Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020002892023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/116/2023 SHRI. LUNDANKHIUNG YIM S/O SHRI. YONGLIMKIU YIMCHUNGER, PREMANENT R/O PUNGRO TOWN, P.O/P.S. PUNGRO, KIPHIRE, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.OF NAGALAND, NEW SECRETARIAT, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:SMTI. A. TENMEI PHOM SURVEILLANCE WORKER OFFICE OF THE CMO KIPHIRE UNDER DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : H MUKAM, KIELIE Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI For the Petitioners : Shri H Mukam, Advocate. For the Respondents : Ms. Inaholi, Govt. Advocate, Nagaland & Shri Limawapang, Advocate/R-4. Date of Hearing : 02.12.2025. Date of Judgment : 02.12.2025. JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) The challenge in this present writ petition is against the appointment of the private respondent no. 4 as Surveillance Worker vide order dated 18.01.2023. The said challenge is based on the grounds, firstly that there was violation of an Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2017 and secondly, the appointment was made without any selection process. 2. As per the facts projected, the petitioner claims to be eligible for appointment as Surveillance Worker under the Health Department. The petitioner has relied upon an Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2017 as per which, all direct recruitment vacancies in Grade-IV in the district offices are to be filled up by indigenous inhabitants of the respective districts. The petitioner claims to have submitted an application on 09.09.2022 praying for his appointment in a vacant post of Grade-IV (Surveillance Worker) under the CMO Kiphire against a retired vacancy. However, the said vacancy was filled up by appointing the respondent no. 4 vide the impugned order dated 18.01.2023. It Page No.# 3/5 is alleged that said respondent no. 4 is not an indigenous inhabitant of the said district. 3. I have heard Shri H Mukam, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned State Counsel, Nagaland as well as Shri Limawapang, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. 4. Shri Mukam, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2017 holds the field in the aspect of recruitment in a Grade-IV post in the district offices as per which, there is a requirement of the appointment being made from indigenous inhabitants of the respective districts. The petitioner claims to be an indigenous inhabitant of Kiphire district and otherwise eligible for appointment to the said post of Surveillance Worker (Grade-IV) which fell vacant on the retirement of the earlier incumbent. He, however, submits that instead of considering the application of the petitioner dated 09.09.2022 for such appointment, the respondent no. 4 has been appointed vide the impugned order dated 18.01.2023. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 is not an indigenous inhabitant of the Kiphire district. The learned counsel accordingly submits that interference of this Court is required and a direction be given for appointing the petitioner in the said post. 5. Per contra, Ms. Inaholi, learned State Counsel has defended the action of the State and has submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 26.10.2017 would not have any application so far as the post of Surveillance Worker is concerned. She submits that the said post involves technical aspect and cannot be confined only to an indigenous inhabitant of the respective district. On the aspect of not holding a selection process, the learned State Counsel has, however, fairly admitted that the records do not show that any selection process was conducted prior to the said appointment. Page No.# 4/5 6. Shri Limawapang, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4 has endorsed the submissions of the learned State Counsel. He has fairly admitted that the respondent no. 4 though not an indigenous inhabitant of the district of Kiphire, the post in question cannot be confined to such indigenous inhabitant as the same involves technical aspect. He has also added that such post is transferable in nature and therefore, the embargo given by the notification dated 26.10.2017 would not be applicable to the present case. 7. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed on records have been carefully examined. 8. As noted above, the challenge is structured on two broad grounds. Firstly, it is urged that the respondent no. 4 is not an indigenous inhabitant of the district of Kiphire and his appointment to the said post is accordingly violates the mandate of the aforesaid OM dated 26.10.2017. The second ground, as noted above, is that such appointment was not preceded by any valid and recognised selection process. The first aspect that the respondent no. 4 not being an indigenous inhabitant of the concerned district is, however, not disputed. However, the explanation is that the post in question is not covered by the OM dated 26.10.2017 as the same involves technical aspect and is also transferable in nature. The second ground is the aspect of not having a recruitment process before filing up the aforesaid post. 9. Before going to the first aspect where there is also an explanation, this Court is of the view that the ground that the post in question was filled up without any selection process is a valid ground which has been demonstrated by the petitioner. The said ground is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents and the records also do not show that any process of recruitment was done wherein all eligible persons were given a fair chance. It is Page No.# 5/5 trite that all public employments are to be preceded by a duly held recruitment process whereby all eligible persons are to be given a fair and equal opportunity to compete. The same requirement is not only in consonance with the right to equality enshrined in the Constitution of India but also gives the authorities the best amongst the lot. 10. This Court is of the opinion that without even requiring to answer the first ground of challenge, the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed on the second ground of challenge, namely, appointment of the respondent no. 4 was not done by following a duly recruitment process. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition stands allowed and the impugned order dated 18.01.2023 appointing the respondent no. 4 stands set aside. It is, however, made clear that the first ground of challenge would be answered in an appropriate case inasmuch as, certain explanations were given by the learned State Counsel as well as the counsel for the respondent no. 4. 12. Consequently, it is directed that if the vacancy which has arisen on the retirement of the earlier incumbent is sought to be filled up, the same should be filled up strictly in accordance with law and by having a duly prescribed recruitment process. 13. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 14. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant