Page No.# 1/6 GAHC020004142021 2025:GAU-NL:180 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/193/2021 SHRI. C. ALEM SANGTAM R/O KIPHIRE VILLAGE, KIPHIRE, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL HUBANDRY NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:SHRI. N. ATOVI SEMA S/O SHRI. NITOKHU SEMA R/O SITIMI VILLAGE DISTRICT - KIPHIRE NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : N. LONGKUMER, XAVIOR KENT,NISUKA CHISHI,YALEMSEN AO Page No.# 2/6 Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER O R D E R 05.05.2025 Heard Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. Moa Imchen for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, and Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on the following facts. It is stated that the petitioner was appointed as Medicine Carrier vide Order dated 14.02.2012. Thereafter, the approval of the petitioner as Medicine Carrier as well as the Appointment Order was challenged by the present respondent no. 4 by filing WP(C)/166(K)/2010 on the ground that he is the landowner of the land on which the present District Veterinary Office, Kiphire is situated, and claiming appointment on landownership basis on the strength of an agreement dated 14.02.1972 and affidavit dated 07.02.2009. After hearing the parties, this Court vide Order dated 24.06.2011 disposed of WP(C)/166(K)/2010 with a direction to consider the matter afresh, taking into consideration all the parties, the respondent no. 4 and the petitioner were also to be given personal hearing before finalization of the matter by passing appropriate speaking order. Page No.# 3/6 Thereafter, both the case of the petitioner and the respondent no. 4 were considered and the affidavit dated 07.02.2009, basing on which the respondent no. 4 claimed appointment was found to be unauthorized and against the standing Government Notification issued vide Notification dated 26.07.2005. Accordingly, by Order dated 15.09.2011, the respondent authorities reaffirmed the earlier Approval Order issued in favour of the present petitioner and by the said Order dated 15.09.2011, the affidavit dated 07.02.2009 was nullified by the Government as unauthorized. 3. Thereafter, against the Order dated 15.09.2011, the present respondent no. 4 filed a writ petition being WP(C)/238(K)/2011. During the pendency of the said WP(C)/238(K)/2011, the present petitioner was appointed as Medicine Carrier on the strength of an Approval Order dated 06.10.2010. The respondent no. 4 being aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner filed another writ petition being, WP(C)/31(K)/2012 challenging the Appointment Order of the present petitioner dated 14.02.2012. Since the issue involved in the aforesaid two writ petitions were based on similar facts and circumstances, this Court heard the matter together and by a common Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2013 set aside the Approval Order of the petitioner dated 06.10.2010 as well as the Appointment Order dated 14.02.2012. Subsequently, the respondent no. 4 herein was appointed to the post of Medicine Carrier under the establishment of the District Veterinary Office, Kiphire. Page No.# 4/6 4. The petitioner herein, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 20.09.2013 filed WA/18(K)/2013 and WA/19(K)/2013. The Appellate Court, by Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2018 allowed the writ appeals holding that the document dated 07.02.2009 has no legal validity in the eye of law and therefore set aside and quashed the Appointment Order of the respondent no. 4 dated 28.11.2013. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the direction passed by the Appellate Court in Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2018 is clear and without any ambiguity. However, it is stated that the respondent authorities are still allowing the respondent no. 4 to continue in service inspite of the fact that his appointment has already been set aside and quashed. 6. Therefore, the petitioner is now before this Court praying for: (i) Complying with the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2018 passed in WA/18(K)/2013 and WA/19(K)/2013. (ii) A direction to the respondent authorities to restore the Approval Order dated 06.10.2010 and the Appointment Order dated 14.02.2010 in favour of the petitioner. (iii) A direction to the respondent authorities to terminate the respondent no. 4 from service and to appoint the petitioner against the post held by the respondent no. 4. 7. Learned Senior Government Advocate, Mr. Moa Imchen has Page No.# 5/6 submitted on the basis of his additional affidavit wherein at paragraph nos. 3 and 5 it is stated that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 as Medicine Carrier under the establishment of the Animal Husbandry Centre at Sitimi has been removed by an order of cancellation dated 14.04.2025, which has been annexed in the additional affidavit as Annexure-B. It is therefore submitted that the direction of the Appellate Court has already been complied by the Government respondents vide the Order dated 14.04.2025, by which the appointment of the respondent no. 4 has been cancelled with immediate effect. 8. Learned counsel, Ms. Z. Zhimomi appearing for the respondent no. 4 has submitted that even though the WA/18(K)/2013 and WA/19(K)/2013 have been allowed by the Appellate Court, however, there is no clear direction that the petitioner should be appointed in the said post which was held by the respondent no. 4. She has also submitted that the present petitioner has never submitted any application praying for his appointment till today. The learned counsel also states that the petitioner was appointed on 14.02.2012 for a period of one year with a condition to be terminated with one month’s notice. And by this time, one year period has already expired and on this ground alone the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. This Court has considered the submissions of the opposing parties and perused the Judgment of the Appellate Court in WA/18(K)/2013 and WA/19(K)/2013. It is seen that at paragraph-17 of the said Judgment and Order the Appellate Court has specifically stated that the Order dated 28.11.2013 by which the respondent no. 1 therein (who is the respondent Page No.# 6/6 no. 4 in the instant writ petition) was appointed as Medicine Carrier at Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Centre, Sitimi under the establishment of District Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Office, Kiphire is set aside and quashed. WA/18(K)/2013 and WA/19(K)/2013 had been filed by the present petitioner against the Judgment and Order passed in WP(C)/31(K)/2012 and WP(C)/238(K)/2011 by which his appointment and approval were quashed and set aside; therefore, it is the view of this Court that when the WA/18(K)/2013 and WA/19(K)/2013 were allowed by the Judgment and Order dated 26.06.2018, thereby quashing the appointment of the respondent no. 1 (respondent no. 4); it would mean that the Approval Order and the Appointment Order of the petitioner stands revived. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents have already complied with the prayer of the petitioner for terminating the respondent no. 4 from service vide Order dated 14.04.2025. Accordingly, the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 are directed to restore the Approval Order dated 06.10.2010 and the Appointment Order dated 14.02.2012 in favour of the petitioner, within a period of 3 (three) months. With this direction, the writ petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant