Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH, KOHIMA BENCH
Devashis Baruah, J.
Shri. Kekhriesilie Richa, S/O Kechavilie Richa And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Nagaland, Represented By The Chief Secretary And ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/189/2022, WP(C)/190/2022, WP(C)/191/2022, WP(C)/192/2022, WP(C)/193/2022, WP(C)/194/2022, WP(C)/195/2022, WP(C)/196/2022, WP(C)/197/2022, WP(C)/198/2022, WP(C)/199/2022
Decided On : 20-09-2024
Recruitment - Writ Petitions - Articles 14, 16 of the Constitution - The court addressed the legality of appointments made without advertisement, emphasizing the necessity of public recruitment processes as mandated by constitutional provisions.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners, indigenous unemployed youth of Nagaland, challenged the appointments of 935 constables made without advertisement, claiming it violated their rights to equal opportunity in employment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointments were illegal as they violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which require public advertisement for recruitment. The State's reliance on the NP Manual was insufficient to justify the lack of advertisement.
Issues: Whether the appointments of constables made without advertisement violated constitutional rights and whether the private Respondents could be granted relaxations despite their illegal appointments.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that appointments made without public advertisement are illegal and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, necessitating fresh recruitment processes.
Result: The court quashed the illegal appointments and directed fresh recruitment with advertisement, allowing age relaxation for the private Respondents.
Please provide the legal document content within
JUDGMENT :
Devashis Baruah, J.
Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in the batch of writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. K. N. Balagopal, the learned Advocate General of the State of Nagaland who is assisted by Mr. T. B. Jamir, the learned counsel and Ms. T. Khro, the learned Additional Advocate General. The learned counsels representing the private Respondents have also been heard.
2. In the instant batch of writ petition, the Petitioners who meets the eligibility criteria and are unemployed youth of the State of Nagaland have assailed the appointments of 935 constables who were appointed vide various orders by the State of Nagaland and its functionaries.
3. The challenge made in the batch of writ petitions are to the appointments made in favour of the private Respondents of each of the writ petition to the respective posts wherein they were appointed and the relevant appointment orders which were enclosed to the writ petitions as Annexures are detailed herein under:
| 1. WP(C) No.189/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #6-11 | Constable | B-B5 |
| # 12-18, 20, 22-26, 28-31, 33-58 | Constable (GD) | B6-12, 14, 16-20, 22-25, 27-47, 49-52 |
| # 19 and 32 | Constable (Driver) | B13 & 26 |
| # 21, 27 & 54 | Constable (Cook) | B15, 21 & 48 |
| 2. WP(C) No.190/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #8-66 | Constable (Operator) | B-B58 |
| # 67-124, 127-135, 138-155 | Constable (GD) | B59-113, 116-125, 127-144 |
| # 125, 126 | NCE (Water Carrier) | B114, 115 |
| # 136, 137 | Constable (Driver) | B125, 126 |
| # 156 | Constable (Petrol Mechanic) | B145 |
| 3. WP(C) No.191/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #5-25 | Constable | B-B20 |
| # 26 | Constable (Welder) | B21 |
| # 27-86 | Constable (GD) | B22-81 |
| # 87 | Constable (Driver) | B82 |
| 4. WP(C) No.192/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #5-91, 93 & 94 | Constable (GD) | B-B86, 88, 89 |
| # 92 | Constable NCE (barber) | B87 |
| 5. WP(C) No.193/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #7-22, 24-54 | Constable (GD) | B-15, 17-32, 33, 47 |
| # 23 | Constable (driver) | B16 |
| 6. WP(C) No.194/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #6-47, 49-119 | Constable (GD) | B-B41, 43-113 |
| #48 | Constable NCE (cook) | B42 |
| 7. WP(C) No.195/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #8-64, 66-77, 79, 91-94 | Constable (GD) | B-B56, 58-69, 71-80, 83-86 |
| # 65 | Constable (Welder) | B57 |
| # 78, 89, 90 | Constable (NCE) | B70, 81, 82 |
| 8. WP(C) No.196/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #6-53 | Constable | B-B47 |
| # 54-109 | Constable (GD) | B48-103 |
| 9. WP(C) No.197/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #6-37, 42-69 | Constable (GD) | B-B31, 36-53 |
| # 38-41 | Constable | B32-35 |
| 10. WP(C) No.198/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #6-10, 12-63 | Constable (GD) | B-B4, 6-57 |
| # 11 | Constable (Handyman) | B5 |
| 11. WP(C) No.199/2022 | ||
| Respondent Nos. | Name of post | Annexure |
| #7-41, 48-53, 55-67, 69-76, 78-101 | Constable (GD) | B-B34, 37-42, 44-56, 58-65, 67-90 |
| #42-46 | Constable | B35 (Common order) |
| # 47 | Constable (Driver) | B36 |
| # 54 | Constable (Tailor) | B43 |
| # 68 | Havildar (GD) | B57 |
| # 77 | Constable (CO) | B66 |
4. It is relevant to mention herein that all these appointments were made during the period from January,
Appointments to public posts must be made through a transparent process involving public advertisement to ensure equality of opportunity as mandated by the Constitution.
Appointments to public posts must follow a transparent recruitment process, including advertisement, to uphold constitutional rights to equality and fair opportunity.
The court upheld the validity of appointments made following a proper recruitment process, emphasizing adherence to constitutional mandates in public employment.
Public appointments must adhere to transparency and fairness principles under Articles 14 and 16, and petitioners lacking qualifying status cannot challenge others' appointments legally.
Eligibility for ex-servicemen posts must be assessed as of the last date of application submission, and selections made contrary to this principle are invalid.
The State must comply with court orders regarding compassionate appointments, and cannot disregard judicial decisions based on non-indigenous status or qualifications without proper legal grounds.
Candidates availing age relaxation for reserved categories cannot be selected for unreserved posts; they must be assigned to their designated category vacancies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
