The court established that appointments based on landownership must adhere to specific guidelines, ensuring fair consideration and the necessity of open advertisements for filling vacancies unless justified by documented difficulties.

JUDGMENT :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. A Ayemi, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, learned counsel for respondent No. 6.

2. By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order of Appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Medical Attendant at Unger Sub-Centre under the establishment of Chief Medical Officer, Mokokchung dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure-E) and also the administrative approval granted for the appointment of the respondent No. 6 vide Communication dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure-D) insofar as, the respondent No. 6 is concerned. The petitioner has further challenged the challenge Clause-2 of the O.M dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure-J) by which, floating of advertisement in case of certain contingency has been permitted to be dispensed with as per the decision of the Cabinet in its meeting held on 09.02.2022 & 22.02.2022. The contingency being difficulties faced by the Department for floating advertisement to fill up Group-D posts.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that three landowners including her father had donated a certain plot of land for establishment of Medical Sub-Center, in Unger Village, in the district of Mokokchung, Nagaland. According to the petitioner, there was a tacit understanding with the Health Department that the family members of the landowners will be considered for appointment to any Grade-IV post as and when a vacancy arise. Subsequently, against a vacancy in the post of Medical Attendant under the said Sub-Center of Unger village, one of the landowner Sh. Alemsosang was appointed and later when he took voluntary retirement, his son Sh. Imtilepzuk was appointed in his place. As for the petitioner and the other landowner, they have since been waiting for their turn to be appointment to any of the Grade-IV post. Subsequently, to the great surprise of the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 vide the impugned administrative approval dated 18.01.2023 was recommended for appointment as Medical Attendant against the vacancy caused by one Smt. Temsulila who retired from service. Thereafter, an appointment order was issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 through the impugned order dated 18.01.2023. The appointment of respondent No. 6, however, was kept in abeyance by the respondent authority concerned vide Order dated 18.01.2023. The petitioner being aggrieved with the approval given for appointment of the respondent No. 6 to the post of Medical Attendant, vide the Communication dated 18.01.2023 and the resultant appointment order dated 18.08.2023 is before this Court.

4. Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel submits that three families had donated the land for setting up the Sub-Center concerned and the father of the petitioner was one of the landowners who had donated the land. The learned counsel submits that the State Government in the Land Revenue Department has come up with a Notification dated 05.03.2018 (Annexure-B) by which, the State Government has laid down the guidelines for considering appointment on the basis of landownership. The same is a policy decision of the State Government in view of various claims made by landowners for appointment to Grade-IV posts. Referring to Clause-3(b)&(c) of the said notification, the learned counsel submits that if there is any such claim for providing employment as a result of some sort of an agreement including oral agreement, the Department concerned is required to report the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned who shall then examine the claim carefully by taking all relevant factors into consideration including the written statements from the witnesses who may be Government officials of the concerned Department, the District Administration and the village functionaries.

5. The learned counsel submits that there is also a condition provided that as it is not the intention of the Government to provide employment to