IMPORTANT POINT
Appointments to public posts must follow a transparent recruitment process, including advertisement, to uphold constitutional rights to equality and fair opportunity.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Ms. Z. Zhimoni, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Toshi O. Longkumer and Mr. Abel Ayemi, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland along with Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent no. 1; Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5; and Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 45.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioners, 15 [fifteen] in nos., have assailed the appointments made in favour of the respondent nos. 6 to 45 as Sub-Inspector of Police [SI]/Unarmed Branch Sub-Inspector of Police [UBSI]/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police [ASI]/Instructor Havildar in Nagaland Police by the State respondent authorities on different dates in the years 2019 and 2020, vide Orders of Appointment, annexed as Annexure-B to Annexure-B-37 to the writ petition.

3. The main ground to assail the Orders of Appointments of the respondent nos. 6 to 45 is that the State respondent authorities had appointed the respondent nos. 6 to 45 without undertaking any valid process of recruitment and without publication of any kind of advertisement. It is the case of the petitioners that they are unemployed indigenous youth and are eligible to participate in a recruitment process undertaken as per the recruitment rules framed for Sub-Inspector of Police [SI]/Unarmed Branch Sub-Inspector of Police [UBSI]/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police [ASI]/Instructor Havildar. The petitioners have sought setting aside and quashing of the appointments of the respondent nos. 6 to 45 on the ground that their appointments were in complete violation of the principles embodied in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. When this writ petition was listed on 19.09.2024, the writ petition was directed to be listed after disposal of a batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022, the judgment in respect of which was already reserved after conclusion of hearing. After disposal of the batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P. [C] no. 199/2022 by a common Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2024, this writ petition is listed today for consideration.

5. Mr. Sangtam, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland representing the respondent no. 1 as well as Mr. Jamir, learned counsel representing the respondent nos. 2 to 19 have submitted that no counter affidavit on behalf of the State respondents has been filed in this writ petition as in the batch of writ petitions involving similar issue, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022, a comprehensive affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the State respondents was filed and the stands taken in the said comprehensive affidavit-in-opposition would also cover the issue involved in the instant writ petition. They have submitted that the said batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022 was disposed of by a common Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2024. They have also submitted that as there is no difference, in essence, between the facts and circumstances obtaining in the said batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022 and the present writ petition, the observations and directions made in the common Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2024 would also govern in this writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 45 has also submitted in similar lines adopting the submissions of the learned State Counsel and no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 to 45.

6. Ms. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the observations and directions made in the common Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2024 passed in the batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022 will be applicable on all fours in this writ petition.

7. From the statements made in the writ petition and the annexures appended thereto, it is noticed that by an Order bea