PUTHUTO NATSO Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the proceeding of the selection committee metting held on 23.7.2004 selecting the Respondent No. 4 for appointment as Assistant Inspector in the Directorate of Land Resources, Govt, of Nagaland and a consequential order of appointment dated 4.8.2004 issued by the Director, Land Resources appointing the Respondent No. 4 as Assistant Inspector.

(2.) I have heard Mr. Taka Masa, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Y. Longkumer, the learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr, B.N. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr, Apok Pongener, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.

(3.) Mr. Taka Masa, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were initially appointed as Assistant Inspector in the erstwhile Department of Waste Land Development vide order of appointment dated 8.5.2000 issued by the Director pursuant to the selection made by the selection committee selecting them and others for appointment to the said post. The petitioners were appointed in a regular scale of pay and though their initial order of appointment was for a period of 1 (one) year, the same was extended from time to time by the competent authority by issuing various orders of extension and are still serving in the said capacity as Assistant Inspector. According to the learned counsel, the Respondent No. 4 was initially appointed as watershed Development Team Member in the Directorate of Wasteland Development, Govt. of Nagaland at a fixed pay of Rs. 5,000/-, for a period of 1 (one) year against the IWDP Project, which is a Centrally Sponsored Project sponsored by the Govt. of India and his appointment against the said Project was also extended from time to item by issuing various orders. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, 2(two) regular posts of Assistant Inspector in the Directorate of Land Resources fell vacant and pursuant to the decision taken by the Directorate, a selection committee was constituted for the purpose of selection of candidates for appointment against the said post. The selection committee held its meeting for selecting candidate on 23.7.2004 and selected the Respondent No. 4 and another for appointment against the said post and consequently the order of appointment dated 4.8.2004'was issued. Mr. Taka Masa, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the minimum educational qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of Assistant Inspector was fixed by the Directorate of erstwhile Department of Wasteland Development vide Notifications dated 7.11.1995 as well as on 7.4.1998 stipulating therein that the minimum educational qualification for appointment to the said post is B.Sc. (Agri),B.Sc. (Forestry), B.Sc. (Horticulture, B.R (Agri)/B.Tech (Agri), According to the learned counsel, since the Respondent No. 4 is admittedly a Master degree holder in Botany is not qualified to be appointed as Assistant Inspector having not possessed the minimum requisite educational qualification for the said post. The learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the office Memorandum dated 7.11.1995 issued by the Joint director, Wasteland Development formulating the guideline for recruitment of Grade-Ill workcharge staff stipulating therein the minimum educational qualification for the post of Assistant Inspector as well as the Notification dated 7.4.1998 issued by the Director of the said Department formulating the guideline for recruitment of field staff in Wasteland Development Department, Govt. of Nagal'and wherein the minimum educational qualification for different posts, including the post of Assistant Inspector has been laid down. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Directorate of Wasteland Development, pursuant to the vacancy occurred in the post of Assistant Inspector, has decided to fill up the said post in its meeting dated 19.6,2003 by regularizsing the Assistant Inspectors and Watershed Development. Team Members who are working on workcharge basis and haying minimum educational qualification for the post of Assistant Inspector, by rejt- erating the minimum educational qualification required for the said post. According to the learned counsel, since the Respondent No. 4 does not possess the minimum requisite educational qualifications his selection to the post of Assistant Inspector and consequent order of appointment is illegal and therefore requires to be interfered with. The learned counsel has further submitted that it is apparent from the proceeding dated 23.7.2004 of the selection committee that all the members of the selection committee constituted for the purpose of selection of candidate for the post of Assistant Inspector were not present, inasmuch as the said selection board was constituted with the Director as Chairman Joint Director as Member and Dy. Director (Administration) as Member Secretary; but in the selection committee the Dy. Director (Administration) was not present and the Dy. Director (Planning) was present and they have selected the Respondent No. 4. Since the constitution of the selection committee is tact hi accordance with the selection committee constituted by the Directorate, the selection made by the aside committee is bad in law, and therefore, the appointment of the respondent No. 4 on the basis of the selection made by the said committee is also illegal. The further submission of the learned counsel is that it appears from the proceeding of the selection committee that it has decided to select candidate on the basis of seniority and performance of existing Assistant Inspector and WDT members; but the Respondent No.4 was selected solely on the basis of the seniority without making any reference to his performance in the service career, and therefore, according to the learned counsel, even assuming the Respondent No. 4 has the requisite educational qualification, his selection on the basis of the seniority alone is bad in law as the same is contrary to the procedure adopted by the selection committee in selecting the candidates.