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) 14782

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Kalyan Rai Surana, J
Jenny Ndang – Appellant
Versus
Speaker, Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat – Respondent
WP(C)/40/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.T. Jamir, I. Imchen
For the Respondents: T.B. Jamir, Taka Masa, Sentilong

The appointment to the post of Secretary in the Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat is a selection post governed exclusively by Rule 12(1) of the 1999 Rules, and the procedure under the Departmental Promotion Committee (Rule 15) is not applicable to such appointments.

Headnote:(A) Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999 - Rules 12(1), 14, and 15 - Constitution of India - Article 187(3) - Appointment to the post of Secretary - Whether Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) is mandatory - The court held that the post of Secretary is a selection post and the appointment procedure is governed by Rule 12(1) (as amended), which mandates appointment by the Governor on the recommendation of the Speaker and in consultation with the Chief Minister; therefore, it is not required to be filled up by a DPC as contemplated under Rule 15.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an officer in the general cadre, challenged the promotion of the private respondent (respondent no. 4) to the post of Secretary, Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat. The petitioner contended that her seniority entitled her to be considered for the post through a duly constituted DPC, whereas the respondent no. 4 was promoted without such a process, following rule amendments that effectively placed them at par after years of cadre differentiation.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the post of Secretary is a selection post and the DPC provisions are not applicable, as the DPC hierarchy of members would be practically unfeasible (subordinate officers cannot adjudicate the appointment of their superior). The challenge to the notification dated 25.03.2026 was found to be without merit.

Issues: Whether the appointment to the post of Secretary requires a DPC under the 1999 Rules and whether the respondent no. 4 achieved parity in eligibility due to the 3rd Amendment Rules, 2022.

Ratio Decidendi: Provisions of service rules must be construed harmoniously; Rule 12(1) specifically governs the appointment of the Secretary and would be rendered redundant if interpreted to be subject to the DPC process in Rule 15. The appointment is a selection process based on executive recommendation rather than seniority-based promotion.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

(CAV)

Heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. I. Imchen, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. B. Jamir, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as Mr. Taka Masa, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Sentilong, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

Nature of challenge and prayers in this writ petition:

By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the notification dated 25.03.2026 issued by the Joint Secretary, Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat, by which the Governor of Nagaland was pleased to promote Smt. Khruohituonuo Rio, the respondent no.4 herein to the post of Secretary, Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat w.e.f. 05.07.2022. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to constitute Departmental Promotion Committee for regular promotion by duly considering the case of all those who are in the zone of consideration for the post of Secretary.

Case of the petitioner, in brief:

The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Research Officer vide Notification dated 30.09.1996 through a proper selection process in the general cadre, whereas the private respondent was appointed as Assistant Transport Officer vide Notification dated 01.10.1996 w.e.f. 03.09.1996 in the transport cadre. Over the course of service, the petitioner earned regular promotions and reached the rank of Additional Secretary. The private respondent, on the other hand, attained the rank of Additional Secretary (Transport) in the year 2019 by way of multiple upgradation of posts, which were personal to the incumbent. Subsequently, by Office Memorandum and Notification both dated 01.11.2021, the private respondent was brought into the general cadre and regularized therein in the rank of Additional Secretary. The said action was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 323/2021, and by judgment dated 12.05.2022, the encadrement and regularization were quashed, holding that the private respondent did not belong to the general cadre.

Thereafter, within six days of the said judgment, the respondent authorities amended the relevant service rules, namely the Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as the “1999 Rules” for brevity) by notifying the Nagaland Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service 3rd Amendment) Rules, 2022 (hereinafter referred to as “3rd Amendment Rules” for brevity, whereby the distinction between cadres beyond a certain rank was removed, rendering the private respondent eligible for promotion to the post of Secretary. The said amendment was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 92/2022, which came to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability by judgment dated 24.04.2024.

During the pendency of the said writ petition, the post of Secretary remained vacant and, in that context, the private respondent was granted temporary officiating charge of the said post vide Notification dated 05.07.2022. The petitioner challenged the same in W.P.(C) No. 144/2022, wherein an interim order dated 22.07.2022 was passed suspending the said notification. However, the interim order was subsequently vacated by order dated 12.08.2022. The petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No. 28/2022, which was dismissed by order dated 03.09.2024 with a direction to fill up the post of Secretary in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner withdrew the said writ petition.

However, the respondent authorities, by Notification dated 09.03.2026, regularized the private respondent as Secretary with retrospective effect from her officiating date, without constituting a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) as required under the service rules. The same was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 33/2026. During the proceedings, a subsequent Notification dated 25.03.2026 w

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