YASHIMENLA Vs. ADDL CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner and also Mrs. Lucy, learned Government Advocate for the State Respondents.

(2.) IN this case, notice of motion was issued on 8. 9. 2008 making it returnable within four weeks. No response was filed by the State Respondents. Thereafter, Rule was issued on 14. 10. 2008 making it returnable in three weeks. No counter affidavit has been filed till this date by the State Respondents.

(3.) IN one of the extension orders namely, Office order No. EH/ht/a/18/2002-03 dated 27. 2. 2004 (Annexure-E3), it is stated that the services of 73 Hindi teachers including the petitioner are extended w. e. f. 02. 01. 2004 upto 31. 12. 2004 or till interview is conducted which ever is earlier. Same was stated in the next extension order No. ED/ht/c/6/2004-05 dated 14. 2. 2005 (Annexure-E4 ). From the aforesaid orders, it can be gathered that the State Respondents are contemplating to initiate regular recruitment by conducting interview for filling up the vacant post against which the petitioner and other persons have been appointed temporarily. It can reasonably be presumed that the vacant posts are required to be filled up as per the existing rules and procedures. There is reason to believe that since the petitioner and other persons similarly situated have been allowed to continue as Hindi teacher for more than 7 years, there is need for Hindi teachers and the posts are required to be filled up by regular process of recruitment.