ABANG ZELIANG Vs. BIALAKBO ZELIANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 09.06.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 164(K) of 2006 allowing the writ petition and setting aside the appointment made in favour of the respondent No.5 (appellant herein) with a further direction to the State -respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioner alongwith other land owners.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he belongs to Zeliang Tribe and he hails from Tening Village in the District of Peren. THE land owners including the father of the petitioner had donated land in Tening Village for establishment of a Circle Officer Headquarter. THEreafter, Tening was upgraded to Sub-Division sometime in the year 1985-1986. Consequent upon the creation of the Sub-Division, more land was required for extension of Tening Town and responding to the request made by the Government, land owners agreed to donate land subject to certain conditions and, accordingly, an agreement was executed on 04.06.1998 between the land owners of Tening Village and the General Administration Department, represented by the S.D.O. (Civil), Tening, which was countersigned by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Tening. Clause 3 of the said agreement provides for giving special preference to the land owners on the recommendation of Tening Village Council in case of recruitment to any Grade-III & IV staff in various departments under Tening Sub-Division. Clause 4 of the agreement provides for minor contract works to be given to the land owners on the recommendation of Tening Village Council.

(3.) THE respondent No.5/appellant had also filed a counter affidavit pleading that the petitioner cannot claim absolute right to the post of Cook on the strength of the agreement dated 04.06.1998 and that the agreement only speaks of special preference to be given to the land owners. It was a categorical assertion of respondent No.5/appellant that he had not applied for appointment to the post of Cook as a land owner and that there were many applicants for the post in question and as he was found most suitable, he was appointed to the post of Cook. While not controverting that his case was espoused by the Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha), it is the stand of respondent No.5/appellant that he being a representative of the people, there is nothing wrong in his recommending any candidate for consideration for appointment.