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) 15912

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Yarenjungla Longkumer, J
Pelingrang Hegui – Appellant
Versus
State of Nagaland – Respondent
WP(C)/116/2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Taka Masa, Arenlong, Tiakumla, Sentilong, Soreni Mozhui
For the Respondents: N. Angami, Limawapang

The term 'preference' in public recruitment rules merely serves as a tie-breaker among candidates who possess equal or nearly equal merit; it does not confer a right of absolute priority, automatic selection, or supersession of more meritorious candidates.

Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Art. 226 - Writ Jurisdiction - Selection Process - Preferential Treatment - Concept of 'Preference' in employment - Held, 'preference' operates as a tie-breaker among equals and not a substitute for merit - It does not mean en bloc precedence or automatic selection of landowners over more meritorious candidates. (Paras 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, who donated land for the Peren District Hospital, challenged the selection of private respondents for Grade-IV posts, contending that as land donors, they were entitled to preferential treatment under a state policy, and that the interview process lacked objectivity and was conducted by a improperly constituted committee.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the petitioners participated in the interview process willingly and without protest. Having failed to score higher than the selected candidates, they cannot challenge the selection process after the results. The court clarified that 'preferential treatment' for landowners is triggered only when candidates are otherwise equal in merit, and does not override merit-based selection.

Issues: 1. Whether landowners are entitled to automatic appointment or absolute preference over merit-based candidates. 2. Whether the petitioners, having participated in an interview process, are estopped from challenging the process after being unsuccessful.

Ratio Decidendi: 'Preference' is not reservation or a separate method of selection; it serves as a tilting factor only when candidates are found equally positioned in merit performance. Allowing landowners to leapfrog more qualified candidates based solely on land ownership without merit-based equality would defeat the constitutional scheme of public employment.

Result: Writ petition dismissed as bereft of merit.

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

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.

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.

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.

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. However, in lieu of land compensation special preference will be given to the landowners in allotting any type of contract works within the town. It was also agreed that as and when any vacancy arise, preference shall be given to the landowners for appointment in Grade-III and Grade-IV posts. The Government of Nagaland has laid down the policy for appointment of landowners to all Grade-IV posts under the Government of Nagaland vide Office Memorandum No. LR/LAND-PLCY/5-26/2011 dated 16.08.2018.

Learned senior counsel states that none of the petitioners h

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