Court upholds quashing of Nagaland Police appointments; directs fresh recruitment

DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by 38 Nagaland Police inspectors, thereby upholding the earlier judgement that set aside their appointments made between 2019 and 2020 without any advertisement.

The division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita, in its judgement delivered on October 30, reaffirmed that public appointments made without inviting applications are in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and cannot be treated as “irregular” but are “illegal and void ab initio (void from the beginning).”

The appeal was filed by 38 of the 40 personnel appointed as sub-inspectors, assistant sub-inspectors, and unarmed branch sub-inspectors. Their appointments had earlier been quashed by a single-judge bench on September 26, 2024, following complaints by a group of aggrieved candidates who alleged backdoor recruitment.

During the appeal hearing, Senior Advocate CT Jamir, appearing for the appellants, admitted that no advertisement was issued prior to the recruitment but argued that the appointments were made to meet urgent departmental requirements and could be treated as “irregular” rather than illegal.

Also read: Many workplace harassment cases go unreported in Nagaland, says NSCW chairperson

He also referred to Rule 8 of the Nagaland Police Manual, which empowers the director general of police (DGP) and inspector general of police (IGP) to make direct recruitment under certain circumstances.

The state government, represented by Additional Advocate General LT Sangtam and Government Advocate TB Jamir, however, supported the earlier judgement, confirming that the appointments had indeed not been preceded by any advertisement.

Counsel for the original petitioners (respondents in the appeal), Z Zhimomi, maintained that such appointments were unconstitutional and cited several Supreme Court rulings to argue that recruitment to public posts must be fair, transparent, and open to all eligible citizens.

The division bench observed that the single-judge order had followed the findings in an earlier batch of writ petitions (WP 189/2022–199/2022) concerning similar appointments of 935 constables, which were also quashed by the court on September 20, 2024.

That order had since attained finality, with the Supreme Court dismissing a special leave petition (SLP No. 59017/2024) on January 21, 2025, and the subsequent writ appeal being withdrawn on October 23, 2025.

While dismissing the present appeal, the bench stated that it does not “find any reason to disagree or differ with the findings and directions of the single judge given in the impugned judgement dated 26.09.2024. Rather, we are in agreement with the findings of the learned single judge in interfering with the appointments and setting those aside.”

The judges further observed that the directions issued by the single judge for a fresh recruitment process, allowing the affected appointees age relaxation, were “in accordance with law” and therefore required no modification.

The court held that the principle laid down by the Supreme Court—that appointments made without adherence to constitutional and statutory procedures cannot be regularised—squarely applied to the case.

Reiterating that “public employment is a constitutional duty entrusted to the state,” and that arbitrariness in recruitment “strikes at the root of equality,” the court directed the state government to hold a fresh recruitment process for the posts in question through open advertisement.

Further, the status quo order granted in November 2024, which had allowed the appellants to continue in service during the pendency of the appeal, thus stands vacated with the dismissal of the case.