Page No.# 1/7 GAHC020003182025 2026:GAU-NL:468 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/100/2025 SHRI AKITO SUMI S/O SHRI AHOVI SUMI, R/O H/NO. 40, BLOCK 2, 5TH MILE UNITY VILLAGE, SUGARMILL AREA, DIST-CHUMOUKEDIMA, NAGALAND AND A PERMANENT RESIDENT OF SAPOTIMI VILLAGE, ZUNHEBOTO DIST- NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND, DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER ZUNHEBOTO NAGALAND 4:SHRI HUKUTO Y. SUMI MEDICAL ATTENDANT SAPOTIMI SUB CENTRE ZUNHEBOTO DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAN Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Longkumer, Govt. Advocate : Mr. Z. Kulnu, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 15.09.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : NA · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : Yes JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Mr. M. Longkumer, the learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Z. Kulnu, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 4. 2. The Petitioner herein has challenged the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 dated 10.06.2019 and has sought a direction that the Respondent Authorities appoint the Petitioner. 3. It is pertinent to take note of that the instant writ Page No.# 3/7 petition was filed on 12.06.2025, i.e., after six years from the date of appointment of the Respondent No. 4. 4. The claim of the Petitioner herein is that his father in the year 2018, donated a plot of land at Sapotimi Village for construction of the Sub-Centre of Sapotimi Village under the establishment of the Respondent No. 3 through the Sapotimi Village Council. It is the further case of the Petitioner that the said land was donated to the State Respondents without any compensation and there was an oral agreement that the landowner's candidate would be considered for appointment to a Grade-IV post as and when the vacancy arose. 5. One Nizheli Sema, Medical Attendant under the establishment of the Respondent No. 3 was released from service w.e.f. 31.05.2018 on superannuation. 6. The Petitioner applied on the basis of a certificate issued by the Chairman, Village Council, Sapotimi which was forwarded by the Deputy Chief Medical Officer, Nagaland, Zunheboto to the Principal Director, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Nagaland on 27.06.2018. 7. The grievance of the Petitioner is that he was expecting Page No.# 4/7 to be appointed, however, the Respondent No. 4 was appointed vide communication dated 10.06.2019. It is on the basis thereof that after six years, the Petitioner filed the writ petition. 8. This Court has duly perused the writ petition and there is no averment as to why there has been such considerable delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner. 9. The record reveals that the Respondent State had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was categorically mentioned that there were three applicants seeking employment for the said post. The department forwarded these applications vide letter dated 10.10.2018 to the Government for examination. 10. Subsequent thereto, vide letter dated 08.03.2019, the Government conveyed its approval in favour of the Respondent No. 4 and consequently, the Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 10.06.2019. 11. The Respondent No. 4 has also filed an affidavit-in- opposition, wherein it is categorically stated that the Petitioner cannot raise the issue of advertisement not being Page No.# 5/7 issued, taking into account that the Petitioner was a candidate whose application was duly considered. It is the case of the Respondent No. 4 that the Petitioner after six years, having found his non-consideration unpalatable, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 12. An affidavit-in-reply has also been filed by the Petitioner in this regard. 13. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record. 14. From the materials on record, it is apparent that the Petitioner's application was duly considered along with two other candidates, one of whom was the Respondent No. 4. 15. The Petitioner had no objection to the manner in which the selection proceedings were conducted. However, six years thereafter, the Petitioner has risen from his slumber to file the present writ petition. There is not a single whisper in the writ petition as regards the delay and laches on the part of the Petitioner. 16. In this regard, this Court finds it pertinent to take note of Page No.# 6/7 the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply And Sewerage Board & Others Vs. T.T Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, wherein the Supreme Court clearly observed that a litigant cannot be permitted to behave like “Kumbhakarna”. Paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. 17. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinise whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent employee Page No.# 7/7 being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons — who compete with “Kumbhakarna” or for that matter “Rip Van Winkle”. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 17. Taking into account the above, it is the opinion of this Court that this is not a fit case wherein this Court should entertain the instant writ petition at the behest of a person who had participated in the selection proceedings and thereafter is challenging the said selection proceedings after a period of six years. 18. Considering the above, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. However, under the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to impose any costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant