Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 411
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Dr Sakhoveyi Lohe Son Of Late Cesoyi - Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Nagaland And Ors. - Respondent
WP(C)/146/2024
Decided On : 03-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Neiteo Koza, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. N. Angami, Sr. Govt. Adv.
Participation in a selection process precludes a challenge to that process, and the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules do not provide for a waiting list for promotions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Challenge to Communication, Circular, Advertisement, and Notification regarding promotion to the post of Principal - Petitioner, after 17 years of service, was wait-listed for promotion but subsequently participated in a new selection process - Court held that the petitioner could not challenge the new selection after participating in it - The principle of merit-cum-seniority was emphasized, with the petitioner not qualifying based on assessment scores. (Paras 4, 10, 16, 18)
(B) Recruitment Rules - Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2015 - Rules regarding promotion and waiting lists - Court noted that the Rules do not provide for a waiting list for promotions, only for direct recruitment - The petitioner’s claim based on an Interview Assessment Sheet was dismissed as it did not constitute a select list. (Paras 13, 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was promoted to Associate Professor after 17 years and applied for Principal but was wait-listed. A new selection process was initiated, and the petitioner participated but did not qualify.
Findings of Court:
The Court found no merit in the petition as the petitioner could not challenge the new selection after participating in it.
Issues: Whether the petitioner could challenge the new selection process after participating in it and the validity of the wait list for promotions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that participation in a selection process precludes a challenge to that process, and the Rules of 2015 do not provide for a waiting list for promotions.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Ms. Neiteo Koza, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. N. Angami, the learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. The petitioner herein has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the Communication dated 03.06.2024, the Circular dated 04.06.2023, the Advertisement dated 04.06.2024 and the Notification dated 19.06.2024 all issued by the respondent No. 4. The merits to the challenge made to the aforesaid Communication, Circular, Advertisement and Notification can be discerned upon perusal of the facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition.
3. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Lecturer under the Higher Education Department of the Government of Nagaland vide an order dated 20.12.2006. The petitioner thereupon rendered his service. After rendering his service for more than 17 years, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Associate Professor from the post of Lecturer.
4. On 24.05.2023, the respondent No. 4 issued an advertisement for the post of Principal calling for applications from eligible candidates in the Government Colleges in the Academic level 14 (Rs. 1,44,200/-) and Special Allowance of Rs. 2,000/- per month. The said advertisement stipulated the various eligibility criteria. There is no denying to the effect that the petitioner was eligible to be considered for the purpose of promotion for the post of Principal. The petitioner accordingly submitted his application along with others and participated in the said selection process. The petitioner was called for interview vide the Notification dated 08.08.2023 along with 9 others for consideration of their promotion to the post of the Principal. The selection committee after the oral interview published the Interview Assessment Sheet. In the said Interview Assessment Sheet, the petitioner was at Sl. No. 5 and was Wait Listed with remark “Wait List-II”. From the said Interview Assessment Sheet, it appears that 3 (three) persons were recommended. Subsequent thereto, the 3 (three) persons who were recommended were promoted to the post of Principal and posted at different Colleges as mentioned in the Notification dated 20.10.2023.
5. The materials on record further show that a communication was written by the respondent No. 4 to the Commissioner & Secretary of the Government of Nagaland dated 29.04.2024 whereby a proposal was mooted for appointment to the posts of Principal against two anticipated retirement vacancies in May and June 2024 under Zunheboto Government College, Zunheboto and Wangkhao Government College, Mon. In the said communication it was written that there was already a recommendation made by the Interview Board held on 17.08.2023 which was valid for one year and under such circumstances, the petitioner along with another were proposed by the respondent No. 4 to be appointed against the retirement vacancy.
6. The record further reveals that on 22.05.2024, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland had given a Vigilance Clearance in respect to the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Principal. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 4 issued another communication issued on 03.06.2024 mentioned that the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules, 2015 (for short, “the Rules of 2015”) is silent on the number of months a select list would be valid. However, as the NPSC recommends wait list period for only six months, the Department may go for a fresh selection against the two vacancies which have arisen. This communication has been impugned in the present proceedings.
7. Subsequent thereto, the respondent No. 4 issued a Circular dated 04.06.2024 informing all concerned that the recommendation so made by the Interview Board on 17.08.2023 to the post of the Principal was no longer valid in view of the expiry of six months and the candidates who were wait listed were advised to sub
