SMTI THUJOVELU WIFE OF SHRI SOKHAYI R/O RUZAZHO VILLAGE DISTRICT Vs. THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner belongs to Pohokhru clan and her clan donated the land on which the present Government Middle School Ruzazho was constructed with a condition to offer Grade-IV post to the petitioner's clan. In the year 1998 an interview for knitting Helper in the said Government Middle School was conducted but no land owner was invited in the said interview. The petitioner alleges that in the said interview the respondent No.5 submitted false land ownership certificate and on the basis of such certificate she was selected in the interview. The District Administration, in order to solve the problem, caused a verification with regard to the land ownership and after due verification the SDO(C), Chozuba on 24.4.2001 submitted a report to the Director of School Education, Nagaland stating that he physically verified and found that the school was set up on the land belonging to petitioner's clan and her clan supports the candidature of the petitioner and her case was recommended by the Village Council. It was stated that the respondent No.5 had already availed employment a decade ago on the basis of the land ownership of a football ground and as such the respondent No.5 should not be appointed as Knitting Helper in the said school as she is not the owner of the land on which the school stands. The appointment of respondent No.5 was stalled and against the same she filed W.P(C) No. 23(K) of 2001 seeking a direction to appoint her to the post on the basis of the interview held on 24.7.1998. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 10.9.2002 with a direction to the respondent-authorities to appoint the petitioner/respondent No.5 in the present writ petition to the said post. In compliance to the aforesaid order of this court the respondent No.5 was appointed to the post of Knitting Helper on 13.3.2003 and accordingly she joined her duty. The said appointment was conditional as it has been stated therein that the respondent No.5 would be terminated if it can be proved that she is not the real owner of the land after detailed enquiry from the Deputy Commissioner, Phek. The Deputy Commissioner was requested by the respondent-Director to clarify whether the land in question belongs to the petitioner or respondent No.5. After causing enquiry, the SDO(C), Chozuba, submitted his verification report on 20.10.2004 with comments that the petitioner has a right to claim Grade-IV post in the school concerned as a land owner. On consideration of verification report, the petitioner was appointed to the said post of Knitting Helper on 16.5.2005. The petitioner's appointment was challenged by respondent No.5 by filing W.P(C)No.174(K) of 2005. She obtained an interim order on 30.6.2005 suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 16.5.2005 till disposal of the writ petition. In the said writ petition the petitioner was not made a party. Ultimately, the petitioner's appointment was cancelled on the basis of order dated 1.7.2005 passed in the aforesaid writ petition. Then a fresh process of recruitment started. Interview call letter was issued on 13.5.2007. The petitioner appeared in the interview on 28.5.2007 until further orders. Thereafter by an order dated 26.7.2007 but respondent no.5 did not appear in the said interview. The petitioner was recommended by the District Selection Board for appointment to the said post of Knitting Helper but she was not appointed. The respondent No.5 again challenged the said 2nd interview by filing W.P(C)No.84 (K)/07. In an interview order dated 29.5.2007 the respondent-authorities were directed that no appointment should be made on the basis of interview held on 28.5.2007 issued by the Additional Director of School Education, the Constitution of District Selection Board for selection of Knitting Helper was cancelled. The aforesaid W.P(C)No.84(K)/07 came up for hearing on 7.8.2007 which was closed as infructuous on the submission of learned Govt. Advocate that the said interview call letter was issued through oversight and consequently the constitution of District Selection Board was cancelled. As a result, the respondent No.5 has been allowed to continue in the post of Knitting Helper.

(2.) The respondent No.5 in paragraph 2 of her affidavit-in-opposition, pleaded as under:

(3.) The stand of the Government in this regard could be found in paragraph-4,6 and 10 of its affidavit-in-opposition. In paragraph-4 it has been stated that the respondent No.5 was appointed on the recommendation of the District Selection Board held on 24.7.1998 but the documents submitted by the petitioner as well as by the respondent No.5 in support of their claim as land owner, have not yet been verified. In paragraph 6 it is stated that the department is not disputing that the petitioner is the land owner. In the said paragraph it has been clarified that the respondent No.5 was appointed on condition that her service would be terminated if she cannot prove herself to be the real land owner. In paragraph 10 it is stated that the department is ready to constitute a new District Selection Board to have a fresh interview providing opportunity to all.