SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 10458

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J
Tosheli – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland – Respondent
WP(C)/176/2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Limawapang, Arepla Chang, Toshika
For the Respondents: I Imsong, Rovimeno Thou

A candidate whose indigenous status is cancelled post-selection is ineligible for appointment, and a select list subjected to litigation remains valid beyond its standard expiry period until the conclusion of the proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Employment - Recruitment - Eligibility Criteria - Requirement of being an indigenous inhabitant of the district - Cancellation of Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate renders the candidate ineligible - Where the select list remained sub-judice, the validity period of the panel does not expire during pendency. (Paras 9, 10, 12)

Facts of the case:
The Petitioner challenged the recruitment of the fourth respondent as a Sweeper, contending that the latter was not an indigenous inhabitant. The Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate of the fourth respondent was subsequently cancelled by the authorities. While the state argued that the merit list had expired after six months, the Petitioner sought appointment based on being the next eligible candidate in the order of merit.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the cancellation of the respondent's certificate rendered her ineligible. It further observed that the merit list remained alive as it was subject to litigation. Consequently, the Petitioner, being the next in line, was entitled to be appointed to the post.

Issues: Whether a candidate who loses their indigenous status post-selection remains eligible for appointment, and whether a merit list remains valid if it was under litigation during its prescribed validity period.

Ratio Decidendi: When a candidate's essential eligibility (indigenous inhabitant status) is cancelled, they cannot be appointed, and the next eligible candidate on the merit list should be considered. Furthermore, a select list under judicial challenge remains in force for the duration of the litigation.

Result: Writ Petition allowed; authorities directed to appoint the Petitioner.

Table of Content
1. overview of procedural history and status of indigenous inhabitant certification. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. submissions regarding eligibility post-cancellation of certification. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. determining eligibility and the subsistence of a select list under litigation. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. final direction for appointment based on merit. (Para 14 , 15)

ORDER

Heard Mr. Limawapang, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. I Imsong, Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 and Ms. Rovimeno Thou, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 4.

2. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has presented a challenge to the selection and appointment of the Respondent No. 4, against the post of Sweeper, in the establishment of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto, District- Zunheboto, on the ground that the Respondent No. 4 was not an indigenous inhabitant of the district, in question.

3. The facts in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue, arising in the present Writ Petition, is noticed as under :

3.1. The Commissioner, Kohima, Nagaland, had issued an advertisement dated 17.01.2018, inviting applications for filing up of various Grade-III, as well as, Grade-IV posts, available in different district establishments, including a Grade-IV post, available in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, Nagaland.

3.2. In terms of the eligibility criterias set out in the said advertisement, an applicant should be an indigenous inhabitant of the district.

3.3. The petitioner, in pursuance to the said advertisement, submitted her application for recruitment against the Grade-IV post, available in the establishment of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto. The Respondent No. 4 had also submitted her application against the said post. Thereafter, a selection was held in the matter and a select list came to be published on 28.02.2019. In the select list, so published, the Respondent No. 4 was placed at Sl. No. 1 while the petitioner was so placed at Sl. No. 2, on merits.

3.4. In terms of the selection of the Respondent No. 4, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto, Nagaland, proceeded to appoint the Petitioner as a Sweeper in his establishment. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the appointment of the Respondent No. 4, submitted a representation dated 13.08.2019, before the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto and therein, required the cancellation of the selection and appointment of the Petitioner, on the ground that the Respondent No. 4, was not an indigenous inhabitant of the district, in question. The said prayer of the Petitioner, not being considered, the Petitioner had approached this Court, by way of institution of a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 138/2019. However, in view of the fact that in the said Writ Petition, the Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate, obtained by the Respondent No. 4, was not challenged, the Petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the said Writ Petition with liberty to re-file the same. This Court, vide order dated 19.09.2019, permitted the Writ Petitioner to withdraw the said Writ Petition, with liberty to re-file the same.

3.5. It is projected that one Khakuto Sheqi, had also approached this Court, by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 125/2019, assailing the selection and appointment of the Respondent No. 4, herein. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.08.2019, had, while issuing notice in the matter, suspended the order dated 18.01.2019, issued towards appointment of the Respondent No. 4, against the post of Sweeper, in the establishment of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Pughoboto.

3.6. After the present Writ Petition was so instituted and notices issued, therein, the Respondent authorities issued an order dated 10.12.2019 to the Respondent No. 4, herein, requiring her to establish that she was a person belonging to the Scheduled Tribe and was an indigenous inhabi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top