Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040004342025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/120/2025 Smti Yakar Pagmen Daughter of Shri Kabom Pagmen, permanent resident of Village Pagmen, PO and PS Dumporijo, Upper Subansiri District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 6 Ors represented by the Commissioner, Department of Rural Development, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director of Rural Development cum Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : MGNREGA Department of Rural Development Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Project Director (Rural Development) Age: 0 Occupation : Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Deputy Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Block Development Officer Age: 0 Occupation : Page No.# 2/5 Dumporijo CD Block Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 6:Jumkar Marde Age: 0 Occupation : Son of Shri Nyajum Marde resident of Village Meche Marde PO and PS Dumporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 7:Rode Bui Age: 0 Occupation : MLA 26 Dumporijo ST Assembly Constituency cum Advisor Social Justice Empowerment and Tribal Affairs Labour and Employment Department Govt of Arunachal Pradesh 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Gimi Tarak, Byabang Mema,Taja Garam Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), SC (RD),Binter Picha BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 29-05-2025 Heard Mr. T. Garam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Picha, learned Standing Counsel for the Department of Rural Development, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 and Ms. G. Ete, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent No. 4. 2. In view of the nature of the order being passed, service of notice upon the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 is deemed to be not necessary. 3. With the consent of the learned counsels of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final consideration and disposal. Page No.# 3/5 4. The petitioner has by way of instituting the present proceeding, presented a challenge to the engagement of the respondent No. 6, Shri Jumkar Marde as Computer Assistant in the establishment of the Project Director, Department of Rural Development, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo. 5. The petitioner in the writ petition has contended that on a vacancy arising in the post of Computer Assistant, existing in the establishment of the respondent No. 3, she had submitted an application before the Director (Rural Development)-cum- Commissioner (NREGA) for consideration of her case for engagement against the said vacant post of Computer Assistant. It is contended in the writ petition that basing on such application, the Director (Rural Development)-cum-Commissioner, NREGA, vide order dated 05.03.2025 had granted approval for the engagement of the petitioner against the post of Computer Assistant falling vacant on resignation of Shri Bomkar Pagmen, who was the incumbent therein, earlier. It is the further contention of the petitioner that after issuance of the said order, dated 05.03.2025, she had approached the Deputy Commissioner, Upper Subansiri District, Daporijo i.e. the respondent No. 4, for issuance of the consequential order of appointment. However, the petitioner was denied an appointment on the ground that the respondent No. 4 had already appointed the respondent No. 6 against the post of Computer Assistant on 26.02.2025 itself. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 6. The respondent No. 4 has filed an affidavit in the matter and therein, has submitted that the engagement of the respondent No. 6 was so made in terms of the prescription made in the Office Memorandum, dated 28.06.2006, wherein, it was prescribed that while there shall be no recruitment on regular basis, all post under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme shall be so made on contractual basis by the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned on behalf of the State Government and such, engagement of the candidate would be for a period of 6 (six) months initially, which would be further permissible to be extended subject to necessity. Page No.# 4/5 7. In view of the prescription made in the affidavit as well as the stipulation made in the OM, dated 28.06.2006, it is seen that the power of engagement of contractual employees under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme is delegated to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner by the Government. Accordingly, the order, dated 05.03.2025, passed by the Director (Rural Development)-cum-Commissioner, NREGA, requiring the engagement of the petitioner herein, as Computer Assistant in the establishment of the respondent No. 4, cannot be said to be an order so passed in consonance with the provisions of the Office Memorandum, dated 28.06.2006. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner having already engaged the respondent No. 6, in accordance with the provisions of the said OM, dated 28.06.2006, against the post of Computer Assistant on a vacancy arising therein, and such appointment having been so made prior to the passing of the order dated 05.03.2025, it is found that no right of the petitioner in this connection has been infringed with. 8. It is to be noted that in the order, dated 05.03.2025, while it was stipulated that approval was granted to the engagement of the petitioner as a Computer Assistant in the establishment of the respondent No. 4, the conditions stipulated in the order, more particularly, the condition No. 2, mandated that a formal contractual appointment order shall be issued by the respondent No. 4 after observing all the codal formalities. The said position goes to further reiterate that the contractual engagement under the National Rural Employment Grantee Scheme is to be made by the Deputy Commissioner, on power of effecting such engagement being delegated to him by the State Government and the Director (Rural Development) has got no jurisdiction to effect or direct for effecting of such engagement. 9. In view of the above position, this Court is of the considered view that the engagement of the respondent No. 6, effected vide order dated 26.02.2025 as a Computer Assistant in the establishment of the respondent No. 4, being so effected in terms of the stipulation made in the Office Memorandum, dated 28.06.2006, the same would not mandate an interference. Page No.# 5/5 10. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant