Page No.# 1/12 GAHC020003122026 2026:GAU-NL:465-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ appeal NO. 19 of 2026 Shri Inoka Sema, aged about 35 years, S/O Nihozu Sema, Vekhuho New Village, Atoizu Town, District, Zunheboto, Nagaland, Phone : 8732008663. ……………… Appellant -VERSUS- 1. The State of Nagaland represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland. 2. The Commissioner & Secretary, Department of A.H. & Veterinary Services, Nagaland, Kohima. 3. The Director, Department of A.H. & Veterinary Services, Nagaland, Kohima. 4. The Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Atoizu, Nagaland [performa respondent] 5. Smti. Phutoli Sema, Chowkidar, Veterinary Dispensary, Atoizu Sub-Division, District : Zunheboto, Nagaland. ……………… . Respondents Page No.# 2/12 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY Hon’ble Mrs. Justice yarenjungla longkumer Advocates : Advocate for the appellant : Ms. Z. Zimomi, Advocate Advocate for the State respondents : Ms. A. Ayemi, Government Advocate Date of hearing : 09.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 09.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER [ORAl] [M. Choudhury, J] Heard Ms. Z. Zimomi, learned counsel for the writ appellant and Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for all the State respondents. 2. This intra-court appeal is preferred to assail a Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge in a writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 38/2022, whereby the writ petition preferred by the present writ appellant as the writ petitioner was dismissed. 3. The facts relevant for the purpose of adjudication can be narrated, in brief, at first. One Vinito Aye was serving as Chowkidar at the Veterinary Dispensary, Atoizu under the establishment of the Chief Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Officer, Page No.# 3/12 Zunheboto. When K. Vinito died-in-harness on 28.06.2018, the post of Chowkidar at the Veterinary Dispensary, Atoizu became vacant. 4. The vacancy arising out of the death of Late K. Vinito had propelled writ appellant-writ petitioner [hereinafter referred to as ‘the appellant’, for easy reference] to file an application before the Principal Director, Veterinary & Animal Husbandry, Nagaland, through proper channel, on 05.07.2018 seeking his appointment in the vacancy created in the post of Chowkidar at the Veterinary Dispensary, Atoizu along with his testimonials. The application was submitted by the appellant claiming that he belonged to one of the families of the landowners which had donated the land for setting up of the Veterinary Dispensary at Atoizu. The appellant claimed his right for consideration for appointment in the vacant post of Chowkidar on the basis of a Policy notified by the State Government vide a Notification dated 05.03.2018 of the Land Revenue Deparment, Government of Nagaland. 5. At the same time, a claim for appointment in the said vacant post of Chowkidar was also made by one Vinoto Aye, who was a son of Late Vinito Aye, who died-in- harness on 28.06.2018. As the application of Sri Vinoto Aye was made on the basis of a Policy notified by the State Government for appointment on compassionate ground notified by a Notification dated 17.09.2015, the application of Sri Vinoto Aye was also processed by the respondent authorities in the State Government. 6. On 06.09.2018, the Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Nagaland forwarded both the applications to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services by an Office Letter of even date for further consideration and decision. In Annexure-1 to the Office Letter dated 06.09.2018, the particulars of the two applicants were provided. 7. From Annexure-1, it is discernible that the case of the appellant was recommended by a Member, Nagaland Legislative Assembly and an Advisor, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Department. The appellant also claimed that the Additional Page No.# 4/12 Deputy Commissioner, Atoizu had certified that the appellant was from a family of landowners which donated land for the Veterinary Dispensary, Atoizu and a Certificate dated 17.05.2019 was issued to that effect. Recognizing that the appellant belonged to a family of landowners, the Village Council, Vekuho also expressed its No Objection in writing on 02.07.2018. 8. The State Government in the Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services is seen to have accorded administrative approval for appointment of Sri Vinoto Aye, in precedence of the appellant, in the post of Chowkidar under the establishment of the Chief Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Officer, Zunheboto vide an Office Letter dated 18.01.2019, addressed to the Director, Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Nagaland which was with the approval of the Chief Minister, Nagaland. 9. However, the administrative approval accorded in favour of Sri Vinoto Aye on 18.01.2019 did not work out in the form of an Order of Appointment in favour of Sri Vinoto Aye. Rather, the State Government proceeded to accord approval, on 22.02.2019, for regularization of services of one Smti. Phutoli Sema in the post of the Chowkidar at the Veterinary Dispensary, Atoizu under the establishment of the Chief Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Officer, Zunheboto. Smti. Phutoli Sema prior to such regularization, was serving as a Contingency Worker on fixed pay at the Veterinary Hospital, Dimapur. The Government approval accorded on 22.02.2019 was followed by an Order of Appointment dated 09.03.2019 issued under the hand of the Additional Director [HOD], O/o the Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Nagaland. By the Order of appointment, the services of Smti. Phutoli Sema was regularized in the post of Chowkidar at the Veterinary Dispensary, Atoizu under the establishment of the Chief Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Officer, Zunheboto in the Pay Band of Rs. 4,400-17,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,300/- with all other allowances as were admissible under the Rules from time to time to the similar post in Nagaland. It was further mentioned that the period of past service, Smti. Phutoli Sema had rendered while serving as Animal Attendant on contingency basis, shall be counted for Page No.# 5/12 length of service only, and the appointment was made specifically against the post where Late Vinito Aye was serving as a Chowkidar. 10. It appears that after the Order of Appointment dated 09.03.2019, the matter rested in such position till the appellant as the writ petitioner preferred the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 38/2022 in the year 2022. In the writ petition, Smti. Phutoli Sema was impleaded as party-respondent no. 5. The writ petition was filed seeking [i] setting aside and quashing of the Order of Appointment dated 09.03.2019 whereby Smti. Phutoli Sema was appointed as a Chowkidar, and [ii] a direction to appoint the appellant in the post of the Chowkidar at the Veterinary Dispensary, Atoizu on landowner basis in terms of the Policy framed by the Notification dated 05.03.2018. 11. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and through the materials on record, found no merit in the case of the appellant-writ petitioner and the writ petition was dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2024. 12. Ms. Zimomi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the land for establishment of the Veterinary Dispensary at Atoizu was donated by four persons, from two Clans – Chophimi Clan and Ayemi Clan, and two from each clan. After the donation of the land, two persons from the Chophimi Clan, namely, Hotovi and Kahoto came to be appointed as Medicine Carrier and Chowkidar [contingency] respectively by the State respondents. But, from the Ayemi Clan, only one person, namely, Hotokhu was appointed as a Bull Attendant. All these three appointments were made following the State Government’s Policy notified by the Notification dated 05.03.2018. Ms. Zimomi has pointed out that the land from the Ayemi Clan was donated by two brothers, one of whom is the grandfather of the appellant. As the land donated by the Chophimi Clan and Ayemi Clan was ancestral land and was jointly donated by two clans – each consisting of two grandfather siblings’ – from their common holdings, the appellant who is from one out of the four branches from the two clans, had not got appointment on landownership basis till the time the vacancy arose in the post of Chowkidar due to the death of Vinito Aye on 28.06.2018. As such, it is the appellant’s branch’s turn from the Ayemi Clan, who had the right to be Page No.# 6/12 considered for appointment on landownership basis qua the other applicants for the said vacant post of Chowkidar at that point of time. With such submissions, it is contended that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition be granted to the appellant, by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order. 13. Ms. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents has submitted that the sequence of events have been gone into detail by the learned Single Judge and from the facts spelled out in the Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2024, it is evident that with the appointment of Hotokhu from the Ayemi Clan, the claim of the Ayemi Clan for appointment on landownership basis in terms of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 stood extinguished. Ms. Ayemi has referred to the Clauses in the Notification dated 05.03.2018, more particularly, Clause 3[a], 3[b] and 3[c] thereof, to draw support, and to contend the intra-court appeal being bereft of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 14. Before going into the merits of the contentions made on behalf of the appellant, it is appropriate to refer to the Notification dated 05.03.2018 at first. By the Notification, it was decided by the State Government that on and from 26.07.2005, the State Government would not acquire any land free of cost and all land would be acquired on payment of full compensation as determined by law. It was further decided that no condition for employment in service or contractual works would be entertained. In so far as the cases prior to 26.07.2005, the Notification had laid down the following conditions and procedure :- 3[a] In other cases prior to 26.07.2005 and subsequent to setting up of Administrative and Block headquarters on freely donated land, where a specific written agreement exists providing for employment to the landowner, the claim of landowner for employment should be settled in terms of such agreement. 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 Page No.# 7/12 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 cases 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 entitle his descendents for further employment on his retirement from 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. 15. Admittedly, there is no specific written agreement existed for the case in hand to bring the present case within the purview of Clause 3[a] of the Notification dated 05.03.2018. The contention of the appellant is purportedly on the basis of an oral agreement. 16. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the merits of the claim of Smti. Phutoli Sema. Smti. Phutoli Sema had preferred a writ petition earlier which was registered as W.P.[C.] no. 29[K]/2018. Smti. Phutoli Sema approached the Court stating inter-alia that her husband was serving as a Field Assistant under the establishment of the Department of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Government of Nagaland and he died-in-harness. After his death, Smti. Phutoli Sema applied for her appointment on compassionate ground as per the extant Policy of the State Government against the Page No.# 8/12 sanctioned post. But, contrary to the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment, Smti. Phutoli Sema came to be appointed by an Office Order dated 03.06.2002 on contingency basis at a fixed pay of Rs. 750/- per month on compassionate ground, instead of being appointed in a regular and sanctioned post. It was such appointment on contingency basis on 03.06.2002 which impelled Smti. Phutoli Sema to approach this Court by the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 29[K]/2018 seeking a direction to the State respondents to appoint her in a sanctioned post on regular basis. When the writ petition came up for consideration on 23.08.2018, it was submitted on behalf of the State respondents that they were considering regularization of Smti. Phutoli Sema’s service against a regular post. In view of such stand taken by the State respondents, the writ petition was disposed of by a Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2018, with a direction to the State respondents to consider regularization of Smti. Phutoli Sema’s service against a regular post within a period of four months. 17. From the above obtaining fact situation, it is evident that the Order of Appointment dated 09.03.2019 made in favour of Smti. Phutoli Sema was on the basis of the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment notified vide a Notification dated 17.09.2015 and pursuant to the direction given by this Court in the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2018. 18. The appellant was found to have not approached this Court; either immediately after 18.01.2019 when the State Government accorded approval for appointment of Sri Vinoto Aye; or immediately after the Judgment and Order dated 23.08.2018, or after the Order of Appointment dated 09.03.2019 making any challenge to the Order of Appointment of Smti. Phutoli Sema; till the year 2022, except submitting Representations before the State respondents from time to time. Thus, the approach of the appellant by the writ petition, W.P.[C.] no. 38/2022 was clearly a delayed approach. 19. From a combined reading of Clause 3[b] & Clause 3[c] of the Notification dated 05.03.2018, it emerges that in case a claim is made for providing employment on the basis of any oral agreement, the matter is to be enquired by the jurisdictional Deputy Page No.# 9/12 Commissioner on the aspect whether any employment or any other facility was given to the claimants in the past, to make a recommendation to the Department of Land Revenue for advice. It has been clarified that it is not the Policy of the State Government to provide employment to the landowner in perpetuity. The employment of landowner, if permitted by a verifiable and valid agreement has been made limited to the person first appointed as landowner in Government Service and the same would not entitle his descendents for further employment, on his retirement from service. After the appointed landowner retires or vacates the post, the vacancy would be filled up through open advertisement in consonance with the existing policy giving equal opportunity to all applicants. 20. Similar contentions, as raised in this appeal, was advanced before the learned Single Judge also. It was submitted to the effect that from the Ayemi Clan, only one person came to be appointed on landowner basis qua two appointments from Chophimi Clan and therefore, Ayemi Clan is entitled for one more appointment. Support has been sought to be drawn from the statements made in the affidavit-in- reply filed by the appellant in the writ petition wherein it was stated that the land donated was ancestral lands of both Chophimi Clan and Ayemi Clan. At the time of donation of the land by the two clans, two persons from each clan donated from the clan’s common holdings. The two clans, each consisting of two siblings, agreed to share one post each in Grade-IV Post appointment on rotation and accordingly, Hotovi and Kahoto from Chophimi Clan were appointed as Medicine Carrier and contingency Chowkidar respectively, while from Ayemi Clan only Hotokhu had been appointed as Bull Attendant and therefore, the turn had come from the family of the appellant for appointment. 21. From the Notification dated 05.03.2018, it does not emerge that when common holdings belonging to a clan is donated jointly by a number of persons from a clan, one of the lineal descendants of each of those persons is to be appointed in terms of the Policy notified by the Notification dated 05.03.2018. Even if two persons from Chophimi Clan were appointed contrary to the Policy of one appointment from the Page No.# 10/12 donee of common holdings of the Clan, the claim of the appellant, despite appointment of Hotokhu from Ayemi Clan, is to be treated as a claim which is based on negative equality, rather than positive equality, enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22. At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the following excerpts from the Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2024 :- 23. [.....] In the present case, the land owners from both the clans have already been compensated with the appointment to Grade-IV post and the appointees are continuing in service. Clause 3 of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 accordingly stands fulfilled, insofar as the appointment of the landowner, is concerned. Accordingly, the right of the petitioner to be appointed to the post in question stands extinguished. In other words, the petitioner’s right to be appointed to a Grade-IV post is hit by Clause 3[c] of the Notification dated 05.03.2018. 24. The petitioner’s claim for appointment under Clause 3[b] of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 could have been considered assuming that an oral agreement existed to provide Grade-IV post to the landowner by directing an enquiry to examine the claim of the petitioner. However, in view of the petitioner’s own admission that the land owner have been compensated with Grade-IV appointment, the claim/right of the petitioner stands extinguished by operation of Clause 3[c] of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 and landowner now have no right to be appointed to any Grade-IV post, irrespective of the fact that no individual family members of the petitioner has been appointed. * * * * * * * * * * * 26. On the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Page No.# 11/12 that the respondent authorities should be directed to adhere to Clause- 3[b] of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 for making an enquiry, to consider the appointment of the petitioner, as was done in the case of the similarly situated person in W.P.(C) No. 156/2019, this Court having held that the claim of the petitioner being barred under Clause 3[c] of the notification dated 05.03.2018, no enquiry can be directed under Clause 3[b] of the said notification to examine the claim / right of the petitioner. 23. It is settled that if on the basis of materials on record two views are plausible and the view reached by the learned Single Judge is one of the plausible views then in an intra-court appeal, the appellate court should not interfere with the view of the learned Single Judge. It has been observed in the case of Management of Narendra & Company Private Limited vs. Workmen of Narendra & Company, [2016] 3 SCC 340, that in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the Appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief. In the case in hand, this Court, on the basis of the materials on record, is even not persuaded to reach another plausible view, other than the view expressed by the learned Single Judge. 24. It is found that the claim of Smti. Phutoli Sema who has been impleaded as party- respondent no. 5 in the intra-court appeal, for regularization of her service was made after serving the Department as a contingency employee on compassionate appointment after the approval of the Government on 25.06.2002. The claim of Smti. Phutoli Sema is traceable to the State Government’s Policy of Appointment on compassionate ground. On the other hand, the appellant’s claim is traceable to the State Government’s Policy on landownership basis. With the appointment of one person from Ayemi Clan the claim of the appellant for appointment on the basis of the State Government’s Policy on landownership basis came to be extinguished qua the Page No.# 12/12 Policy of the State Government not to provide employment to the landowner in perpetuity. As except the bald statement regarding an oral agreement, there was no other supporting material to substantiate such claim. 25. In the above obtaining fact situation and for the reasons mentioned therein, this Court does not find any reason, much less good reason, to be in disagreement with the conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge, in the Judgment and Order dated 28.08.2024. Consequently, the appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant