IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of appointments made following a proper recruitment process, emphasizing adherence to constitutional mandates in public employment.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the review petitioners. Also heard Ms. Z. Zhimoni, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 15; Mr. L.T. Sangtam, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland along with Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent no. 16; and Mr. T.B. Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 17 to 20.

2. The instant review petition is filed by the two review petitioners viz. [i] Viboto H Sumi; and [ii] Keneilekho Sophie, seeking review / recall / modification of a Judgment and Order dated 26.09.2024 passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023.

3. The writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 was preferred by fifteen nos. of writ petitioners, who are arrayed in this review petition as respondent nos. 1 to 15, challenging appointments of forty nos. of 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 Appointments, annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-B to Annexure-B-37. The said alleged forty illegal appointees were impleaded as party-respondent no. 6 to party-respondent no. 45 in the said writ petition. Amongst them, the present review petitioners were impleaded as the party-respondent no. 44 and the party-respondent no. 45 in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 and in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023, their Order of Appointment dated 07.01.2019 [annexed as Annexure-B-37 to the writ petition] was inter-alia challenged.

4. The writ petition came up for final consideration on 26.09.2024 and on that day, the learned counsel for the parties including the learned counsel who represented the respondent no. 44 and the respondent no. 45, were heard. During the hearing, it is found that no counter affidavit was filed either by the official respondents or by the private respondents. It was submitted on behalf of both the official respondents and the private respondents that the comprehensive affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents in a batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 to W.P.[C] no. 199/2022, involving similar issues, would also cover the issues involved in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023.

5. The primary contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners in the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 was that the appointments of the respondent nos. 6 to 45 were made without any advertisement and without any kind of recruitment process and the appointments were in complete violation of the principles enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties; upon perusal of the materials on record; and after taking into consideration the common Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2024 passed in the batch of writ petitions, W.P.[C] no. 189/2022 and W.P.[C] no. 199/2022, this Court has reached a finding that the appointments of the respondent no. 6 to 45 were made without being preceded by any public advertisement and any kind of selection process.

7. Consequently, the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 317/2023 was disposed of with the following observations and directions.

15. In the above facts and circumstances obtaining in the case in hand, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observations and directions.

[i] The appointments of the respondent no. 6 to respondent no. 45, challenged in the writ petition, to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police [SI]/Unarmed Branch Sub-Inspector of Police [UBSI]/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police [ASI]/Instructor Havildar who were appointed on different dates in the years 2019 and 2020, as reflected in their Orders of Appointments, which are annexed as Annexure-B to Annexure-B-37 to this writ petition, by the State respondent authorities without any advertisement are all set aside and quashed