ARENTHUNG YANTHAN Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Supu Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mrs. Y. Longkumer, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

(2.) The present writ petition arises out of peculiar set of facts, for, the order of appointment of the petitioner as well as of others, termination of their services, re-appointment of some of the persons, whose services were terminated along with the service of the petitioner, and appointment of the private respondents, namely, respondent No. 4, have all been contrary to law.

(3.) The material facts, which are not in dispute before me, may be noticed as follows:- By order, dated February 7, 2003, issued by the respondent No. 3, the writ petitioner was appointed in the office of the Directorate of Printing and Stationary, Government of Nagaland, as a Counter against an existing vacancy caused by promotion of its incumbent. By similar orders passed, on February 7, 2003 and March 6, 2003, five more persons were appointed in similar manner, these appointees being Smti Roselin, Shri Ponathung Ngullie, Smti Lozano Lotha and Smti Zasitsonuo. By an order, dated April 11, 2003, issued by the respondent No. 3, the services of the petitioner and also of the persons mentioned hereinbefore were terminated. Notwithstanding this termination order, while Smti Roselin, Shri Ponathung Ngullie, Smti Lozano Lotha and Smti Zasitsonuo were re-appointed by orders issued by the respondent No. 3 on April 25, 2003, April 15, 2003, April 25, 2003 and April 15, 2003 respectively, the petitioner was not re-appointed.