Page No.# 1/9 GAHC020002132024 2026:GAU-NL:335 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/70/2024 SHRI LONGTISE Y. SANGTAM, S/O YANGLISE THONGRU, R/O PHELUNGRE VILLAGE, PO/PS KIPHIRE, NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND, NAGALAND, KOHIMA 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SERICULTURE NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:SHRI T. LIPONGCHEM PEON (MTS) Page No.# 2/9 DISTRICT SERICULTURE OFFICE KIPHIRE NAGALAND Advocate for the Petitioner : N. LONGKUMER, MANBO WANGSHU,NISUKA CHISHI,KIM PIENYU,REBECCA,XAVIOR KENT,H MUKAM,LUCY WEO Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL, BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner(s): Mr. N. Longkumer, Adv. Advocate for the State respondents : Ms. B.Kithan, Govt. Adv. Advocate for the respondent no. 4: Mr. Taka Kichu, Adv. Date on which judgment is reserved : N/A Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.06.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment ? : N/A Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Bichano Kithan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. Taka Kichu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Page No.# 3/9 respondent no. 4. 2. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the appointment of the Respondent no. 4 to the post of Peon (MTS) in the District Sericulture Office, Kiphire, and accordingly, has challenged the Approval Letter dated 06.02.2024 as well as the Appointment Order dated 12.02.2024, issued in favour of the respondent no. 4. 3. The case of the petitioner is twofold; i.e., the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment on land ownership basis in terms of the Notification of the Government dated 05.03.2018, and the appointment of the Respondent no. 4, was carried out without calling for an advertisement, and as such has violated the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4. The brief facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the Oak Tasar Farm, Phelungre Village under District Sericulture Office, Kiphire was established, as per the claim of the petitioner, upon the land donated by 13 (thireteen) landowners, which includes the grandfather of the petitioner. It is the further case of the petitioner that a written agreement was entered into on 10.05.1978, between the 13 (thirteen) landowners and the State government wherein it was agreed in principle and in good faith that in lieu of the land donated preference would be given to the landowners to employment arising in the said Farm. 5. The petitioner herein is the grandson of late Mulingmong, who was a signatory to the said agreement and claims that the Page No.# 4/9 petitioner’s family have not availed any job in lieu of the donated land. It is the further case of the petitioner that a post of Peon cum Chowkidar (MTS) fell vacant at Oak Tasar Farm, Phelungre village, under the District Sericulture Office, Kiphire, when Shri. K. Throngchokiu Sangtam, was released from services on 30.09.2023. 6. Under such circumstances, the petitioner submitted an application claiming appointment on land ownership basis. To the surprise of the petitioner, the petitioner’s case was not considered in terms of the notification dated 15.03.2018, rather the respondent no. 4 who was the son of Shri. K. Throngchokiu Sangtam, was appointed to the said post, i.e., without carrying out any process as mandated under law. 7. It is under such circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court challenging the appointment of the respondent no. 4 and further seeking directions upon the Respondent Authorities to appoint the petitioner to the post of Peon (MTS)at the District Sericulture Office, Kiphire, on land ownership basis. 8. The records reveal that the respondent no. 3 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein, the execution of the agreement dated 10.05.1978 was duly admitted and it is also admitted that the petitioner’s grandfather was a signatory to the same. It was also mentioned that all civil works for construction and repairing works were done by the land doners. In addition to that, it is stated that in Page No.# 5/9 respect to the land which was donated by the petitioner’s grandfather, no employment was granted as their land was not required for establishment of farm at Phelungre Village, Kiphire. 9. It is further mentioned that there were total nos. of 7 (seven) MTS vacancies in various District establishments of Directorate of Sericulture. The DRB was held for all the 7 (seven) vacancies. However, 6 (six) vacancies were processed jointly and 1 (one) vacancy was processed separately. All the 7 (seven) numbers of posts have been filled up as per the meeting minutes of DRB held on 20.12.2023 and the remaining one post was also forwarded on 16.01.2023 and recommended on the same DRB meeting dated 20.12.2023. Further to that, it is mentioned that by an order dated 15.12.2023, Shri. Chichanbemo Humtsoe was appointed as MTS, under the establishment of District Sericulture Office, Wokha. This Court had further taken note that there is no mention that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 was preceded by any advertisement. 10. The respondent no. 4 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein various facts have been mentioned and has also relied on a copy of the Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2022 wherein the Government of Nagaland had dispensed with the advertisement in terms of Grade D posts. 11. This Court had duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and duly perused the materials available on Page No.# 6/9 record. 12. The petitioner claim as stated herein above are twofold; i) that the petitioner is entitled to be considered in terms of the notification dated 05.03.2018 and ii) the post which was filled up by the respondent no. 4 could not have been done without calling for any advertisement. 13. In so far as the appointment of the petitioner on land ownership basis is concerned, there are certain factors which are required to be taken into consideration which have been mentioned in the notification dated 05.03.2018. Clause 3(a) of the said notification refers to written agreement and the procedure to be followed in respect to the claim of landowners for appointment. 14. Taking into account that there is no denial to the agreement dated 10.05.1978, that the grandfather of the petitioner was one of the land owners, the petitioner, herein, therefore ought to have been considered in terms of the notification dated 05.03.2018. 15. This Court also cannot turn a blind eye to the statement made at para 4 of the affidavit of the Director, Department of Sericulture, Kohima to the effect that the land donated by the petitioner’s grandfather was not taken by the Department of Sericulture for establishment of the Farm. The question, however arises as to whether after the donation, the Sericulture Department has returned the land back to the petitioner’s family. This aspect is required to be considered by the Sericulture Department of the Government of Page No.# 7/9 Nagaland, while considering as to whether the petitioner’s case comes within the notification dated 05.03.2018. 16. The second aspect of the matter pertains to the appointment of the respondent no. 4 without following the due process, i.e, by issuance of advertisement. Mr. Taka Kichu, learned counsel appearing on behalf for the respondent no. 4 laid emphasises on the Office Memorandum dated 03.03.2022, but in the opinion of this Court the said Office Memorandum cannot override the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, whereby advertisement had been held by the Supreme Court to be one of the basis facets for appointment into public service. 17. Accordingly, in that view of the matter, it is the opinion of this Court that the appointment of the respondent no. 4 without calling for an advertisement was in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 18. Taking into account the above, this Court therefore disposes of the instant writ petition with the following observations and directions:- a) The impugned Government approval dated 06.02.2024 in so far as the approval of the appointment of the respondent no. 4 is set aside and quashed. b) The impugned appointment order dated 12.02.2024, in so far as the respondent no. 4 is concerned is set aside and Page No.# 8/9 quashed. c) The Respondent Authorities herein, and more particularly the respondent nos. 2 and 3 shall take a decision as to whether to retain the land which the grandfather of the petitioner have donated, or to provide appointment in terms of the notification dated 05.03.2018. In the circumstance, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 duly takes the decision to return the land, which was donated by the grandfather of the petitioner, the petitioner would have no claim to be considered in terms of the notification dated 05.03.2018, else the petitioner has to be considered for appointment in terms of the Notification dated 05.03.2018. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are therefore directed to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the above observations. d) This Court further observes that the claim for appointment on land ownership basis cannot be against a specific post. It is a right to be appointed on the basis of the policy of the Government on land ownership basis. Under such circumstances, this Court grants liberty to the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to take a decision as to whether the said respondents would like to fill up the vacant post of Peon (MTS) in the District Sericulture Office, Kiphire, either in terms of the notification dated 05.03.2018 or by way of an open process by issuing an advertisement. Page No.# 9/9 19. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition stands disposed of, however, no costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant