Page No.# 1/12 GAHC020001062025 2026:GAU-NL:484 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/37/2025 SHRI KHAANG S/O LATE LEIYANG ANGH, R/O SHEANGHAH MOKOK VILLAGE, P.O AND P.S MON, DISTRICT- MON, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER MON DISTRICT MON NAGALAND 4:SHRI GANGGEM KONYAK MEDICAL ATTENDANT Page No.# 2/12 SHEANGHAH MOKOK SUB CENTRE DISTRICT MON NAGALAND 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MON DISTRICT - MON NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : LIMAWAPANG, PFOSEKHO PFOTTE Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Limawapang, Adv. Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 : Ms. Bichano Kithan, Govt. Adv Advocate for the Respondent No. 4 : Mr. I. Jamir, Adv. Date on which judgment is reserved : 17.09.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.09.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Ms. Bichano Kithan, learned Page No.# 3/12 Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. I. Jamir, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner herein has approached this Court challenging the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 on the ground that the Respondent No. 4 is not a land owner and the Respondent No. 4 was appointed on land ownership basis, which was in violation to the Notification dated 05.03.2018. It is the further case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the land owner and the petitioner ought to have been granted the appointment. 3. The case of the petitioner herein in brief is that in the year 1989, his father late Leiyang Angh donated a plot of land ad measuring 200 x 150 Sq.ft located at Pholo, for construction of the present Sheanghah Mokok Sub-Centre under the establishment of the respondent No. 3 through the Sheanghah Mokok Village Council. It is the claim of the petitioner that the petitioner’s father did not receive any compensation but there was an oral agreement that whenever a Grade-IV post falls vacant, the petitioner’s father or the petitioner’s family would be granted an appointment. 4. In the Sheanghah Mokok Sub-Centre, the post of a Medical Attendant fell vacant on and from 01.06.2024 in view Page No.# 4/12 of the retirement of one Shri. Gangyok Konyak, who admittedly is the father of the respondent No. 4. The petitioner submitted his application claiming consideration for appointment on land ownership basis in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018. The Sheanghah Mokok Sub- Centre also recommended the case of the petitioner as a bonafide landownership candidate. To the surprise of the petitioner, the Respondent No. 4 was appointed to the post vacated by his father on land ownership basis in terms with the Order dated 16.12.2024, issued by the Respondent No. 2. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition was filed on 13.03.2025. 5. The record reveals that on 20.03.2025, the learned Co- ordinate bench of this Court issued notice and further made it clear that the appointment of the private respondent shall be subject to the outcome of the writ petition. 6. From the materials on record, it is seen that the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have filed an affidavit in compliance to an order passed by this Court on 10.11.2025. Annexure-3 to the said affidavit is the Deputy Commissioner, Mon communication dated 12.09.2025. The Joint Verification Report was also enclosed to the said affidavit as Annexure – 4 series. In terms with the Joint Verification Report, it was Page No.# 5/12 mentioned that the actual ownership upon being taken a voice vote, favoured that the land wherein the Sheanghah Mokok Sub-Centre was situated, was in favour of one Khaang, i.e, the petitioner. However, the Joint Verification Committee was also of the opinion that it is not explicitly clear to affirm or conclude the right of ownership as both the parties refute the claim of one another. 7. It is also of importance to take note of the further observation of the Joint Verification Committee wherein it is mentioned that both the parties have agreed that on the terms of mutual agreement for making appointment to Mr. Ganyok, i.e., the father of the Respondent No. 4 instead of Ngangwang, the father of the Respondent No. 4 used to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to Ngangwang on monthly basis out of the salary he received. In addition to that, it was also mentioned that Mr. Khaang, i.e., the petitioner sits in the apex precedence of Angh from the ancestral lineage and therefore, enjoys the rightful owner on land matters including the portion of the land in dispute. 8. It may not be out of place to mention that this verification was conducted on 11.09.2025, and the report was submitted by the Deputy Commissioner to the Principal Director, Health and Family Welfare on 12.09.2025. Page No.# 6/12 9. This Court also finds it relevant to take note of the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 4 wherein it is mentioned that the fathers of both the Respondent No. 4 and the petitioner are biological brothers and belong to the Konyak Naga tribe. As per the Konyak Naga customary law and practice, generally the Angh or the elder son possesses property rights. However, in a case where there are large multiple, ancestral lands/fields/properties, the younger brothers inherit a small portion of the ancestral land/fields and the younger brothers have absolute right over the said land/fields. 10. It was further mentioned that after giving a historical background that the Sheanghah Mokok Sub-Centre is on the ancestral land inherited by the father of the Respondent No. 4. The Respondent No. 4 averred that based on the oral agreement, after donating the land by the father of the Respondent No. 4, he submitted his application for appointment on the basis of land ownership. Thereupon, the State Government vide letter dated 13.12.2024 conveyed administrative approval and the Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 16.12.2024 appointed the Respondent No. 4 as a Medical Attendant at Sheanghah Mokok Sub-Centre under CMO, Mon. In other words, it is also an admitted fact that the Page No.# 7/12 appointment of the Respondent No. 4 was made without any verification inasmuch as the verification was conducted only on 11.09.2025, as would be apparent from the joint verification report enclosed to the affidavit filed by the State respondents. 11. The petitioner had filed an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent No. 4 wherein the petitioner denied that the father of the Respondent No. 4 had acquired right over the land which was donated to the Sheanghah Mokok Sub-Centre and further that the father of the Respondent No. 4 had any ownership rights over the said land. 12. In the backdrop of the above, this Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has perused the materials on record. 13. Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution provides that there shall be equality in respect to public employment or in other words, every person who is eligible would be considered for appointment into public office by maintaining the same yardstick. The State of Nagaland has a policy that in lieu of the compensation to be paid for donating lands for establishment of headquarters to grant appointment on land ownership basis subject to the same being preceded by a Page No.# 8/12 written or oral agreement provided such donation was prior to 26.07.2005. Taking into account that the appointment on land ownership basis is an exception to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, it is the opinion of this Court that the terms on which the appointment is to be made on land ownership basis has to be strictly complied with. 14. The Notification dated 05.03.2018 categorically mandates that on or after 26.07.2005, no agreement written or oral shall be recognized in so far as the condition for employment in service is concerned. However, in so far as lands which were donated prior to 26.07.2005, the Notification dated 05.03.2018 provided as to how the land ownership basis is to be decided. Clauses 3 (a), 3 (b) and 3 (c) of the Office Notification dated 05.03.2018 are reproduced herein under:- “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 Commissioner of the District concerned who shall examine such claim carefully including whether any employment Page No.# 9/12 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. From a perusal of the above quoted clauses of the Notification date 05.03.2018, it would transpire that in respect to donation of land prior to 26.07.2005 and subsequent to setting up of administrative and block headquarters, only agreement providing for employment to land owner shall be considered, if there is a written agreement. However, if there is an oral agreement, Clause 3 (b) specifies the manner in Page No.# 10/12 which the verification is to be carried out. A perusal of Clause 3 (b) further mandates that it is the Deputy Commissioner who upon verification shall make the recommendation and this recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner should be referred with relevant documents to the Department of Land Revenue for advice and in such cases by the Administrative Department concerned. 16. Clause 3 (c) further mandates that the policy for appointment on land ownership basis would not be in perpetuity. In other words, if a person had been appointed from the family on land ownership basis, the descendants of that person would not be entitled to further employment on retirement. The said post which is vacated shall be filled up through open advertisement in consonance with the existing policy giving equal opportunity to all Applicants. 17. In the backdrop of the above, it is pertinent to mention that admittedly prior to the appointment of the respondent No. 4, no verification was conducted by the Deputy Commissioner and there was no recommendation by the Deputy Commissioner. This aspect would be apparent from the fact that the Respondent No. 4 was appointed on 16.12.2024 and the verification was carried out on 11.09.2025. 18. It is the opinion of this Court that as the Respondent No. Page No.# 11/12 4 claim was solely on the basis of oral agreement, it was mandatory on the part of the respondent authorities to have appointed the Respondent No. 4, after following the requirement in terms with Clause 3 (b) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018. It is also pertinent to observe that only upon filing of the instant writ petition, and notice having been issued on 20.03.2025, the respondent authorities have woken up to taken steps for verification. The verification report, which is enclosed as Annexure- 4 to the affidavit filed by the official respondents, does not support the case of the Respondent No. 4. 19. Considering the above, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the appointment of the Respondent No. 4 was in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution as well as the Notification dated 05.03.2018. 20. Accordingly the instant writ petition stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:- (i) The appointment of the Respondent No. 4 vide order dated 16.12.2024 is set aside and quashed. (ii) The Respondent Authorities, more particularly, the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 shall carry out a fresh verification in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018 and thereupon, shall fill up the said post in Page No.# 12/12 terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018. (iii) The aforesaid exercise as directed at Clause (ii) herein above of the instant paragraph be completed within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date a certified copy is served upon the Respondent No. 5. JUDGE Comparing Assistant