KEYIRANGDING HEGUI Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A is born to Naga parents in Nagaland. B is also born in Nagaland but to Naga parents who hail from outside the geographical boundary of Nagaland. Unlike A, B would be required to prove his status as indigenous inhabitant of the State of Nagaland for the purpose of securing public employment. Certain conditions are to be fulfilled for proving the status of indigenous inhabitants of Nagaland and the same have been laid down in Office Memorandum No. AR/8/76 dated 19. 4. 1983. The petitioner belongs to category A, while the private respondents 6 and 7 belong to category B. They all belong to Zeliang Tribe. The petitioner and the private respondents participated in the recruitment of the Nagaland Civil Services and Allied Services conducted by the Nagaland Public Service Commission in response to Advertisement No. 3/2003-2004 dated 11. 11. 2003. The Nagaland Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Commission' only) prepared a list of 7 (seven) Zeliang candidates in order of merit. The respondents 6 and 7 were placed at serial Nos. 2 and 3 respectively, while the petitioner was placed at serial No. 4. After perusing all the available materials on record, the Commission, in its meeting held on 9. 2. 2005 rejected the candidature of persons placed at serial Nos. 1, 2 and 3. The candidate who was placed at serial No. 1 in the merit list was rejected as she originally hails from Manipur. The candidature of the respondents 6 and 7 were also rejected on the same ground and ultimately, although the petitioner was placed at serial No. 4, was recommended for the post of EAC and appointed to the said post vide Notification No. PAR-3/19/86 (Pt-1) dated 25. 2. 2005.

(2.) THE aforesaid private respondents being aggrieved by the decision of the Commission moved this Court by filing WP (C) No. 30 (K)/2005 and WP (C) No. 33 (K)/2005 challenging the decision of the Commission dated 9. 2. 2005 and the appointment of the present writ petitioner. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 18. 5. 2005 with the following directions :-

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 18. 5. 2005 aforesaid, the present petitioner preferred an appeal being W. A. No. 376/2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 29. 7. 2005 passed in Miscellaneous Case (WA) No. 1675/2005 with a direction that till submission of the report of the Deputy Commissioner, Peren, the appellant/present petitioner shall be allowed to continue in his training.