LICHUMBENI KIKON Vs. NAGALAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. R. Iralu, learned senior counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 to 14, Mr. I. Longjem, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, Nagaland Public Service Commission, and Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned State counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

(2.) An advertisement, being advertisement No. 5/2004-05 dated 17.02.2005, was published by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (in short, "NPSC"), amongst others, for recruitment to 6 (six) posts of Lecturers in English, 8 (eight) posts of Lecturers in Science and 3 (three) posts of Lecturers in Social Science, which are Class-I Gazetted posts, to be appointed in State Council of Educational Research and Training (in short, "SCERT"). The present dispute relates to inter-se-seniority in between the appointees, who were appointed pursuant to the interview conducted under advertisement No.5/2004-05. Dates for holding the interview for the posts of Lecturers in English, Science and Social Science was notified by the NPSC vide notification dated 13.5.2005, on 21.6.2005, 27.06.2005 and 28.06.2005, respectively. Petitioner No.6, though eligible under the terms of the advertisement, was not issued call letter and accordingly, she along with some others, had approached this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which was registered as WP (C) No.160(K)/2005. By an order dated 20.6.2005, this Court directed that oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in English and Education in terms of the advertisement dated 17.02.2005, shall not be processed by the NPSC without permission of the Court.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid order of this Court dated 20.06.2005, oral interview for the posts of Lecturers in English, scheduled on 21.6.2005, was not held. On 23.06.2005, NPSC intimated the petitioner No.6 that because of clerical mistake, her application for the post of Lecturer in English was rejected, though she was eligible and accordingly, she was called upon to appear before the Interview Board and a call letter was also issued to her with a specific roll number indicating that the date of interview would be notified later on. In view of the aforesaid development, the petitioner No.6 herein, filed a miscellaneous application, which was registered as CMC No.148(K)/2005, to allow her to withdraw from the aforesaid writ petition, in which she was the petitioner No.3. This Court, by an order dated 26.08.2005 passed in the aforesaid CMC No.148(K)/2005, allowed the prayer of the present petitioner No.6 and struck off her name from the array of parties.