Public employment must follow the mandate of equal opportunity through transparent, advertised recruitment. Exceptions like land-based appointments require strict, reasoned verification of established agreements to ensure that the process remains free from arbitrariness and adheres to constitutional standards.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. Pakinrichapbo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Longkumer, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents. I have also heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner in terms with the notification dated 05.03.2018 for appointment on land ownership basis and further appointing the Respondent No.5 without carrying out any advertisement.

3. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition is that one Shri Toming Konyak who was working as a Chowkidar under the SDAO, Aboi retired upon completion of 35 years of service w.e.f. 30.11.2023.

4. The Petitioner who claims that his grandfather’s elder brother had donated the land for setting up of the Office of the SDAO at Aboi, Nagaland submitted an application for being considered for appointment on land ownership basis. It is the specific case of the Petitioner that the land which was donated was on the basis of some oral agreement.

5. Be that as it may, the said application of the Petitioner along with the application of two other persons were duly taken into consideration for verification in terms with Clause 3(b) of the notification dated 05.03.2018.

6. The verification was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Aboi, Mon District and it was opined that the claims so made were on the basis of verbal agreement was not based upon written records available in the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Aboi pertaining to the land agreement for establishment of the Aboi Headquarters with two land donor villages or with individual land owners. Additionally, it was also mentioned that there was no written record available in the Office of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Aboi regarding the land agreement with land donors of the SDAO, Aboi Office and the staff quarter land.

7. It further appears from the records that the matter was forwarded to the Land Revenue Department for advise by the Director of Agriculture, Nagaland.

8. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Agriculture Department vide a communication dated 28.04.2025 observed that it would be better to wait for a decision from this Court taking into account that the writ proceedings are pending.

9. This Court enquired with Mr. M. Longkumer, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents as to which proceedings the reference was made by the Agriculture Department vide the communication dated 28.04.2025. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the reference was made to the present proceedings.

10. Be that as it may, it appears that while the Respondent Authorities continued to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the Petitioner herein would be entitled to claim appointment on land ownership basis in terms with the notification dated 05.03.2018, the Respondent No.5 was appointed vide a communication dated 28.06.2024 to the post of Multi Tasking Staff at Sub-Divisional Agricultural Office, Aboi. It further appears from the records more particularly the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the Respondent Authorities that the Respondent No.5 was appointed without calling for any advertisement but on the basis of an Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2022.

11. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appea