IMPORTANT POINT
The appointment of a public post must adhere to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, ensuring equal opportunity through proper advertisement.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Taka Kichu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the appointment made in favour of the respondent No. 4 vide the impugned appointment order bearing No.VET/EST-3/WKA/VI/2019-20 dated 18.12.2019 at VHC Lotsu as well as further seeking a direction upon the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms with the land ownership scheme against the Grade-IV post.

3. To adjudicate the dispute involved in the instant proceedings, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.

4. The petitioner herein claims to be the son of Shri H. Benjemen Ovung. For the establishment of the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services at Lotsu village, the petitioner claims that the family of the petitioner and one Shri Kilumo Lotha’s family who were the original land owners, had parted with a plot of land on the basis of a verbal agreement made on 17.07.1981. To support the said aspect, the petitioner had enclosed the communication issued by the Lotsu Village Council dated 22.03.1983 to the Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services Nagaland, Kohima to give Grade-IV appointment to the two land owners as and when vacancy arose in the Department as they were not given land compensation.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that in terms with the verbal agreement entered into on 17.07.1981, one Shri Renthungo Lapon from Shri Kilumo Lotha’s family was given appointment against the post Medicine Care (Grade-IV post) in the same office by the Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services in the year 1984. However, no person from the petitioner’s family was given any appointment against any Grade-IV post even after a lapse of 39 (thirty nine) years.

6. It is the further case of the petitioner that between the years from 1981 to 2020, few Grade-IV vacancies arose in the same office and the petitioner submitted an application on 23.04.2019 for the post of Chowkidar at VHC Lotsu under the establishment of Chief Veterinary Officer, Wokha against the vacancy which arose on account of the retirement of Shri Tseuthungo Lotha. However, the Respondent Authorities instead of considering the case of the petitioner had appointed the respondent No. 4 to the post of the Chowkidar at the VHC Lotsu. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 4 primarily on two grounds. First, the appointment of the respondent No. 4 was made in complete disregard to the claims of the petitioner’s family as well as the notification No. LR/6-181/LIT/2015 dated 05.03.2018 whereby the Government of Nagaland had made a scheme for appointment to the Grade-IV post on land ownership basis. The second ground upon which the petitioner assails the appointment of the respondent No. 4 is that the said appointment was made without following the due process inasmuch as the respondent No. 4 was picked and chosen by the Respondent Authorities surreptitiously without any advertisement thereby calling all eligible persons to apply. In other words, the challenge to the appointment of respondent No.4 was on the ground that it was in violation to the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

7. Before further proceeding, this Court finds it very relevant to take note of the Annexures enclosed to the writ petition more particularly, Annexure-A, Annexure-B, Annexure-C and Annexure-E inasmuch as, it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner was the grandson of Late Chumdamo Ovung of Lotsu village.

8. Upon the instant writ petition being filed, this Court vide order dated 15.09.2020 issued notice. The record reveals that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had filed an af