Page No.# 1/8 GAHC020005322025 2026:GAU-NL:112-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WA/21/2025 SHRI NINGSUKIU YIMCHUNGER S/O LT. TSAKIU YIMCHUNGER, R/O JENTY VILLAGE, PO/PS- KIPHIRE, NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE DIRECTOR DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICER PUNGRO KIPHIRE NAGALAND 5:SHRI THONGNIOW S/O YESUMEW MULTI-TASKING TASK (MTS) SUB-DIVISIONAL AGRICULTURE OFFICVER PUNGRO KIPHIRE NAGLAN Advocate for the Petitioner : TAKA KICHU, JAMES NEWMAI Advocate for the Respondent : INAHOLI, GOVT. ADV., NAGALAND. Page No.# 2/8 Date of Hearing & Judgment : 12.03.2026 BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE O R D E R (Michael Zothankhuma, J) Heard Mr. Taka Kichu, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 2. No one appears for the respondent No. 5 despite service of notice by dasti process. Further, in the Order dated 28.01.2026 passed by this Court, this Court had held that notice has been deemed to be served upon the respondent No. 5. 3. The appellant has put to challenge the impugned Order dated 23.07.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)/136/2024, by which the appellant’s prayer for appointment to a Government post on the basis of land ownership due to donation of land to the Government, has been dismissed, on the ground that there was no agreement condition for appointment on landowner basis. Further challenge made by the appellant to the impugned Order is on the ground that the appointment of the respondent No. 5 had been made on the basis of an Advertisement dated 26.06.2024, which was only put up in the Notice Board of the Office of the respondent No. 3 and the same was not advertised in a Newspaper. The appellant who had submitted an application for appointment on Page No.# 3/8 landownership basis came to know of the advertisement only later. However, the State respondents had accepted the application of the appellant as an application pursuant to the Advertisement dated 26.02.2024 and had rejected the same, on the ground that it had been submitted beyond the last date of submission of applications by candidates. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Advertisement dated 26.02.2024 that had been issued by the State respondents, for appointment of 19 (nineteen) Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) and one post of Tractor Handyman under the Department of Agriculture, Government of Nagaland had not been advertised in a Newspaper, which was in violation of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436. He accordingly submits that the Advertisement dated 26.02.2024, calling for filling up 19 (nineteen) vacant posts of MTS and one post of Tractor Handyman, was in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Ms. Inaholi, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand submits that there is no infirmity with the impugned Order passed by the Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition, on the ground that the claim for appointment to a regular Government post by the appellant on land ownership basis, is in relation to an agreement pertaining to the Potato Seed Farm, which was donated by the appellant’s grandfather and 9 (nine) other persons to the Government. The Potato Seed Farm is now converted into the Sub-Divisional Agriculture Office, Pungro. She submits that the agreement executed between the landowners and the Page No.# 4/8 Government states that the land had been donated, on the condition that first preference would be given to the landowners for contract works, etc. She submits that the word “etc.” does not include appointment to a Government post on landowner basis. She also submits that when the advertisement for appointment of MTS had been made on 26.02.2024 and the last date of submission of application had been fixed on 05.03.2024, the appellant’s application for appointment had been taken into consideration, but was rejected by the Screening Committee. She submits that the application of the appellant had not been rejected on the ground that the same had been submitted beyond the last date of submission of applications, i.e. 05.03.2024, but due to the fact that the application of the respondent No. 5 was accepted by the Screening Committee, as he was found to be more meritorious than the appellant based on the documents submitted by the candidates and examined by the Selection Committee. She accordingly submits that there being no ground to interfere with the impugned Order, the appeal should be dismissed. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The claim of the appellant for appointment to a regular Government post is on two grounds:- (i) firstly, on the ground that the appellant being the grandson of one of the land donors and none of the family of the land donor, Late Nokokiu, having been appointed to any Government post, the appellant should be appointed on the basis of the agreement made between the land donors and the Government; Page No.# 5/8 (ii) secondly the appellant’s application for appointment to a vacant Government post, which had not been submitted on the basis of the Advertisement dated 26.02.2024, was not considered on merit, but rejected due to filing the same after the last date of submission of applications had expired. Further, the Advertisement had been hung up only on the Notice Board of the respondent No. 3 and not published in any Newspaper. 8. On perusing the agreement for the Potato Seed Farm Land made between the appellant’s grandfather and others on the one side and the Government on the other side, we find that the land had been donated only on the condition that the land donors would be given first preference in contract works etc. We do not subscribe to the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the word “etc.” would include employment to a Government post. The word “etc.” would have to derive its colour/meaning from the previous word mentioned in the agreement made therein, which is “contract works”. As such, we hold that the appellant has no right to be appointed to a regular Government post on landowner basis, in terms of the agreement entered into between the landowners and the Government, as “etc.” cannot be said to include everything under the sun. 9. With regard to the second issue as to whether the appellant should have been considered for filling up the vacant posts of MTS in terms of the Advertisement dated 26.02.2024, we find that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the said Advertisement had not been published in any Newspaper and the same had only been hung in the Notice Board of Page No.# 6/8 the Office of the respondent No. 3. 10. In the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra) the Supreme Court has held that for filling up vacant posts, the same should be mandatorily published in Newspapers, and not only put up in the Notice Board, to enable all eligible persons interested to apply for the same, and that the absence of the same would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In the above case of Mamata Mohanty (supra), the Supreme Court has held at paragraphs 35 and 36 as follows:- “35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from Employment Exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from Employment Exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in Radio and Television as merely calling the names from the Employment Exchange does not meet the requirement of the said Article of the Constitution. 36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation Page No.# 7/8 of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance of the said Constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit.” 11. The appellant had submitted an application for appointment on landowner basis on 03.03.2024 in place of one Mr. Yesumew, who had retired as a Mali on 30.09.2023. There is nothing to show in the said application dated 03.03.2024 that the same had been made pursuant to the Advertisement dated 26.02.2024. Though the respondents have taken the application of the applicant to be an application made in terms of the Advertisement dated 26.02.2024, the same does not appear to be the case herein. 12. In any event, without going further into the said issue, the fact remains that the Advertisement dated 26.02.2024 had not been published in any Newspaper, to enable all interested eligible persons including the appellant herein, to have a chance to compete in the same. The appellant’s application had also been rejected due to late submission of his application, beyond the date stipulated in the Advertisement and not rejected on merits. Accordingly, in view of the said Advertisement being in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in terms of the Supreme Court Judgment in Mamata Mohanty (supra), we find that the appointment of the respondent No. 5, made pursuant to the Advertisement dated 26.02.2024 is also in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This finding of this Court is specific to the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5. Accordingly, in view of the Page No.# 8/8 reasons stated above, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5, in terms of the Advertisement dated 26.02.2024, is hereby set aside. The Directorate of Agriculture shall publish a fresh Advertisement with regard to the post of Mali in the Office of the SDAO, Pungro in any Newspaper/s, to enable all interested persons, including the appellant and the respondent No. 5, to apply for the same. The same should be done at the earliest. Consequently, the impugned Order dated 23.07.2025 passed in WP(C)/136/2024 is hereby set aside. Writ appeal stands disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant