High Court orders cancellation of appointment made without open selection process

Twist in Mon appointment case as court finds no land donor on record

DIMAPUR — In a significant twist to a landownership-based appointment dispute in Mon district, the Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench has ruled that neither the petitioner nor the appointed Medical Attendant is a landowner of the plot on which the Tamkong Sub-Centre stands, effectively undercutting the very premise of the case.

The ruling came in a writ petition filed by M Longnyu Konyak, who challenged the appointment of Baongba K to the post of Medical Attendant on the ground that the post should have gone to a landowner. The petitioner asserted that his clan had donated the land for the Sub-Centre and that he was therefore entitled to the position.

However, a spot verification ordered by the court earlier this year produced a different conclusion. A joint verification team consisting of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tobu; the SMO, CHC Tobu; and the Head Dobashi of DB Court Tobu reported on September 25 that the land “does not belong either to the petitioner or the respondent no. 5.” The court accepted the finding and held that neither party had any claim to appointment “on the ground of land ownership basis.”

Also read: Child Rights Week concludes in Mokokchung

With the foundation of the petitioner’s claim removed, the court rejected his prayer for appointment. “In view of there being no merit in the writ petition, the petitioner’s prayer for appointment on land ownership basis is rejected,” the order stated.

At the same time, the court scrutinised the manner in which the Medical Attendant was appointed and found the process to be legally defective. It noted that the state government admitted that no open advertisement was issued prior to the appointment of the respondent, who was selected from among three applicants.

Justice Michael Zothankhuma cited the Supreme Court ruling in State of Orissa vs. Mamata Mahanty (2011), which held that appointments made without open advertisement violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Quoting the judgment, the court reproduced:

“no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates… merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the noticeboard will not meet the requirement.”

The court also referred to the state government’s Office Memorandum dated August 16, 2018, which mandates that any vacancy arising after the retirement or exit of a landowner-appointee must be filled through “open advertisement giving equal opportunity to all applicants.”

Since neither the petitioner nor the current appointee is a landowner, and the post was filled without advertisement, the court held that the appointment could not be sustained.

The court therefore set aside the Medical Attendant’s appointment order dated January 18, 2023, and directed the Health department to advertise the post and conduct a fresh recruitment process in accordance with law. All eligible candidates, including the petitioner and the respondent, may participate if they meet the prescribed criteria, it said while disposing of the petition.