JUDGMENT & ORDER : PRANJAL DAS, J. Heard Mr. Hisinlo Himb, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent No. 5. 2. The petitioner, namely Shri. Seyienekho has invoked the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by his non-selection in the interview dated 17/08/2023 conducted by the Selection Board for the post of Medical Attendant at the Tsiepama Sub-Centre under the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Kohima, Nagaland. 3. The factual matrix projected by writ petitioner is that his uncles, Visakholie Kuotsu and Seyieleto Kuotsu had donated land measuring 30,000 square feet where the Tsiepama Sub-Centre of the Health & Family Welfare Department was constructed in 2011. It is stated that a written agreement was executed on 20.07.2011 between the Village Council and his uncles regarding the land donation and to provide Grade-IV post to the landowner in lieu of allotment of land. Subsequently, one Grade-IV post of Medical Attendant fell vacant upon retirement of the incumbent whereupon the petitioner applied seeking the post on land ownership basis. His application was forwarded by the CMO Dimapur to the Principal Director in the Directorate of the Department. The SDO (Civil) Medziphema and said Tsiepama Village Council have also issued a certificate for appointing the petitioner. It is stated that the Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare, vide letter No. DHFW-3/520/DMP/2019 dated 28/11/2022 wrote a letter to the Chief Medical Officer, Dimapur, Nagaland for constituting the Screening Selection Board and forwarded 8(eight) applications against the vacancy and later interview was conducted on 17/08/2023 and pursuant thereof, the respondent No. 5 was appointed in the said post. 4. The petitioner has contended that subsequently despite the recommendation of the Selection Board in favour of the other candidate, the respondent No. 5 who was not recommended was approved and illegally appointed. The petitioner is also aggrieved by his non-selection and non-appointment and has filed the writ petition for that reason as well. He has annexed with the writ petition, a copy of the agreement between his uncles and the Village Council. The petitioner is also aggrieved by his non-selection and non-appointment and has filed the writ petition for that reason as well. He has annexed with the writ petition, a copy of the agreement between his uncles and the Village Council. It is stated by the petitioner that the Office Memorandum dated 07/12/2016 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Nagaland lays down the constitution of such Departmental Screening Committee for such selection and it has to be comprised of the following persons: “Government of Nagaland Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (Administrative Reforms Branch) OFFICE MEMORANDUM No. AR-3/Gen-174/2007(Pt) Dated, Kohima the 7 th December, 2016. Subject: Procedure for filling up of Grade-III & IV Posts in the Departments. The existing policy and procedure for filling up of Grade-III and Grade-IV posts under the State Government, including the District Offices, has been further reviewed and it has been decided that recruitments to Grade-III and Grade-IV posts shall be made as per the procedure laid down in the following paragraphs. 1. All direct recruitment vacancies arising in Grade-III as well as Grade-IV posts under the establishment of Deputy Commissioners in District administration shall be filled up by the indigenous of the respective District through a Selection Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner and having three District level Heads of Offices, an Administrative Officer, the Regional Employment Officer or District Employment Officer and the Principal or Senior Lecturer of the local College to be nominated by the Deputy Commissioner. 2. Further, all direct recruitment vacancies in Grade-III posts which are outside the purview of NPSC as well as in Grade-IV posts in a Department, including such vacancies in the District offices of that Department, shall be filled up based on recommendation of the following Departmental Screening Committee (except Police Department): (1) Director/Head of Department - Chairman (2) Representative of concerned Administrative Department not below the rank of Under Secretary - Member (3) Representative of P&AR Department not below the rank of Under Secretary - Member (4) A senior officer of concerned Directorate not below the rank of Deputy Director in-charge of administration - Member Secretary 3. Appointments shall be made after the recommendations of the Departmental Screening Committee are approved by the Government. 4. All direct recruitment vacancies in Grade-IV posts in District offices of the Departments shall be filled up by the indigenous inhabitants of the respective District. Appointments shall be made after the recommendations of the Departmental Screening Committee are approved by the Government. 4. All direct recruitment vacancies in Grade-IV posts in District offices of the Departments shall be filled up by the indigenous inhabitants of the respective District. In making recruitments to other Grade-IV posts in the Directorate and Secretariat level offices, the reservation policy for Backward Tribes shall be adhered to. 5. The Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate (IIC) may be verified with the help of latest Census records to rule out possibility of multiple IICs in the name of the same person. 6. This issues in supersession of all earlier instructions on the matter, including this Department's Office Memorandum of even number dated 4" June, 2016 and with the approval of the Cabinet vide Memorandum No. CAB-2/2013 dated 12" July, 2016.” 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Screening Committee was not constituted as laid down by the Memorandum and therefore, the process of selection was null and void. The petitioner also reiterates that respondent No.5 who was not recommended was illegally appointed. The petitioner is also aggrieved by his non-selection to the Sub-Centre which was purportedly constructed on the land donated by his two uncles. 6. The State respondents being respondent No. 1 to 4 have filed a common affidavit-in-opposition. The first contention made in the affidavit- in-opposition is that the agreement projected by the petitioner of 2011 was made between the Village Council and the landowners--and that the Health & Family Welfare Department is not a party to the said agreement. 7. The most important contention made by the respondent authorities in the affidavit-in-opposition is that in 2014, Seyieleto Kuotsu, uncle of the petitioner, who was one of the landowners was appointed at the same Sub-Centre as a sweeper in 2014 and that he continues in his service till date. Referring to notification No. LR/6-181/LIT/2015, dated 05/03/2018, it is contended that the family having already availed appointment on land ownership basis and the policy of the government is not to provide employment to the landowner's family in perpetuity - the claim of the petitioner is not justified. 8. It is contended that the petitioner has resorted to suppression of the material fact and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. 8. It is contended that the petitioner has resorted to suppression of the material fact and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. It is stated in paragraph-6 of the affidavit that the uncle of the petitioner who was one of the landowners was appointed to the sub-centre on 06/06/2014. It is stated in paragraph-8 that after the interview on 17/08/2023, the recommendation of the Screening Committee was forwarded to the Directorate and that the recommendation of the Screening Committee is not binding on the appointing authority. Relevant documents have been annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition. 9. The private respondent who was selected after the interview on 17/08/2023 has filed his affidavit-in-opposition. He has also stated that the aforementioned uncle of the petitioner who was one of the landowners has been already appointed to a Grade-IV post, vide order dated 06/06/2014 and still in service. It is stated that such fact was not revealed by the petitioner and therefore, the writ petition lacks bona fides. It is also stated that the petitioner having participated in the selection process voluntarily cannot now turn around and question the process. 10. It is also stated that the agreement relied upon by the petitioner regarding the donation of land was not executed by any government authority and therefore is not enforceable vis-à-vis the Office Memorandum dated 05/03/2018. With regard to the candidate securing the highest marks placed as Sl. No. 1 and who was recommended by the Screening Committee - the respondent No. 5 in his affidavit has stated in paragraph-14 that the candidate was married to a Nepali citizen and therefore her appointment required strict verification and in the absence of such verification, the appointing authority did not act upon her candidature. The respondent No.5 in the affidavit questions the locus of the petitioner in challenging and assailing the selection process. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, supporting his pleadings, submits that the Primary Health Center was built on the land donated by the petitioner's uncles. It is submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 05/03/2018 is the governing law on the subject and that the selection process was violative of paragraph-2 of the Office Memorandum. It is submitted that the Departmental Screening Committee which was constituted for the selection process was defective and violative of the stipulated guidelines and therefore, the entire selection process was vitiated. It is submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 05/03/2018 is the governing law on the subject and that the selection process was violative of paragraph-2 of the Office Memorandum. It is submitted that the Departmental Screening Committee which was constituted for the selection process was defective and violative of the stipulated guidelines and therefore, the entire selection process was vitiated. It is submitted that the Committee was to be constituted strictly in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 07/12/2016. 12. The learned counsel submits that the respondent No.5 was illegally appointed and that the said respondent was not in the merit list as per the marks to be selected and appointed. It is submitted that the selection process was violative of the applicable Office Memorandum of the Government of Nagaland. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that his uncle has been appointed on a fixed pay basis on a temporary post and that his service has not even undergone any regularization. It is submitted that the petitioner was claiming benefit on his own accord and therefore, no mention of his uncle's appointment was made in the writ petition. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State respondents, being respondent No. 1 to 4 submits that the agreement pertaining to the land donation and promise of Grade-IV post was made between the landowners and the Village Council and that there was no departmental representation in that agreement. It is submitted that the petitioner's uncle, who was one of the landowners, has already been appointed as a sweeper. It is also submitted that the petitioner has participated in the selection process and then turned around to assail the same. 14. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 also submits that having participated in the selection process, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the process and that he is also guilty of suppression of material facts. It is also submitted that the agreement projected by the petitioner side was not with the department and that the petitioner is also not a descendant to be eligible for appointment on the purported quota of the landowner who had donated the land. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner on the ground of land ownership and donation fails and that at best, the uncle of the petitioner can seek regularization of his services. 15. It is submitted that the claim of the petitioner on the ground of land ownership and donation fails and that at best, the uncle of the petitioner can seek regularization of his services. 15. The learned counsel for the private respondent also questions the locus standi of the petitioner and submits that he is not an aggrieved person to prefer this writ petition. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 cites the following decisions: (i) Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan -versus- State of Maharasthra & Others, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465 , para-9. (ii) Madan Lal & Others -versus- State of J & K & Others, reported in (1995) 3 SCC 486 , para-9. 17. I have perused the pleadings of the parties, the annexed documents, and considered the rival submissions. I have also perused the decisions cited at the Bar. 18. Upon perusing the Notification dated 05/03/2018, I find that after 26/07/2005, any agreement with the landowner entered into by the department in deviation of the policies shall be treated as null and void. However, if the department is of the view that the agreement should not be so declared as null and void, it has to take up the matter with the authorities with all the details. The old cases where Administrative headquarters and Block headquarters were set up on lands donated freely by individuals should not be reopened for compensation or employment. It is also provided that in cases prior to 26/07/2005 regarding setting up of Administrative and Block headquarters on freely donated land where a specific written agreement exists, the claim of the landowner should be settled in terms of such agreement. I find from the notification that though it is not explicitly provided, but it is indicative of the fact that whenever such agreements are made regarding donation of land and provision of employment in lieu of such donation, the concerned department should be involved in the agreement. 19. One of the contentions of the respondents side that the projected agreement on the basis of which the petitioner is making a claim of employment on land donation basis was made between the Village Council and his uncles who were the landowners and that no department was involved. 19. One of the contentions of the respondents side that the projected agreement on the basis of which the petitioner is making a claim of employment on land donation basis was made between the Village Council and his uncles who were the landowners and that no department was involved. Even, if this aspect is overlooked, what is most important for the adjudication of this matter is the contention of the respondent side that one of the uncles of the petitioner, who was one of the two landowners, had already been given employment in a Grade-IV post in the concerned sub-centre. For this purpose, para-3b & 3(c) of the Notification dated 05/03/2018 may be reproduced here and below; “GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND LAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Dated Kohima, the 5th March, 2018 NO.LR/6-181/LIT/2015: In pursuance of approval of the Cabinet vide O.M No. CAB-2/2013 D.13.12.2017, 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(b) If there is any claim for providing employment as a result of oral agreement, the Department concerned shall refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned who shall examine such claim carefully including whether any employment or any other facility including contract or supply order has been given in the past. Written statements from the witnesses, that is, Government officials of the concerned Department and the District Administration and village functionaries present at the time of such oral agreement should be taken by the Deputy Commissioner. The recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner should be referred with relevant documents to the Department of Land Revenue for advice in such case by the Department concerned. 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 entitled his descendants for further employment on his retirement for 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.” 20. 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.” 20. It is clear from the notification that such employment in government department to landowners who have donated the land has to be on a one-time basis and certainly not in perpetuity. Such a benefit conferred on the landowners is also not hereditary in nature. The contention of the respondents is that Seyieleto Kuotsu, uncle of the petitioner who was one of the landowners was appointed as a sweeper in the Tsiepama Sub-centre on 06/06/2014. A copy of the said order has also been annexed with the affidavit-in-opposition. The said projected fact could not be disputed by the petitioner side. Rather, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the employment of the said uncle as a sweeper is on a very temporary basis and therefore, that should not defeat the claim of the petitioner seeking employment in the Grade-IV post on a regular basis. The nature of the employment provided to the uncle of the petitioner as one of the landowners is another matter. If the employment of his uncle as one of the landowners has continued on a very temporary basis, it is up to the said uncle of the petitioner to seek regularization of his service in terms of the applicable rules and guidelines. However, in terms of para-3b of the Notification dated 05/03/2018 as already referred to above, once the uncle of the petitioner as landowner has been given employment in a Grade-IV post in the said Sub-Centre, any such provision for giving employment to the landowner - pursuant to the donation of the land stands exhausted - and the petitioner cannot be said to have any more right as a nephew of one of the landowners to claim any right to the Grade-IV post which has become vacant. 21. Another aspect contended by the respondents is that having participated in the selection process, the petitioner cannot turn around and assail the selection process and thus, he is estopped from doing so. 22. 21. Another aspect contended by the respondents is that having participated in the selection process, the petitioner cannot turn around and assail the selection process and thus, he is estopped from doing so. 22. In Madan Lal (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.5, the Hon’ble Apex Court referring to an earlier decision of Om Prakash Shukla has delved into this aspect and held that once a candidate takes a chance of participating in the selection process, he cannot turn around to question the same. The relevant paragraph-9 may be reproduced herein below; “ 9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Upto this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., ( AIR 1986 SC 1043 ), it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.” 23. The decision in Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra) delves into the aspect of locus standi to prefer a writ petition and it was noticed that it is a settled proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in a proceeding unless he satisfies the Court that he falls within the category of aggrieved person. The relevant paragraph-9 may be reproduced herein below: “9. 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 persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. in a court of law. 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. Therefore, 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. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 ; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728 ; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044 ; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736 ; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784 ).” 24. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728 ; Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., AIR 1962 SC 1044 ; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736 ; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784 ).” 24. Going back to the facts of this case, it is found that in the marks sheet containing the marks of the candidates who had appeared for the interview, the highest mark of 37.5 was secured by Seyienie-u Thepa, followed by Ngulanei Meyase (36) and thereafter, the present petitioner. The respondent authorities had appointed the respondent No. 5 who had secured 31 marks. Thus, there were 3(three) candidates who had secured more marks than the respondent No. 5 including the present petitioner. The private respondent in his affidavit at para-14 has stated with regard to the candidate securing the highest mark that-she was married to a Nepali citizen and in the absence of requisite verification, her candidature was not accepted. However, from the materials it is not clear as to why the candidate securing the next highest mark of 36 namely, Ngulanei Meyase was not appointed and rather appointment was given to the respondent No.5 who had secured lesser marks than three candidates. However, the said candidate Ngulanei Meyase securing 36 marks out of 50 has not assailed the selection process nor sought selection and appointment. In that situation, the petitioner who had secured 33 marks out of 50 and therefore, lesser marks than the said Ngulanei Meyase would not have the locus standi to challenge his non-appointment. 25. The respondent authorities representing the department should have thrown light on this aspect in their affidavit-in-opposition as to in what circumstances the appointment was given to the private respondent. However, unfortunately the same has not been done. As already discussed, in the absence of the immediately affected candidate not coming forward to challenge the selection, the petitioner would not have the locus standi to challenge the selection process and his consequent non-selection as has already been discussed above. 26. However, unfortunately the same has not been done. As already discussed, in the absence of the immediately affected candidate not coming forward to challenge the selection, the petitioner would not have the locus standi to challenge the selection process and his consequent non-selection as has already been discussed above. 26. Accordingly, in the entire facts and circumstances and in the backdrop of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion, that-- the relief sought for by the petitioner by way of seeking appointment to the Grade-IV post in the Primary Health Centre cannot be granted--as his uncle was already appointed to a Grade-IV post on land donation basis, being one of the landowners, on the basis of the applicable and governing law. Moreover, the petitioner having participated in the selection process could not have turned around and assailed the constitution of the Selection Committee and the selection process pursuant thereto. 27. Lastly, though it is not clear as to on what basis the private respondent No. 5 was appointed, despite the existence of more than one candidate securing, more marks than him in the interview--but in the face of the immediately affected candidates not coming forward to assail the selection--the petitioner would be devoid of the necessary locus standi to assail the selection and seek a direction for his selection pursuant to the process. 28. Consequently, the writ petition is not found to be having sufficient merits and is accordingly, dismissed and disposed of.