STATE OF NAGALAND Vs. SHRI ATOBO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These intra-Court appeals are filed by the State of Nagaland being aggrieved with the judgment dtd. 6/8/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions, being, WP(C) Nos.131/2016, 139/2016 and 140/2016 whereby the learned Single Judge while disposing of the said writ petitions filed by the respondents herein, has directed the respondent State to take steps to publish the result of the selection held for Grade-IV posts in terms of the Advertisement dtd. 7/7/2003 as expeditiously as possible but not later than two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The appellants have also challenged the order dtd. 24/2/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Pet. Nos.7/2020, 2/2020 and 6/2020 whereby the review petitions filed by the State of Nagaland against the judgment dtd. 6/8/2019 have been dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the Directorate of School Education, Government of Nagaland issued an Advertisement No.1/2003-04 dtd. 7/7/2003 inviting applications for the Class-III and Class-IV posts under the Department of School Education. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the respondents had applied for the Grade-IV post. It is the case of the respondents that despite having been selected by the District Selection Board, Dimapur, the authorities did not declare the result of the selection process. Being aggrieved with the non-declaration of the result, the respondents filed the aforesaid writ petitions and the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dtd. 6/8/2019 allowed the said writ petitions by directing the respondent State authorities to declare the result of the said selection within two months. The appellant State filed interlocutory application seeking extension of time for declaration of result, which was granted by the Single Bench twice and the time for declaration of result was extended for further 45 days vide order dtd. 30/1/2020 passed in I.A.(Civil)8/2020. After that the appellant State authorities have preferred review petitions before the learned Single Judge. However, the said review petitions came to be dismissed on 24/2/2021. Hence, the present appeals.

(3.) Mr. K.N. Balgopal, learned Advocate General for the State of Nagaland has submitted that the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in directing the State authorities to declare the result of the selection process, which took place way back in the year 2004, vide judgment dtd. 6/8/2019 without taking into consideration the fact that the respondents had approached the Court with inordinate delay of more than 12 years. It is contended that the selection took place in the year 2004 and the respondent approached the High Court in the year 2016 for the first time with the prayer for declaration of the result of the selection process which took place way back in the year 2004. Learned Advocate General of the State has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Rup Diamonds and others vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 356, Baljeet Singh (Dead) through legal representatives and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2019) 15 SCC 33 and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. Ghanshyam Dass and others reported in (2011) 4 SCC 374 and has argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred judgments has clearly held that if a litigant is not vigilant about his or her right and chose to sit on the fence till somebody else's case came to be decided, then such litigant is not entitled for any relief. It is contended that while giving directions for declaration of result of the selection pertaining to the year 2004, the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration this aspect of the matter and therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable. It is further argued that though the State of Nagaland made sincere efforts to comply with the direction given by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dtd. 6/8/2019 but during the process, it is found that the record pertaining to the selection which took place in the year 2004, is missing and therefore, the direction given by this Court could not be complied with. It is submitted that this plea was raised by the State before the learned Single Judge by way of filing review petitions but the learned Single Judge without seriously considering the said request has proceeded to dismiss the review petitions while holding that the State has failed to supply sufficient reason requiring review of the judgment dtd. 6/8/2019. Learned Advocate General has further submitted that as per the Office Memorandum dtd. 19/3/2004 issued by Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (Record Cell), Government of Nagaland, the records are classified into three categories, namely, Class 'A', Class 'B' and Class 'C' and the records pertaining to the said classes are required to be preserved for a certain period. It is submitted that the documents pertaining to the selection of Grade-IV employees are categorised under Class 'C' and as per the Office Memorandum dtd. 19/3/2004, the documents classified as Class 'C' are required to be preserved for a minimum of five years and not more than 10 years and in this situation there is all possibilities that the records pertaining to the selection in question is no more preserved. Hence, in such circumstances, the State of Nagaland is not in a position to declare the result as directed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Advocate General has, therefore, prayed that the writ appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment dtd. 6/8/2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions filed by the respondents and the order dtd. 24/2/2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in the review petitions may kindly be set aside.