Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020000102025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/2/2025 MS. KHETOLI SUMI D/O LHOKIYE SUMI R/O AKULUTO TOWN, PDC ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY/SECRETARY DEPT. OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 2:THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DIMAPUR NAGALAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. A. Zhimomi, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Moa Imchen, Sr. GA, Nagaland BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 25.05.2026 Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. Moa Page No.# 2/7 Imchen, the learned Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The materials on record show that the Petitioner herein was appointed temporarily vide an order dated 30.04.2009 on a scale of pay w.e.f. 01.05.2009. Annexure 3 to 11 are various appointment orders of persons appointed subsequent to the Petitioner. A Perusal of these annexures would show that except Smti Neinuo Zumu who was appointed on contract basis and subsequently regularized vide an order dated 13.06.2012, all other persons were also appointed in a similar manner in which the Petitioner was appointed. However, an apparent distinction between the appointment order of the Petitioner and those persons appointed under Annexure 5 to 11 is that there is a mention to administrative approval of the Government. 3. The records further reveal that those persons who have been appointed under Annexure 3 to 11, they have been considered for promotion and promoted whereas the Petitioner still continues in the post of Sub-Inspector of Supply. In addition to that, in the seniority list, a remark has been put against the Page No.# 3/7 Petitioner’s name showing as “excess”. It is under such circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition for deletion of the remark “excess” against the Petitioner’s name in the seniority list and further, the Petitioner should be considered for promotion as it is the fundamental right under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4. The records reveal that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 wherein the stand so taken is that the Petitioner was appointed without any sanctioned post and without any approval of the Government and as such there is a remark against the petitioner’s name in the seniority list. 5. The records further reveal that this Court vide an order dated 18.05.2026 directed the Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Nagaland to clarify the position by producing the necessary documents reflecting the cadre strength along with the man in position at the time when the Petitioner was appointed. 6. In pursuance to that, certain instructions have Page No.# 4/7 been produced by Mr. Moa Imchen, the learned Senior Government Advocate. A perusal of the said instructions, reveal that at the time when the Petitioner was appointed, there were 28 sanctioned post to the post of Sub-Inspector of Supply in the Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Nagaland as on 31.03.2008. The Petitioner was appointed vide an order dated 30.04.2009 w.e.f. 01.05.2009. It is also seen from the seniority list so produced as on 23.03.2010 that the Petitioner’s name feature at Serial No.25 meaning thereby the Petitioner’s name was shown against the vacant sanctioned post. 7. The records further reveal that the Petitioner all these while from 2009 till date, had been paid the regular salary to what a person who is appointed regularly as a Sub-Inspector of Supply gets. The question however arises as to whether, without any administrative approval, the Petitioner’s post could have been regularized. 8. Mr. A. Zhimomi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that taking into account that for the last 17 years, the Petitioner has been serving as a Sub-Inspector of Supply, and the Petitioner having Page No.# 5/7 been paid the salary to which a regular Sub-Inspector of Supply gets, it is too late in the day to question the petitioner’s appointment on the ground that there exist no administrative approval. The learned counsel submitted that the Petitioner had been serving diligently since the last 17 years without any blemish and it would be unfair and unreasonable to deny the Petitioner his rights which a regular Government servant enjoys only on the ground that there was no administrative approval though without the administrative approval, there could not have been payment of his salaries. The learned counsel therefore submitted that there was a deemed administrative approval in the facts of the present case. 9. This Court has duly taken note of that this administrative approval is to be granted by the P&AR Department of the Government of Nagaland. However, the P&AR Department is not a party to the instant proceedings. In addition to that, the relief(s) so sought for in the present proceedings is inadequate for passing an order of deem administrative approval. Page No.# 6/7 10. The learned counsel for the Petitioner therefore submitted that the Petitioner in such circumstances would be left without two options. One would be to seek amendment of the writ petition while the other is to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to re-file. The learned counsel submitted that the first option would be cumbersome and would delay the process. Hence, he submitted that the Petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition without prejudice and granted liberty to re-file. 11. It is relevant to note herein that documents which have been produced before this Court today by Mr. Moa Imchen, the learned Senior Government Advocate, copies thereof have been furnished to Mr. A. Zhimomi, the learned counsel. 12. Taking into account the above, the instant writ petition stands closed on withdrawal. 13. The withdrawal of the instant writ petition however shall not prejudice or preclude the Petitioner to again approach this Court by incorporating necessary pleas in view of the documents produced before this Court and arraying appropriate parties. Page No.# 7/7 14. The instructions which have been placed before this Court on the basis of the forwarding communication dated 21.05.2026 issued by the Director, Food and Civil Supplies is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant