N. BANGKUP LONGLENG Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Ms. Livika, learned Government appearing for the State respondents. None appears on behalf of the private respondent No.6.

(2.) The case of the petitioner as submitted by his learned counsel is that out of 3(three) land donors on whose land the Government High School at Tamlu under Longleng district was established, the land donated by his grandfather was the largest and as per the verbal assurance given by the Deputy Inspector of Schools that one of the land owners has been given appointment to Grade-IV post but no one from the family members of the other two land owners had been given employment so far. But due to persistent request his father was appointed as causal worker for a period of 6(six) months w.e.f. 01.02.2001 however, on expiry of the said period he was terminated and never appointed again. Therefore, when the post of Night Chowkidar became vacant on 31.05.2017 on retirement of the then incumbent he submitted a representation with the recommendations of the Village Council and Village Education Committee for appointment to that post. The same was forwarded by the District Education Officer, Longleng vide his letter No. DEO/LLG/ESTT-7/2017-2018/2, dated 22.09.2017 to the respondent No.3. But to his surprise, instead of considering his case the Government of Nagaland through a letter dated 06.12.2017 of the Under Secretary, Department of School Education conveyed its approval for appointment of the private respondent on adhoc for a period of 1(one) year and in pursuance of the said letter, the private respondent was appointed for a period of 1(one) year by an order No. ED/EST/GR- IV/APPT/DEO-LLG/2017/770, dated 11.01.2018, issued by the Director of School Education, Government of Nagaland.

(3.) It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the Department of School Education as per the Notification No. Ed/MISC/2/1997-98, dated 06.03.2000, issued by the Addl. Director of School Education, Government of Nagaland had a policy that due consideration should be given to land owners while recruitment for the post of Grade-IV staff are conducted, as such, when the vacancy arose and the petitioner submitted his application, the respondents should have given due consideration to it. Further, it is also submitted that in view of the verbal assurance given by the then Deputy Inspector of Schools, the petitioner had all the more reasons to be considered for appointment above any other person.