Page No.# 1/4 GAHC020007432025 2026:GAU-NL:118 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/229/2025 SMTI. ELISENU LUHO DAUGHTER OF LATE KELEPOTO, R/O KHUZAMA VILLAGE, KOHIMA NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND. NAGALAND KOHMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY P AND DEPT NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE NAGALAND KOHIM Advocate for the Petitioner : N. LONGKUMER, NISUKA CHISHI,LUCY WEO,M SOLO Advocate for the Respondent : MR. Y. AJUNGLI SANGTAM, GOVT ADV NL, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH O R D E R 16.03.2026 Heard Mr. Nisuka Chishi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. Y. Ajungli Sangtam, learned Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State respondents. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in considering the case of the petitioner in terms with the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 17.09.2015. 3. The brief facts of the instant case as it emerges from the materials on record is that the petitioner’s father was serving as a Packer under the Central Medical Store, Deputy Director of Health & family Welfare Department, who expired on 24.01.2022 leaving behind the petitioner and his mother. The petitioner thereupon submitted an Application/Representation dated 09.06.2022 to the respondent authorities alongwith all necessary documents for appointment on compassionate ground against the resultant vacancy caused by the death of her father. The said Application/Representation having not been considered and on the other hand, some other persons who should have been appointed subsequent to the petitioner being appointed, the petitioner is compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Y. Ajungli Sangtam, learned Government Advocate appearing on Page No.# 3/4 behalf of the State respondents submitted that in so far as the Department of Health & Family Welfare is concerned, for the purpose of maintaining the inter se seniority amongst the candidates, it is done district-wise basis. The learned counsel submitted showing the entire list of the Compassionate Appointment Applications in various districts and submitted that as the petitioner herein comes within the district of Kohima, she is at Serial No. 7 inasmuch as those above her, their father or mother expired prior to the death of the petitioner’s father. In that regard he has placed before this Court the entire list and the said list is kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 5. It is relevant to take note of that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. It is a policy of the State in order to provide succour to the family on account of the death of the sole bread earner in the family. It is also well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Under such circumstances, a person can claim appointment on compassionate grounds only as per the scheme of the Government. 6. In the State of Nagaland, the Government of Nagaland have issued an OM dated 17.09.2015, whereby conditions have been laid out under which an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds would be considered. An Addendum dated 09.04.2019 had been issued in continuation to the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 17.09.2015. In terms with the Addendum dated 09.04.2019, it is made clear that the appointment on compassionate grounds could be made in Group-C and Group-D posts strictly in order of the date of death and first preference Page No.# 4/4 will always be given in case of those who have died earlier and fulfills all eligible criteria. 7. This Court have duly taken note of that in the district of Kohima, to which the petitioner’s application applies, the petitioner is put at Serial No. 7 taking into account that her father expired on 24.01.2022. The other persons who are above the petitioner, their father or mother expired prior to 24.01.2022. Under such circumstances it is therefore, the opinion of this Court that the petitioner would not be entitled to a writ to the extent of giving her an out of turn preference as the same would be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. Be that as it may, the petitioner is entitled to be considered in terms with the OM dated 17.09.2015 read with the Addendum dated 09.04.2019. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed and thereby directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in terms with the OM dated 17.09.2015 read with the Addendum dated 09.04.2019 when the turn of the petitioner comes. JUDGE Comparing Assistant