WATIJUNGLA Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the recommendation made by the Selection Board recommending the respondent No.4 for the post of Medical Attendant at Workshop Block Sub -Centre, Mokokchung, forwarded by the Director (H) HOD, Directorate of Health & Family Welfare to the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Health & Family Welfare Department and the approval letter dated 14/11/2011 approving the appointment of respondent No.4 to the said post on the basis of merit.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that petitioner is a land owner and the land belonging to the clan of the petitioner was given free of cost to the Health and Family Welfare Department for construction of Workshop Block Sub -Centre, Sungkumen Ward, Mokokchung under the establishment of Chief Medical Officer, Mokokchung. Her case was recommended by the Village Council, Mokokchung for appointment as Medical Attendant at the said Sub -Centre and the case of the petitioner was forwarded by the Chief Medical Officer, Mokokchung to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.4 had also submitted an application for appointment to the post in question on 1/12/2009 indicating her date of birth as 21/2/1982. The respondent No.4 came to be appointed by an order dated 27/8/2010. The age limit for public employment in Nagaland being 35 years, she was not eligible for public employment as the respondent No.4 was actually 40 years old in 2004 as evident from the Electoral Roll for Municipal Election at Mokokchung town. On verbal complaint being lodged regarding disqualification of respondent No.4 for public employment as she is over -aged and as the case of the petitioner was not appropriately considered, being the land owner, the appointment of respondent No.4 was kept in abeyance by an order dated 17/9/2010 and thereafter, on 24/11/2010, the petitioner was appointed to the post in question.

(3.) THE appointment of the petitioner as well as the order keeping the appointment of respondent No.4 in abeyance were challenged by respondent No.4 by filing a writ petition numbered as W.P.(C) 203 (K)/2010. While the said case was sub -judice, the respondent authorities, by order dated 25/2/2011 revoked the order dated 17/9/2010 by which the appointment order dated 27/8/2010 was kept in abeyance and the service of respondent No.4 was restored with immediate effect. Prior to the said development, this Court by an order dated 10/12/2010, in W.P.(C) 203(K)/2010, had suspended the orders dated 24/11/2010 and 17/9/2010.