mere for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 and learned counsel Mr. Akhrieu Chusi for the respondent No. 5.
2. The State Respondents are:
(ii) The Principal Director to the Government, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima.
(iii) The Director, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima.
(iv) The Chief Medical Officer, Kohima, Nagaland.
(v) Smt. Dzuzievonuo, Office Peon, Under the Establishment of Chief Medical Officer, Kohima, Nagaland arrayed as respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively.
3. The petitioner Smt. Kevineisienuo has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or mandamus or any other writ of like nature against the Office Order No. DHFW-3/117/Kma/Part-II/2018/ 6871-75 dated 04.09.2019 passed by the respondent No. 2 in appointing the respondent No. 5. The petitioner has also prayed for an appropriate direction to the State Respondent to appoint the petitioner to the post of Office Peon against the retirement of Sri Thenuvicho Angami, presently held by the respondent No. 5. The Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima employee under the establishment of the Chief Medical Officer (CMO for short), Kohima passed the impugned order mentioned above.
4. It is submitted that the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were both appointed on ad-hoc basis as Medical Attendant and Office Peon respectively. By Office Order No. DHFW-3/EXT/KMA/VOL-I/08/9054-56, dated 28.02.2011 passed by the Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland-respondent No. 2 herein, the petitioner was temporarily appointed to the post of Medical Attendant, for 1 year on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. the date of joining the post. The petitioner was posted under the establishment of the CMO-respondent No. 4 herein.
5. From the date of appointment till the selection of respondent No. 5, the petitioner’s service is described in brief as follows:
| Office Order | Date | Post | Annexure | Duration |
| DHFW-3/EXT/KMA/VOL-I/08/9054-56 | 28.02.2011 | Medical Attendant | A | 1 year |
| DHFW-3/Gr-IV/CON-EXT/2012-13/8126-28 | 23.12.2012 | Medical Attendant | B | Extended for 1 year |
| DHFW-3/114/Extn/2012-13/6221-222 | 16.09.2013 | Medical Attendant | C | Extended for 1 year |
| DHFW-3/Extn/2012-13/2643-45 | 05.06.2014 | Medical Attendant | D | Extended for 1 year |
| DHFW-3/117/Extn/2015/3287-90 | 23.06.2015 | Medical Attendant | E | Extended for 1 year |
| DHFW-3/117/Extn/2015/8415-18 | 14.10.2016 | Medical Attendant | F | Extended for 1 year |
| DHFW-3/117/Extn/2015/9792-96 | 28.11.2017 | Medical Attendant | G | Extended for 1 year |
| DHFW-3/117/Extn/2015/7215-19 | 15.10.2018 | Medical Attendant | H | Extended for 1 year |
| DHFW-3/117/Extn/2015 | Nil.10.2019 | Medical Attendant | I | One year upto 31.03.2020 |
6. It is contended that the petitioner after serving for 8 years as Medical Attendant on ad-hoc basis, a post of Peon fell vacant on the retirement of Shri Thenuvicho Angami on 30.04.2019. Against the vacant post, the petitioner submitted an application dated 04.04.2019 to the respondent No. 2 which was forwarded by the respondent No. 4 vide letter No. CMOK-6/2/GRD-IV/APPT/TRANS/KMA/2017-19/146 dated 08.04.2019 to the respondent No. 2 (Annexure-J & K). Instead of considering the application, the respondent No. 2, vide impugned Order No. DHFW-3/117/Kma/Part-II/2018/6871-75 dated 04.09.2019 appointed the respondent No. 5 as the Office Peon under the establishment of CMO at Kohima. It is notewor
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 regularisation of ad-hoc service cannot be claimed as of right and is subject to fulfilling specific conditions.
The regularisation of services of the contingency staff should be based on seniority as per the General Arunachal Pradesh Service Group 'C' Common Recruitment Rules, 2011 and the Office Memorandum, d....
Petitioners (including the present petitioner) would not be entitled to the benefit of the ad hoc period of service while reckoning of his seniority.
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.