Disposed

Shri. P. Noklon Konyak v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC8 Mar 2026WP(C)/78/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land donor challenged appointment of another person as Chowkidar on landowner basis. Court held petitioner entitled to consideration under the Notification dated 05.03.2018 and set aside respondent No. 3's appointment for want of selection process.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's claim under Notification dated 05.03.2018; impugned appointment order dated 18.02.2020 set aside.

Shri. P. Noklon Konyak Vs the State of Nagaland and 2… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/10

GAHC020001832023

2026:GAU-NL:101

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/78/2023

¶6

SHRI. P. NOKLON KONYAK AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O SHRI.K. PUMIN KONYAK, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NEITONG VILLAGE, P.O/P.S TIZIT, MON, NAGALAND

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION, NAGALAND, KOHIMA

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:SHRI. BUMIN CHOWKIDAR OFFICE OF THE SDO(SC) TIZIT MON UNDER THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DIRECTORATE OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION NAGALAND KOHIMA

¶10

Advocate for the Petitioner : MOA JAMIR, VIVANA,MANHEIH KONYAK,APHRENUO,M SOLO,M JEMU

¶11

Advocate for the Respondent : GOVT ADV NL,

¶12

Page No.# 2/10

¶13

BEFORE:

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶15

Date of hearing & judgment : 09.03.2026

¶16

J U D G M E N T & O R D E R

¶17

Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. Bichano Kithan, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as well as Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for respondent No. 3.

¶18

2. By filing this writ petition the petitioner has put to challenge the Order NO.SC/ESTT-90/82 dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Director, Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland whereby oneShri Bumin, respondent No. 3 herein, has been appointed as Chowkidar against the vacancy due to death of Shri Yae-i Konyak under the establishment of Directorate of Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland.

¶19

3 . The case of the petitioner, in brief is that he is one of the land donors of the land donated for establishment of Tizit, Circle Headquarters, Mon, Nagaland. On the request of the Government to the landowners of Jaboka Range (Yanyen) under the Mon district for establishment of Tizit Circle Headquarter, 11 (eleven) villages under the said range have agreed to donate their land free of cost. However, a condition was attached that in the event any Grade-IV post arises in the Department the service benefits would be given to the landowners.

¶20

4. In the year 1994 a plot of land measuring an area of 8500 sq.mtrs.

¶21

Page No.# 3/10

¶22

was donated to the Government by the landowners of Jaboka Range for setting up of the Office of the Department of Soil Conservation, Tizit. The Additional Deputy Commissioner vide a Communication dated 21.11.1994 had conveyed to the SDO (SC), Tizit, regarding allotment of the said land for establishment of the Office of the SDO. Accordingly, the Office of the SDO has been established on the land donated by the landowners including the petitioner. The petitioner being one of the land donors has approached the respondent authorities, particularly the Director, Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland, for appointment to the post of Chowkidar against the vacancy caused due to the death of earlier incumbent on 02.11.2019. However, the case of the petitioner has not been considered.

¶23

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the State has a policy to appoint the landowners to a Grade-IV post in lieu of the land freely donated for Government establishment, the petitioner being one of the land donors is entitled to be appointed to the Grade-IV post including the post of Chowkidar which has fallen vacant due to the demise of the earlier incumbent.

¶24

6. Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the certificates issued by the Chief Angh of Yanyen Village, Tizit, Mon and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tizit, Mon, submits that there is no dispute that the petitioner is one of the land donors of Tizit town, particularly the land on which the Office of the SDO, Soil & Water Conservation, Tizit, is established. The State having the policy/scheme, being Notification dated 05.03.2018, particularly Clause 3(b) where it is provided that if there is any claim for employment as a result of oral

¶25

Page No.# 4/10

¶26

agreement, the Department concerned shall refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned who shall examine such claim including whether any appointment or any facility including contract and supply order has been given in the past by obtaining written statements from all the stakeholders, the respondent authorities are duty bound to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in terms of the said Notification.

¶27

7. Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel, submits that the appointment of respondent No. 3 is dehors the law inasmuch as no proper selection process was undertaken by the State respondents and the appointment of the respondent No. 3 has been made merely on the purported Government approval which is not permissible under the law. The respondent No. 3 is not a land donor, therefore, he cannot be appointed to the post to be filled up on the basis of landowners. Therefore, the appointment of respondent No. 3 is liable to be set aside and quashed and a direction may be issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the said post of Chowkidar in accordance with the Clause 3(b) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018.

¶28

8. In support of his submission Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mohanty , reported in (2011) 3SCC 436 to project that no person can be appointed either on temporary or adhoc basis without inviting application from all eligible candidates.

¶29

Page No.# 5/10

¶30

9. Ms. Bichano Kithan, learned State counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner may be the native of Neitong Village under Jaboka range and the Neitong village might have donated the land free of cost for establishment of Tizit Circle Headquarter, however, there is no such oral or written agreement between the land donors and the Government for providing any Grade-IV post to the petitioner, particularly by the Soil & Conservation Department. Since there is no either written or oral agreement between the petitioner and the Government, the petitioner is not entitled to avail the benefits as provided in the Notification dated 05.03.2018. She submits that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 has been made on the basis of the Government Approval Letter dated 18.02.2020. However, she fairly submits that there is no record as regards the selection process that might have been undertaken by the State respondents.

¶31

10. Mr. N. Longkumer, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the respondent No. 3 has applied for appointment as Chowkidar on the vacancy caused due to the demise of one Shri Yae-i Konyak who was working as Chowkidar under the establishment of Soil & Water Conservation, Nagaland. Thereafter, on the approval of the Government vide Letter dated 18.02.2020, the respondent No. 3 has been appointed on the basis that he is an indigenous inhabitant of Mon district and after having found eligible and suitable for the said post. Therefore, there is no illegality in the appointment of the respondent No. 3.

¶32

11. He submits that though the petitioner may be one of the landowners, however, there is no agreement either written or oral for providing

¶33

Page No.# 6/10

¶34

employment in lieu of the land donated for the Government establishment and as the requirement to avail the benefits of Notification dated 05.03.2018 requires either written or oral agreement for providing employment to the land donors who have freely donated the land for Government establishment. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner has no right to claim for appointment on landowner basis.

¶35

12. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶36

13. The State of Nagaland has framed a policy with regard to appointments to Grade-IV post under the Government of Nagaland on land ownership basis. To that effect a Notification has been issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland vide Notification dated 05.03.2018 the relevant clause is reproduced herein below:-

¶37

“3(b) If there is any claim for providing employment as a result of oral agreement, the Department concerned shall refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned who shall examine such claim carefully including whether any employment or any other facility including contract or supply order has been given in the past. Written statements from the witnesses, that is Government officials of the concerned department and the District Administration and village functionaries present at the time of such oral agreement should be taken by the Deputy Commissioner. The recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner should be referred wit relevant documents to the Department of Land Revenue for advice in such

¶38

Page No.# 7/10

¶39

cases by the Department concerned.”

¶40

14. Bare reading of the above notification shows that the landowners who have donated freely for establishment of Administrative and Block Headquarters, a specific written agreement exists providing employment to the land donor, the claim of such land donor for employment should be settled as per such agreement. If there is any claim for providing employment and as a result of oral agreement, the Department would refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned, who shall examine such claim including as to whether any employment or any other facilities including contract or supply order has been given in the past by obtaining written statements from all stakeholders, and thereafter the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner be referred to the Department of Land Revenue for advise in such cases by the Department concerned.

¶41

15. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is one of the landowners of Tizit town, Mon district and the land on which the Office of the SDO, Soil & Water Conservation, Tizit is established. The petitioner has applied for employment on landowner basis in terms of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 in the year 2019, on vacancy caused due to the death of earlier incumbent claiming that he is one of the land donors and the post which has fallen vacant be filled up on landowner basis in terms of the Notification dated 05.03.2018.

¶42

16. There is no record to show that the petitioner has entered into a written agreement providing for appointment to Grade-IV post on the

¶43

Page No.# 8/10

¶44

basis of land ownership as is required under the said Notification. However, on oath the petitioner has made a categorical statement that there was an oral agreement to that effect which could be seen to be fortified by the certificates issued by the Chief Angh of Yanyen (Jaboka Range), Tizit and the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tizit, Mon. Since there is no dispute as regards the petitioner being a land donor for Government establishment, I am of the view that the respondent authorities are bound to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 for providing employment on the basis of land ownership as the petitioner donated the land free of cost.

¶45

17. As regards the appointment of respondent No. 3, as fairly submitted by the learned State counsel there is nothing on record to show that a semblance of selection process was undertaken by the State respondents for appointment to the said post of Chowkidar under the establishment of Directorate of Soil & Water Conservation. It only indicates the purported Government Approval Letter dated 18.02.2020.

¶46

18. Law is well settled that no person can be appointed even on temporary or adhoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates and if any appointment is made without inviting any applications for open competition providing opportunity to all the eligible candidates same would infringe Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible to participate in the selection process and from being considered for a merited legal appointment. Mandatory compliance with the constitutional scheme of public employment is required or else same would violate Article 16 which

¶47

Page No.# 9/10

¶48

requires that every such appointment be made by an open Advertisement as to enable all eligible candidates to compete on merit.

¶49

19. Having considered that the appointment of the respondent No. 3 appears to have not been made under any policy or scheme of the State and without there being any selection process for filling up of the said post except on the mere Government approval, I am of the considered view that such course of action would not be permissible under the law as it would infringe Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Thus, the appointment of the respondent No. 3 cannot be sustained.

¶50

20. In view of what has been discussed herein above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for providing employment in terms of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 as the petitioner is one of the land donors for establishment of Office of the SDO, Soil & Water Conservation Department, Government of Nagaland. The respondent authorities, accordingly, are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to Grade-IV post in terms of the Notification dated 05.03.2018. It is made clear that the consideration of the petitioner would be subject to the availability of the post earmarked for appointment on land ownership basis in terms of the policy of the State.

¶51

21. The impugned appointment Order dated 18.02.2020 is set aside in view of the fact that respondent No. 3 has not been appointment by following the due process of selection. However, the respondent authorities would be at liberty to fill up the said post of Chowkidar by

¶52

Page No.# 10/10

¶53

following the due process of selection through open Advertisement by providing all the eligible candidates to participate in the selection process.

¶54

22. Writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly.

¶55

JUDGE

¶56

Comparing Assistant

Shri. P. Noklon Konyak v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. P. Noklon Konyak v. the State of Nagaland and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Avituo Albert Mere and 13 Ors. Vs State of Nagaland and 34 Ors.

Shri Dziesevituo Mere and 2 Ors. Vs State of Nagaland and 26 Ors.

Shri Odonglemba and 48 Ors. Vs State of Nagaland and 4 Ors.

Shri Medose Zhotso Vs State of Nagaland and 5 Ors.

NO.G/3201248H, Rfn/Gd, Shri Imkongsanen Ao @ Sanen Ao @ Sanam Ao Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Smti. S. Innyu K and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Nagaland and 3 Ors.