Page No.# 1/11 GAHC020002192024 2025:GAU-NL:335 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/72/2024 SHRI KAYETO T SEMA S/O SHRI TONIHO WOTSA R/O MISHILIMI VILLAGE ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS THROUGH THE ADDL. SECRETARY/PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WORKS AND HOUSING DEPT. NAGALANMD KOHIMA 2:THE ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF NPWD NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE CHIEF ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) PUGHOBOTO NAGALAND 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND 6:SMTI BOTOLI SHOHE MULTI-TASKINGF-STAFF (MTS) UNDER THE O/O THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PWD (R AND B) PUGHOBOTO NAGALAN Page No.# 2/11 Advocate for the Petitioner : MOA JAMIR, SHISA JAMIR,THEJANUO METHA,T.METSIEO,MANHEIH KONYAK,M SOLO,M JEMU Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 25.07.2025 The present writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner challenging the impugned Approval Letter dated 21.12.2023 and the impugned Appointment Order dated 22.12.2023 by which the respondent no. 6 (R-6) was appointed to the post of Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) against the retirement vacancy of one Shri Zuhovi Sema, in violation of the constitutional scheme in public employment and without considering the petitioner’s case for appointment on the basis of landownership. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is a bona fide landowner of the land where the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Pughoboto Division is established. It is stated that the land was donated by the petitioner’s grandfather and no land compensation nor any employment benefit was provided to the landowners in spite of an oral agreement made in the year 1960 and as such the petitioner is entitled to be appointed to the post of MTS vacated by Shri Zuhovi by virtue of the oral agreement and also in terms of the standing Government policy dated 05.03.2018. In spite of the petitioner’s claim and rights as a landowner the R-6 was appointed without considering the petitioner. Being aggrieved, Page No.# 3/11 the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. I have heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mosemsa Longkumer, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for R-6. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of Nagaland has formulated a policy with regard to appointment of Grade-IV post under the Government of Nagaland on landownership basis by a Notification No. LR/6-181/LIT/2015/493 dated 05.03.2018. The Notification has laid down that no land shall be acquired free of cost and all land shall be acquired on payment of full compensation. In case any department has entered into an agreement with the landowners in deviation of the laid down policy on or after 26.07.2005, such agreement is to be treated as null and void. In other words only those agreements executed between the landowner and the Government prior to 26.07.2005 are acceptable and would be legally binding on the parties. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the year 1960, the petitioner’s grandfather donated some acres of land to the State Government for the establishment of the Office of Sub-Divisional Officer, PWD (R&B), Pughoboto, Zunheboto and several other departments under the State Government. It is stated that in the said vicinity another landowner had also donated a plot of land in favour of the Department of PWD and in lieu of such donation the Department has already given appointment to the family of the other landowner on three occasions. Page No.# 4/11 6. The petitioner also states that the Mishilimi Village Council issued Certificate dated 15.10.2023 stating that the petitioner is the rightful owner of the land donated to the Government. It is also stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a deed of agreement dated 30.06.1989 was executed between the GBs, Village Council Chairman, Members of the Mishilimi Village and the landowners wherein it was stated that they will give additional land to the Government for various departmental work of the Sub-Divisional Headquarter, Pughoboto. It was agreed that the landowners shall be compensated/facilitated in the form of Government contracts and Grade-IV posts in various departments at Pughoboto as per the Rules. It is stated that the Office of the Sub- Divisional Officer, PWD (R&B), Pughoboto was subsequently upgraded to the Officer of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B). 7. The petitioner further states that the co-landowner, Shri Yehoto was initially appointed on 10.05.1988 on landownership basis and later his son was also appointed. Further, Shri Zuhovi, who is the brother of the co- landowner was also appointed on the basis of landownership and retired on 30.06.2023. However, neither the petitioner nor any of his family members have availed any kind of benefit till date. 8. The petitioner states that the vacancy of MTS arose on 30.06.2023 on the retirement of Shri Zuhovi Sema under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Pughoboto. Against this vacant post, the petitioner submitted an application along with the landowner certificate issued by the Chairman of the Mishilimi Village Council dated 15.10.2023 to the Engineer-in-Chief, Nagaland PWD. However, the same was not Page No.# 5/11 considered. Later the R-6 was appointed against the said post by an Order dated 22.12.2023. It is alleged that the impugned Appointment Order was issued without conducting any selection process and hence in violation of the constitutional scheme for public employment and was made on extraneous considerations. 9. Learned counsel further submits that it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed to public office even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without conducting selection process. If such an appointment is made, it will not meet the requirement of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per Clause 3(b) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018, if there is a claim for providing employment as a result of oral agreement, the concerned department has to refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned who shall examine such claim. However, in the instant case, the respondent Department has not carried out such an exercise as prescribed in the Notification dated 05.03.2018 which has deprived the petitioner’s case for appointment on the basis of landownership. It is stated that till date, the respondents have not appointed any member from his family and as such the impugned Approval Letter dated 21.23 and the impugned Appointment Order dated 22.12.2023 are liable to be quashed and set aside and it is prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the said vacant post of MTS in terms of the policy/Notification dated 05.03.2018. Page No.# 6/11 11. Learned Government Advocate, Mr. Mosemsa Longkumer submitting on the basis of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 5 has submitted that upon verification it has been confirmed that 3 persons have already availed the benefit of employment on landownership basis in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Pughoboto namely, Shri Zuhovi Sema, Shri Honito and Shri Botovi. Learned Government Advocate further submits that Clause 3(c) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 in regard to appointment on landownership basis under the Government of Nagaland clearly states that the State respondents cannot appoint more than one landowner, and as such the question of appointment of the petitioner on landownership basis does not arise as it will amount to negation of the standing policy of the State Government dated 05.03.2018. Therefore, learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to claim appointment on the basis of landownership. Consequently, the petitioner also has no locus to challenge the appointment of the R-6. 12. Learned counsel, Mr. Wati Jamir, appearing for the R-6 has raised the question of maintainability of the present writ petition. He has submitted that for appointment of landowners, the Government has adopted a policy vide Notification dated 05.03.2018 whereby at Paragraph- 3(c) it has been provided that the appointment of landowner in Government service is limited to the person first appointed and to provide employment to the landowner cannot be in perpetuity. Moreover, he has submitted that R-2, in order to ascertain the claim of the petitioner had requested the concerned Executive Engineer vide Letter dated 23.05.2024 to verify whether there is any agreement with the landowner and whether any Page No.# 7/11 landowner had been appointed in the Department. The concerned Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Pughoboto, vide Letter dated 29.07.2024 has replied to the said Letter stating that there is no record available with the Department pertaining to agreement made between the Government and the landowner. However, by the said Letter it was also stated that 3 employees namely, Shri Honito, Shri Botovi and Shri Zuhovi were already appointed on landownership basis. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that it is already on record that 3 landowners have been appointed in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Pughoboto and as such the writ petitioner has no legal right to claim appointment on landownership basis in view of the policy dated 05.03.2018 and as such the writ petitioner has no locus standi to file the instant writ petition claiming appointment on landownership basis. 13. Learned counsel for R-6 further submits that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be filed only by “person aggrieved” and only he has the locus standi. A person aggrieved is one who has suffered a legal grievance, a person against whom a decision has been pronounced, which has wrongly deprived a person of something or wrongly affected his title to something. In the instant case, the petitioner has not been denied or deprived of any legal rights nor sustained injury to any legally protected interest and as such, the petitioner is not an aggrieved person. Therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed in limine without entering into the facts of the case. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that as the writ petitioner has no locus standi to prefer the instant writ petition, he cannot challenge the appointment of the R-6 and therefore, prays that the petition may be dismissed. The learned Page No.# 8/11 counsel for R-6 has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Versus State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding unless he satisfies the authority/court that he falls within the category of aggrieved person. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right or when there is a complaint by the appellant that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the authorities. Further, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The court can, of course enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. 14. This Court has given due consideration to the submissions of the parties and has examined the pleadings and the authorities relied upon. The conditions for appointment to Government service on the basis of landownership has been laid down by the policy brought out by the State Government vide Notification No. LR/6-181/LIT/2015/493 dated 05.03.2018. The said Notification dated 05.03.2018 has been referred to by the petitioner as well as by the respondents. 15. Paragraph-3(c) of the said Notification dated 05.03.2018 is Page No.# 9/11 reproduced here below for ready reference: “N O T I F I C A T I O N Dated Kohima the 5th March 2018 NO. LR/6-181/LIT/2015/493: In pursuance of approval of the Cabinet vide O.M. No. CAB-2/2013 Dt. 13.12.17, The Governor of Nagaland is pleased to notify the following policy with regard to appointments to Grade-IV posts under the Government of Nagaland on landownership basis. … 3(c) It is also clarified that it is not the policy of the Government to provide employment to the landowner in perpetuity. The employment of landowner, if permitted by a verifiable and valid agreement, is limited to the person first appointed as landowner in Government service and does not entitle his descendants for further employment on his retirement on his retirement from service. After the appointed landowner retires or vacates the post, the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement in consonance with the existing policy giving equal opportunity to all applicants.” 16. At Clause 3 (c) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 it is categorically stated that it is not the policy of the Government to provide employment to the landowners in perpetuity. The employment of landowners, if permitted by a valid agreement is limited to the first appointment as landowner in Government service and does not entitle his descendants for further employment on the retirement from service. It is also provided in Clause 3(c) that after the appointed landowner retires or vacates the post, the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement in consonance with the existing policy giving equal opportunity to all applicants. The Notification dated 15.03.2018 does not speak about appointment of descendants of multiple forefathers who were landowners. The Notification provides for appointment of only one person to be appointed Page No.# 10/11 as landowner. This Court cannot give a different meaning to Clause 3(c) of the policy dated 05.03.2018. 17. In the present case, it is seen that 3 other landowners have already been appointed in the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Pughoboto. Therefore, the right of the present petitioner if any, has already been extinguished by the appointment of the other 3 persons on the basis of landownership. This Court, in WP(C)/89/2023 has already expressed a similar view in the matter of claim for employment on the basis of landownership. In the case of Anand Sharadchandra Oka Versus University of Mumbai reported in (2008) 5 SCC 217 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that if a person claiming relief is not eligible as per requirement, then he cannot be said to be a person aggrieved regarding the election or the selection of other persons. 18. Having gone through the pleadings and the annexures available before the Court, it is seen that the concerned Department has already stated through the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Pughoboto that there is no oral or written agreement with the Government where a condition was laid down to appoint the landowner to Grade-IV post in lieu of the donated land. Even in the agreement which is annexed as Annexure-C it is seen that it is only signed in between the GBs, Village Council Chairman and the landowners. The Government is not a signatory to the agreement dated 30.06.1989. 19. This Court is, therefore, of the view that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that he should be appointed against the vacant post Page No.# 11/11 of MTS in the Office of the Executive Engineer, PWD (R&B), Pughoboto. He, therefore, has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of the R- 6. In view of the aforementioned discussion above, the petitioner has not been able to make put a case to warrant the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 20. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant