Disposed

Hughevi Rochil v. State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 May 2019WP(C)/191/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought Writ Petition challenging non-appointment despite SIT report recommending genuine candidates. Court directed respondent-cum-authority to submit SIT report and complete appointment process within one month.

What did the court decide?

Retrained respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to submit the SIT Status Report to Respondent No.1 within one week and complete the entire exercise of appointment or reinstatement for the petitioner within one mont

Hughevi Rochil Vs State of Nagaland and 3 Ors. — Public Procurement and Tenders | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.191/2017

¶2

B E F O R E

¶3

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶4

02.05.2019

¶5

Heard Ms. Esther, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Mere, learned Government Advocate for State respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶6

2. The petitioner’s case in brief is that he was appointed as Primary Teacher by order dated 25/11/2003. In January 2009, the Government constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for investigating cases in respect of excess/bogus appointments in the Education Department. During the investigation by the SIT, the State respondents published a newspaper, listing the names of persons whose cases were under investigation, stating that they were absentee teachers. Though the petitioner was not an absentee teacher, however, due to the fact that the petitioner’s name appeared in the list of absentee teachers whose cases were under investigation by the SIT, the petitioner was not allowed to carry on his employment as a teacher.

¶7

3. Subsequently, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, vide Cabinet Memorandum dated 25/6/2012, proposed the following for consideration of the Cabinet:“i) 34 teachers holding fake/forged educational certificate as per Annexure-D is recommended for termination.

¶8

ii) 70 teachers, absentees/not reported for verification to the SIT Vigilance Commission is also recommended for termination, Annexure-C.

¶9

WPC No.191/2017 Page 1 of 3

¶10

iii) 869 whose case have been verified and recommended for appointment by the SIT Vigilance Commission is propose for retention regularized wef, 1^st April 2011. This is as per the earlier Cabinet decision made on 21.03.2011. The effective date of 01.01.2011 is notional for fixation and seniority purpose only and actual cash benefit shall be from 01.07.2012. If agreed they will be posted to the respective District on language line where shortages of teachers beginning from single and above teacher schools are there, Annexure-A.

¶11

iv) The remaining 112 teachers as per Annexure F whose names are not figured in the SIT Preliminary Report will be taken up with the Cabinet after further verification, Annexure-F.

¶12

Put up for the approval of the State Cabinet.”

¶13

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in the 869 number of cases recommended for appointment by the SIT, Vigilance Commission, the name of the petitioner was not included. In the meantime, persons whose names have been recommended for appointment after the SIT had concluded the investigation filed various writ petitions in this Court vide W.P.(C) No.196(K)/2016 etc. Consequent to the above, many of the persons who were in the same fact situation similar to the petitioner’s were appointed/reinstated into service. As the petitioner was not appointed/reinstated, the present writ petition has been filed.

¶14

5. Mr. N. Mozhui, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has submitted a letter dated 31/10/2018 issued by the Addl. Director, Directorate of School Education, which is to the effect that in the Status Report furnished by the SIT to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioner’s name was reflected in the genuine category of persons who were appointed. He submits that though the

¶15

WPC No.191/2017 Page 2 of 3

¶16

petitioner’s full name is Hughevi Rochill, the Status Report submitted by the SIT had inadvertently forgotten to put the surname Rochill in the SIT Status Report. This was due to the fact that even in the appointment order of the petitioner, the petitioner’s name was reflected only as Hughevi and not Hughevi Rochill. He however submits that the present petitioner is the person reflected in the SIT Status Report, whose case is genuine. He submits that the SIT Status Report has been submitted to the Directorate of the School Education, as the Government decision to conduct the investigation into the matter had been communicated to the respondent No.4 through the Directorate of School Education.

¶17

6. Ms. S. Mere, learned Government Advocate submits that as soon as the SIT Status Report is submitted to the Government by the Directorate of School Education, the same will be acted upon.

¶18

7. I have heard the counsels for the parties.

¶19

8. In view of the fact that the SIT Status Report has apparently been submitted to the Directorate of School Education, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall ensure that the SIT Status Report is submitted to respondent No.1 within a period of one week from today and the entire exercise for appointment/re-instatement of the petitioner is completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶20

9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

chasie

¶23

WPC No.191/2017 Page 3 of 3

Hughevi Rochil v. State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hughevi Rochil v. State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Yongnyah Village Vs the State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

The Cholamandalam Ms General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Md. Biki Huisain and 2 Ors.

The Chalamandalam Ms General Ins. Co. Ltd. Vs Md. Biki Hussain and 2 Ors.

Nribeni T. Ngullie Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

A.R. Choudhury and 4 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Sitangshu Das Purkayastha Vs the State of Nagaland