BENJAMIN SHOHE Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. P.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Also heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

(2.) By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the administrative approval dtd. 5/2/2019 (Annexure-4), communicated by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services for appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Bull Attendant against the retirement vacancy of the earlier incumbent. The petitioner has also challenged the appointment order dtd. 13/2/2019 (Annexure-5), by which the respondent No. 5 has been appointed as Bull Attendant under the establishment of the Chief Veterinary Officer, Zunheboto.

(3.) Mr. P. B. Paul, learned counsel submits that the appointment of respondent No. 5 has been made without floating any open advertisement as required under the relevant guidelines of the State Government. In this connection, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the Office Memorandum (OM) dtd. 4/6/2016 annexed by the State respondents in their counter affidavit as Annexure-3. The learned counsel submits that as per the said OM, more particularly at paragraph 4, all vacancies excepting Grade-III post in the district are to be filled up by the Head Department through open advertisement and the District Selection Committee shall be constituted by the respective Deputy Commissioners to conduct the selection. In the instant case, the same having not been done, the appointment of respondent No. 5 cannot be sustained. The learned counsel has also submitted that although the petitioner approached this Court earlier, by filing WP(C) No. 51(K)/2019, the present petitioner is not barred by res adjudicata in as much as the issue regarding advertisement having not been floated prior to the appointment of respondent No. 5 was not raised and decided. He submits that the only issue raised in the earlier writ petition was with regard to the claim for appointment by the petitioner being a landowner in terms of the existing guidelines of the State Government. He, therefore, submits that present writ petition be allowed as prayed for.