TSUKTINUNGBA Vs. LIMATOSHI.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Manabendra Nath, learned counsel for the appellant.

(2.) Mr. Tia Ao, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland accepts notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Considering the nature of the dispute raised, notice on Respondent No.1 is dispensed.

(3.) The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.189(K) of 2016. The Respondent No.1 herein was before the learned Single Judge seeking that his case be considered for appointment on the ground that his grandfather had donated land to the Government. In addition, in the said writ petition, the petitioner had also questioned the appointment of Respondent No.4 therein, i.e. the appellant herein, by contending that his appointment was made without following due process of law. The learned Single Judge having made a detail consideration of the matter was of the opinion that the prayer of the petitioner seeking a direction to appoint him would not arise. However, while considering the validity of the appointment of Respondent No.4 therein, i.e. the appellant herein, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the appointment of appellant herein was made without advertising the post and calling for applications. In that view, the learned Single Judge being of the opinion that in matter of public employment, such procedure not being followed, would not be sustainable and, accordingly, the appointment of Respondent No.4, the appellant herein, was held as illegal. Hence, the appointment order dated 11.02.2016 was set aside and a direction was issued to advertise the post and liberty was granted to the petitioner as well as to Respondent No.4 to apply and respond to such advertisement and the official respondents were directed to complete the process. It is against such order, the appellant is before this Court.