Preference for land donors acts as a tie-breaker for equally qualified candidates, not an absolute right to appointment. Participation in a recruitment process without prior protest precludes candidates from challenging the process or the selection committee after being declared unsuccessful, as merit remains the standard for public appointments.

JUDGMENT & ORDER :

YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.

The petitioners in the instant writ petition claim to be landowners who had donated land free of cost for the establishment of Peren District Headquarters including the District Hospital, Peren. Their families are yet to be provided any facilities, i.e., contract, supply or appointment on the basis of landownership till date. The petitioners had filed WP(C)/19/2023, WP(C)/20/2023, WP(C)/21/2023, WP(C)/22/2023 and WP(C)/23/2023 being aggrieved by the appointments of non-landowners to substantive vacancies of Grade-IV posts under the establishment of District Hospital, Peren. This Court, by a common Order dated 12.02.2024 had quashed and set aside the Appointment Orders of the non-landowners and directed the respondent authorities to initiate fresh process for filling up the vacancies by inviting applications from all interested and eligible persons. It was further directed that the applicants, thereafter upon being screened and their claim verified in terms of the standing guidelines issued by the State Government, shall be shortlisted for appointment. The State respondents were also directed to complete the entire process within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Order.

2. Thereafter, in compliance with the Order of this Court dated 12.02.2024, the Principal Director, Department of Health & Family Welfare had issued an Advertisement No. DHFW-3/Court-Case/Peren/Gr-IV/7519-26 dated 07.07.2024, which was totally silent on the landownership rights as provided in the Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018. It was issued in clear violation of the common Order dated 12.02.2024. The petitioners, therefore, came before this Court by filing WP(C)/160/2024 assailing the Advertisement dated 07.07.2024. While disposing WP(C)/160/2024 the State respondents were directed to publish a fresh advertisement where it would be mentioned, amongst other conditions, that the landowners or their family members shall be given preferential treatment, if otherwise found eligible for appointment. In compliance, the State Government had issued another Advertisement No. DHFW-3/Court-Case/Peren/Gr-IV dated Nil, March 2025. However, by the impugned interview Meeting Minutes dated 26.03.2025, the impugned Administrative Approval dated 15.05.2025 and the impugned Notification dated 28.05.2025, the private respondents nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 were recommended solely on the basis of merit without considering eligible landowners and thereafter the impugned Appointment Orders dated 12.06.2025 were issued appointing the private respondents. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have come before this Court by way of filing the instant writ petition.

3. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Taka Masa assisted by Mr. Sentilong. Also heard Mr. N. Angami, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondent nos. 1 to 7 and Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the Private respondent nos. 8 to 11.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, has stated that the petitioners’ families are the genuine land donors of the Peren District Headquarters and they have executed a Deed of Agreement dated 12.12.1995 and 23.11.1998 with the State Government, wherein it has been specifically agreed that the acquisition of land is purely in the form of freewill donation to the Government and no land compensation shall be paid to the landowners. Ho