Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020006572026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/177/2026 H. LAITAK KONYAK AND 2 ORS CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (CDPO), MON ICDS PROJECT, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, MON, NAGALAND 2: DISHONG CHAWANG @ DISHONG ZELIANG CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (CDPO) PEREN ICDS PROJECT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE PEREN NAGALAND 3: R. CHIRHOTSHU NYUSOU CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (CDPO) JALUKIE ICDS PROJECT DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE JALUKIE NAGALAN VERSUS ANUO LONGHO AND 10 ORS CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER (CDPO), LONGLENG ICDS PROJECT, LONGLENG DISTRICT, DIRECTORATE OF SOCIAL WELFARE, NAGALAND 2:THE STATE OF NAGALAND REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE KOHIMA NAGALAND 4:SHRI VEKHOTO TETSEO Page No.# 2/5 DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (DPO) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE PHEK NAGALAND 5:SMTI. RENCHANO ODYUO DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (DPO) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE SHAMATOR NAGALAND 6:SHRI R. IMTINUKSHI DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (DPO) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND 7:SMTI. AJONGLA TEMJEN DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (DPO) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE NOKLAK NAGALAND 8:SMTI SENTIMENLA PONGENER DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (DPO) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE TSEMINYU NAGALAND 9:SHRI MENOKHRIELIE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (DPO) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE KOHIMA NAGALAND 10:SHRI S. YESUMONG SANGTAM DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (DPO) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE KOHIMA NAGALAND 11:SHRI. M. YANGSEMONG SANGTAM DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (DPO) DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE KOHIMA NAGALAN Advocate for the Petitioner : WATI JAMIR, AKHAO KONYAK,ALITO SWU Page No.# 3/5 Advocate for the Respondent : , BEFORE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 18.08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel appearing for the applicants. 2. The applicants, namely, (i) H. Laitak Konyak, (ii) Dishong Chawang @ Dishong Zeliang, and (iii) R. Chirhotshu Nyusou have filed the present application under Order I, Rules 8A, 9 and 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking leave of this Court to participate as interveners by being impleaded as respondent Nos. 11, 12 and 13 respectively, in W.P.(C) No. 54/2026. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the applicants that they fall within the zone of consideration for promotion against the purported vacancies of Joint Director and District Programme Officer (DPO). Annexure-8 clearly reveals that 3 (three) posts are likely to fall vacant. It is further submitted that in view of the interim order passed in the connected W.P.(C) No. 54/2026 on 24.04.2026, the applicants, who are due to retire in the year 2027, would be deprived of the benefit of promotion to the post of DPO. This has compelled the applicants to file the present application seeking their impleadment as party respondents. 4. Ms. Apila Sangtam, learned Standing Counsel for the Department of Social Welfare submits that in terms of the order dated Page No.# 4/5 24.04.2026 passed by this Court in the connected writ petition, one post has been reserved for the writ petitioner. 5. Mr. L. Iralu, learned counsel has raised objection stating that the application is misconceived and premature. The applicants are neither necessary nor proper parties to the writ petition. No promotion, seniority or other existing service right of the applicants is under challenge and no relief has been sought against them. The controversy in the writ petition concerns the legality of the exclusion of the petitioner from the promotion exercises already undertaken by the respondent authorities. The same can be completely and effectively adjudicated in the absence of the applicants. It is also submitted that the alleged prejudice pleaded by the applicants is wholly prospective and contingent. By their own showing, the posts relied upon by them are stated to fall vacant only by September and October, 2026. No existing vacancy or promotion process concerning the applicants has been disclosed at the time of filing the application. It is submitted that further, one of the three retirements relied upon is from the post of Director. That does not, by itself, establish a vacancy in the post of DPO/DWO. The applicants have therefore failed to disclose any present and subsisting right requiring their impleadment. Their anxiousness, if any, is only speculative. It is submitted that the assertion that the applicants' cases for promotion could not be processed on account of the interim order dated 24.04.2026 is unsupported by any order, communication or record of the Department. In any event, it is for the respondent authorities to place the relevant vacancy position and administrative Page No.# 5/5 exigency before this Hon'ble Court and seek appropriate orders. It is submitted that the applicants have not disclosed how their presence is necessary for adjudication of the issues arising in the writ petition. The applicants have no role in the decision-making process which is under challenge and their proposed participation cannot assist this Court in determining the real controversy between the existing parties. 6. I have considered the submissions at the bar with circumspection. The applicants are due to retire in the year 2027. Annexure-8, at pages 33 to 35, clearly depicts that 3 (three) posts are likely to fall vacant in the year 2026. It has also been submitted that the applicants fall within the zone of consideration for promotion. In such circumstances, the claim of the applicants cannot be said to be merely speculative in anticipation of certain vacancies, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. In view of the foregoing discussions, the application seeking impleadment of the applicants as respondent Nos. 11, 12 and 13 in W.P.(C) No. 54/2026 is allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant