Page No.# 1/12 GAHC020004602024 2026:GAU-NL:500 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/165/2024 SHRI TSASHITO T S/O SHRI TSATHRONGSE SANGTAM R/O LITSAOUNG VILLAGE KIPHIRE NAGALAND P.NO. 6009705044 VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONERA AND SECRETARY DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE GOVT. OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIMA 5:THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER NAGALAND KIPHIRE 6:SHRI ROTHRONGMONG S/O S.K JAMES Page No.# 2/12 R/O LITSAOUNG VILLAGE KIPHIRE NAGALAN BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Toshitemjen Pongener, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Longkumer, Government Advocate : Mr. S. Temjen, Advocate · Date on which Judgment was reserved : N/A · Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 22.09.2026 · Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative Part of the Judgment : Yes · Whether the full Judgment has been Pronounced : No JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. Toshitemjen Pongener, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. M. Longkumer, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. I have also heard Mr. S. Temjen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6. 2. By the present writ petition, the Petitioner has ventilated his grievances on account of the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in not considering his case for appointment on land ownership basis as well as challenged Page No.# 3/12 the appointment of the Respondent No.6. 3. A post of Medical Attendant at Phelungre Sub-Centre under the Chief Medical Officer, Kiphire fell vacant due to the retirement of one Mr. T. Mujongmong Sangtam on 31.01.2023. The Petitioner, the Respondent No.6 and another, namely Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam had submitted applications seeking appointment to the said post. All the three applicants initially sought for appointment on land ownership basis in terms with the notification dated 05.03.2018. 4. The Respondent Authorities carried out an enquiry and found out that the benefit of employment on land ownership basis as per the notification dated 05.03.2018 have already been availed by the land owners. Under such circumstances, vide letters dated 20.04.2023 and 23.05.2023, the Department forwarded the names of three applicants, i.e. the Petitioner, Respondent No.6 and Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam to the Chief Medical Officer, Kiphire for evaluating them through a Screening Committee/Selection Board for appointment to the post of Medical Attendant at Phelungre Sub-Centre in terms with the Office Memorandum dated 07.12.2016. 5. The District Selection Committee held a sitting on Page No.# 4/12 16.06.2023. In the said selection proceedings, the District Selection Committee carried out the evaluation of the candidates by applying the criteria of personality, physical ability, sincerity and enthusiasm to perform the assigned task. The Chief Medical Officer, Kiphire vide letter dated 16.06.2023 submitted the District Screening Committee report to the Principal Director, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Kohima recommending the name of Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam for appointment against the vacant post. 6. The Petitioner as well as the father of the Respondent No.6 on coming to learn about the recommendation made in favour of Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam, submitted respective representations. 7. Upon receipt of the said representations, the Chief Medical Officer, Kiphire forwarded the same to the Government along with the recommendation of the District Screening Committee. Thereupon, vide an order dated 01.08.2024, the Government conveyed its approval for appointment of the Respondent No.6 and consequent thereupon, vide the impugned order dated 06.08.2024, the Respondent No.6 was appointed. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ Page No.# 5/12 petition. 8. The official Respondents as well as the private Respondent No.6 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition. The Petitioner also filed an affidavit-in-reply. A cursory glance at the pleadings of the parties would show that the Petitioner claimed that his grandfather had donated a plot of land for the establishment of the Phelungre Sub-Centre. However, there is not a single whisper that against the donation of the land, there was any oral or written agreement prior to 26.07.2005 to the effect that any jobs would be provided. The affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondent No.6 though contends that the Petitioner's family as well as the family of Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam have availed appointments on landownership basis, but there is nothing to show that the Respondent No.6 was appointed on the basis of land ownership inasmuch as no verification was carried out in terms with Paragraph No. 3(b) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 recommending the case of the Respondent No.6 by the Deputy Commissioner. Page No.# 6/12 The official Respondents in their stand categorically mentioned that the appointment of the Respondent No.6 was not on the ground of land ownership basis inasmuch as it is the specific stand in the affidavit-in-opposition that the consideration of the candidates were made on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 07.12.2016. It is also stated in the affidavit-in-opposition of the official Respondents that the candidates were evaluated on various parameters and thereupon one Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam was recommended. However, upon representations submitted by the Petitioner and the father of the Respondent No.6, the same were forwarded to the Government. The Government thereupon issued the approval order which led to the appointment of the Respondent No.6. Be that as it may, the official Respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition are absolutely silent as to why the Respondent No.6 was chosen over the Petitioner or why the recommendation favouring Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam was rejected. 9. It is also of importance to note that being aggrieved by the appointment of the Respondent No.6 herein, Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam had filed a writ petition which was registered and numbered as WP(C) No 182/2024. The said Page No.# 7/12 writ petition was subsequently withdrawn on 16.02.2026 with a liberty to approach again. 10. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner though submitted that the Petitioner has a right to be considered for appointment on land ownership basis as the Petitioner's grandfather had donated the larger portion of the land wherein the Sub-Centre was established, but the said submission is misconceived taking into account that the notification dated 05.03.2018 categorically mandates that merely donating the land would not confer a right to claim appointment into public office on land ownership basis unless and until there was an agreement for providing jobs prior to 26.07.2005. 12. This Court had perused the writ petition along with its enclosures as well as also the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Petitioner wherein there is not a single whisper that at the time of donating the land, there was also any agreement that employment would be provided in lieu of the land having Page No.# 8/12 been donated. 13. Considering the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Petitioner herein could not have been considered for appointment on land ownership basis. 14. This Court has also taken note of the submission of Mr. S. Temjen, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.6 who submitted that the Phelungre Sub- Centre is constructed over the land which was donated by the Petitioner's family as well as the Respondent No.6’s family and the Respondent No.6’s family have not availed any appointment on the basis thereof. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the Respondent No.6 had a right to be appointed on land ownership basis. The contention was thoroughly denied by the Petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply and also by the Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on the basis that the family of the Respondent No.6 had already availed appointment on land ownership basis. Irrespective of the above, it is also pertinent to observe that admittedly there was no verification carried out in terms with Paragraph No. 3(b) of the notification dated 05.03.2018 and there was no recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner that the Respondent No.6 was a land owner and there existed an Page No.# 9/12 agreement for appointment in lieu of land ownership. Under such circumstances, the said submission would have no impact for sustaining the appointment of the Respondent No.6. 15. This Court had also taken note of that the District Screening Committee had evaluated the Petitioner, the Respondent No.6 as well as Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam and found Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam to be the most suitable candidate to be appointed. Thereupon, two representations were submitted. One by the Petitioner and the other by the father of the Respondent No.6. These representations along with the recommendation of the District Screening Committee were forwarded to the State Government. All of a sudden, the State Government granted the approval in favour of the Respondent No.6 and thereupon the Respondent No.6 was appointed. 16. In the opinion of this Court, appointment in public office cannot be made in the manner in which it has been done. When the proceedings are filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an appointment into public office, it is the duty of the official Respondents who have appointed the candidate to assign reasons, why one Page No.# 10/12 candidate was chosen amongst the others. The non- disclosure of the reasons as to why the Respondent No.6 in the instant case was chosen over that of the Petitioner renders the action on the part of the Respondents arbitrary and unreasonable. It is also of importance to take note of that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution categorically stipulates that every citizen of India has a fundamental right to be equally treated in respect to appointment to a public office. 17. This Court also finds it relevant at this stage to take into consideration a very relevant aspect. The materials on record show that the District Screening Committee had evaluated the Petitioner, the Respondent No.6 and Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam and recommended Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam. This recommendation was forwarded to the Government along with two representations. One by the Petitioner and the other by the father of the Respondent No.6. It is only subsequent to this process being initiated and the documents placed before the Government that the infraction to the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution have resulted. This Court had also taken note of that the Petitioner as on date is 22 years old whereas the Respondent No.6 is 36 years old. In the circumstances, if this Court sets aside the appointment order Page No.# 11/12 dated 06.08.2024 made in favour of the Respondent No.6, the question of the Respondent No.6 to get an appointment would be difficult on account of his age. It appears to this Court that if reasons exist to choose the Respondent No.6 over the Petitioner and Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam, it would not be equitable to set aside the appointment of the Respondent No.6. Rather directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner, the Respondent No.6 and Mr. Yangtsase Sangtam would be the proper course of action. The appointment order dated 06.08.2024 can be made dependent on such evaluation. 18. Accordingly, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions: (i) The Respondent No.2 is directed to consider afresh the recommendation of the District Screening Committee along with the representation submitted by the Petitioner and the father of the Respondent No.6 and on the basis thereof, decide as to whether Petitioner or the Respondent No.6 or Mr. M. Yangtsase Sangtam is the most suitable candidate to the post of Medical Attendant at Phelungre Sub-Centre. The said evaluation should contain reasons and a Speaking Order be passed. Page No.# 12/12 (ii) The said exercise be completed within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of passing of the instant judgment. The Registry is directed to provide a copy of this judgment to Mr. M. Longkumer, the learned State Government counsel so that he may forward it to the Respondent No.2 for effective compliance. (iii) The impugned Appointment Order bearing No.DHFW- 3/117/GRD-IV/KPE/22 dated 06.08.2024 as well as the subsequent order bearing the same number dated 12.11.2024 shall be subject to the decision of the Respondent No.2 in terms with the exercise directed to be carried out in Clause (i) of the instant paragraph. (iv) There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant