High Court rules landowner employment claims aren’t perpetual, quashes three Nagaland Grade-IV posts made without proper advertisement.
Share
DIMAPUR — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has held that descendants of landowners cannot claim government employment in perpetuity, reaffirming that the state’s policy limiting such appointments to a single beneficiary remains in force.
The ruling came while disposing of three linked writ petitions filed by members of the Batizar clan of Khensa village, who had sought Grade-IV posts at the District Veterinary Hospital in Yimyu ward, Mokokchung.
Justice Michael Zothankhuma ruled that the government’s notification of March 5, 2018, continues to guide all such disputes and bars further appointments on landowner basis once one eligible landowner has been accommodated.
The court observed that “there cannot be any claim for employment on landowner basis for all members of the family/clan or the descendants of the original landowners in perpetuity”.
The petitioners had argued that an agreement dated June 23, 1978—executed at the time the land was handed over for the construction of the Veterinary Hospital—required the government to offer Grade-IV posts and contract works to the landowners. They contended that the three individuals currently serving as medicine carrier, sweeper and peon were appointed without advertisement and should be replaced by the petitioners, who belong to the clan that sold the land.
Also read: Nagaland: Reservation Review Commission constituted to examine state policy
Nagaland government issues show-cause notice over alleged fraudulent Indigenous Certificate
The state, however, maintained that the land was transferred through a sale deed on the same date and that one member of the clan had already been appointed to a Grade-IV post. It further submitted that the 2018 notification restricts landowner-based employment to a single appointment and does not extend such benefits to descendants.
Relying on earlier decisions of coordinate benches, the court reiterated that the state policy does not allow continuation of landowner-based employment claims beyond the first appointment. It held that the petitioners’ demand could not be sustained.
While the petitioners’ claim was rejected, the court set aside the appointments of the three respondent employees. Both the state and counsel for the said respondents admitted there had been no open advertisement before the appointments were made.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in State of Orissa v. Mamata Mahanty (2011), the court stated that appointments made without proper notice and opportunity violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It observed that “no advertisement had been issued”, thereby denying eligible candidates—including the petitioners—the chance to compete.
The appointments of the medicine carrier, sweeper, and peon in the analogous writ petitions were quashed. The state has been directed to advertise the posts and conduct a fresh selection process in accordance with existing rules and the office memorandum of June 4, 2016. The petitioners may participate if they meet the eligibility criteria, the court stated while disposing of the three petitions.