Where a government policy mandates a specific district authority to verify claims for appointment on a landowner basis, especially those involving oral agreements, such authority must conduct a formal review and issue a speaking order to ensure procedural compliance and determine entitlement before any appointment can be considered.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. Sentiyanger, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Mr. A. Jungli, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the non-consideration of the Respondents to the Petitioner’s claim for appointment on landowner basis against the vacancy caused by the retirement of Smt. Watisangla, who was serving as a Chowkidar in the PWD (R&B), Changtongya Division, Mokokchung.

3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner’s father, Shri Purnuklu, along with others, donated the plot of land on which the Changtongya Office and the Central Store of the PWD (R&B) Sub-Division, Changtongya, were established. According to the Petitioner, the land was jointly and severely donated to the department upon a verbal assurance given by the department that appointments to Grade-IV posts shall be given to the landowners as and when vacancies arose. This aspect is also verified by the Changtongya Village Council in the Certificate issued by the Chairman, Changtongya Village Council which is enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

4. In the Changtongya Office Complex and Central Store, a vacancy arose of a Grade-IV post which was caused due to the retirement of Smt. Watisangla, who was a Chowkidar. The Changtongya Village Council recommended the name of the Petitioner for claiming appointment to the said post on land ownership basis. The Petitioner also submitted an application against the aforesaid vacancy on land ownership basis, being the daughter of the original landowner/donor. It is the further case of the Petitioner that in the meantime, verification was conducted. However, in spite of that, as the Petitioner's case was not considered, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

5. The record reveals that this Court vide order dated 12.06.2025 issued notice. However, no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondents till date.

6. However, when the matter was taken up, Mr. A. Jungli, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State Respondents and submitted that a verification was conducted and post conducting the verification, the Head D.B. of the Office of the Customary Court, Changtongya, Nagaland, submitted a report on 05.07.2025 to the effect that a joint verification was conducted at PWD(R&B) Division, Changtongya attended by the Council Members, landowners and department officials to verify the land ownership status of the Petitioner. The verification confirmed that the Petitioner was indeed a genuine land owner of the division. It was also confirmed that neither the Petitioner nor any of her family members availed or received any undue benefits or privileges by virtue of becoming a landowner. In that regard, the learned Government Advocate placed before this Court the said verification report of the Head D.B., Office of the Customary Court, Changtongya, Nagaland dated 05.07.2025, which is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents further submitted that based upon the said report dated 05.07.2025, which has been kept on record and marked with the letter “X”, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Tuli, Nagaland further submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner, Mokokchung thereby forwarding the verification report of the DB and Village Council, Changtongya on 24.07.2025 which is also kept on record and marked with the letter “Y”.

8. From the above, it is seen that a verification exercise was conducted at the departmental level, pursu