JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the Petitioner Shri Bialakbo Zeliang, a land owner, belonging to the Zeliang Tribe and hails from Tening Village in the District of Peren, Nagaland for quashing the order of appointment, dated 24.5.2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), issued in favor of the Respondent No. 5, Shri Abang Zeliang alias Aben Zeliang appointing him as Cook violating the employment policy and to direct the State Respondents to appoint him to the post of Cook in terms of the agreement (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), executed by him on 4.6.1998 with the Respondent 8, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Tening and approved by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Peren, Nagaland. 2. Heard Mr. K. Sema, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. LS Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State Respondents as well as Mr. Wati Jamir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 5. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in the writ petition is that he being one of the land owners of Tening Village donated his land for extension of Tening Town as requisitioned by the villagers of the Tening Village pursuant to the aforesaid agreement dated 4.6.1998. The Petitioner donated his aforesaid land where the present Primary Health Centre (PHC), Tening is located and this land falls within the first location which is indicated in the Annexure-2 agreement dated 4.6.1998 and as the Govt. has decided to provide special preference to the land donors while recruiting Grade-III and Grade-IV staff in various departments of the State, the Petitioner was also expecting that he would be provided the special preference and when he was waiting for a job some time in the month of March 2006, he reliably came to know that one Shri Songwibo Zeliang who was employed as a Cook at PHC, Tening would retire in the month of May 2006 on attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingly, he submitted an application addressing the Director of Health Services, Nagaland, Kohima through the Medical Officer-in-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Tening and the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer, Peren for appointing him against the vacancy created by the retirement of said Shri Songwibo Zeliang who in turn forwarded his application to the Director of Health Services on 6.3.2006 and 10.3.2006 respectively. 4. Accordingly, he submitted an application addressing the Director of Health Services, Nagaland, Kohima through the Medical Officer-in-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Tening and the Sub-Divisional Medical Officer, Peren for appointing him against the vacancy created by the retirement of said Shri Songwibo Zeliang who in turn forwarded his application to the Director of Health Services on 6.3.2006 and 10.3.2006 respectively. 4. It is contended in the writ petition that the Tening Village Council issued a certificate on 30.3.2006 stating, inter alia, that the Petitioner is a land owner and the said Village Council recommended the case of the Petitioner for appointment as a Cook at Primary Health Centre, Tening on retirement of the incumbent, but the Civil Surgeon, Kohima District, Kohima by his order, dated 24.5.2006 appointed the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Cook at Tening Primary Health Centre at the instance of the Respondent No. 2, Director of Health Services, Nagaland, Kohima who was asked by Dr. TM Lotha, the then Minister of Health and Family Welfare, Excise, Nagaland. The Tening Village Council vide its letter, dated 24.5.2006 made a complaint to the Civil Surgeon, Kohima, Respondent No. 3, who appointed the Respondent No. 5 to the post of Cook vide Annexure-1 order, dated 24.5.2006. On 21.6.2006, the Respondent No. 3 issued a Corrigendum to read 'Sri Abem Zeliang' instead of 'Sri Abang Zeliang'. 5. After getting information regarding the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as Cook at Tening PHC, the Petitioner approached various authorities and moved from post to pillars, but the Respondent authorities did not consider his submission and ultimately he preferred the instant writ petition before this Court. 6. The official Respondents, i.e. the Respondents No. 1 to 4 filing their affidavit-in-opposition admitted the fact that the Petitioner has donated his land, but raised objection regarding the agreement executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent 8, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Tening and approved by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Peren, Nagaland as those officers are not authorized to sign any agreement on behalf of Govt. It is stated in the affidavit-in opposition that the application of the Petitioner was received after the appointment process of the Respondent No. 5 had taken effect. Deputy Commissioner, Peren, Nagaland as those officers are not authorized to sign any agreement on behalf of Govt. It is stated in the affidavit-in opposition that the application of the Petitioner was received after the appointment process of the Respondent No. 5 had taken effect. The official Respondents resisted the prayer of the Petitioner for quashing the appointment of Respondent No. 5 on the ground that the Respondent No. 5 was appointed in the interest of public service and not at the instance of the Minister. 7. The Respondent No. 5 resisted the contentions of the Petitioner by way of filing a separate affidavit-in-opposition wherein it has been stated that the agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondents No. 7 and 8 does not entitle him (Petitioner) for being appointed to the aforesaid post of Cook where the Respondent No. 5 has been appointed, rather in terms of the said agreement, the Petitioner is entitled to get some special preference as a land owner on the recommendation of the Tening Village Council while the Respondent authorities will recruit any Grade-III and Grade-IV staff in any department under the Tening Sub-Division. It is also stated by the Respondent No. 5 in Para 6 of his affidavit-in opposition that the Petitioner never claimed for appointment on land ownership basis and nothing has been stated in his application with regard to his donation of land and as such the Petitioner cannot claim for appointment on the basis of the land ownership at this stage when the post in question has already been filled up by the Respondent No. 5 on consideration of his (Respondent No. 5) application. 8. Mr. Sema, learned Counsel while urging for the relief sought for would contend that the Govt. being the custodian of the rights of the citizens is supposed to follow the public employment policy while appointing any person in any public post, which in the instant case the State Respondents failed to do. He urges that the Govt. cannot frustrate the right of the Petitioner for consideration to be appointed being a land donor on the basis of the special preference provided by it. According to him, if the Respondents No. 7 and 8 are not authorized to sign any agreement with any of the land owners then the Govt. He urges that the Govt. cannot frustrate the right of the Petitioner for consideration to be appointed being a land donor on the basis of the special preference provided by it. According to him, if the Respondents No. 7 and 8 are not authorized to sign any agreement with any of the land owners then the Govt. should issue an order directing them not to receive any land from any land owner for establishment of Govt. offices or development of the area. In the instant case, though the Respondent authorities raised the question of technicality so far the execution of the Annexure-2 agreement is concerned, but they did not take any action against the Respondent 8, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Tening and the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Peren, Nagaland who acted on behalf of the Govt. contrary to the Govt. policy meaning thereby the Govt. supported the action of the Respondent No. 8 and the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Peren, Nagaland and more so, the State Respondents are also utilizing the land of the Petitioner. He contends that the Petitioner in his writ petition specifically stated that the Respondent No. 5 was appointed as Cook at Tening PHC only at the behest of the Member of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha) followed by the direction of the then Minister, Health and Family Welfare, Excise, Nagaland who directed the Respondent No. 2 on 24.5.2006 for appointing the Respondent No. 5 as would be evident from Annexure-11 to the writ petition. Referring to the letter of the Minister, Health and Family Welfare, Excise the then, Mr. Sema contends that the function of the Council of Ministers is to lay down the policy and not to act as an administrative authority and that no power is vested in it to ask a particular officer for appointing any particular person flouting the public employment policy as prescribed under the Constitution. He submits that the State Respondents while responding to the contentions of the Petitioner in his writ petition though denied the said contentions, but the said denial of the official Respondents is contrary to the record. He finally contends that a land donor citizen has no right to get public employment depriving the other persons who are waiting for Govt. services, but the said land donor has a right to be considered for preferential appointment as per agreement on which the Government acted. 9. He finally contends that a land donor citizen has no right to get public employment depriving the other persons who are waiting for Govt. services, but the said land donor has a right to be considered for preferential appointment as per agreement on which the Government acted. 9. In support of his contention, Mr. Sema placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Thakuria and Ors. v. State of Assam and Ors. 2008 (Suppl.) GLT 603wherein this Court after taking note of the decision of the Apex Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Virendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel, (1997) 6 SCC 650 noted that an employee being a product of favoritism and nepotism giving a complete goodbye to the recruitment rules depriving eligible candidates cannot be protected under any circumstances. In the instant case, admittedly the Respondent No. 5 was appointed at the behest of the then Minister, Health & Family Welfare, Excise, Nagaland. Thus such appointment letter of Respondent No. 5 is liable to be set aside. 10. Mr. Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General while resisting the contentions of Mr. Sema tried to impress the Court that the order of appointment of Respondent No. 5 was issued in public interest and thus it would not be proper for the Court to pass an order quashing the appointment letter impugned and more so, the Petitioner in his application for the post of Cook nowhere stated that he is entitled to get special preference as a land donor. 11. Mr. Jamir placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court dated 7.4.2011, passed in W.A. No. 26(K) 2010 (Shri Ramta v. State of Nagaland and Ors.) and W.A. No. 27(K) 2010 (Shri Ramta v. State of Nagaland and Ors.) wherein the present counsel of the Respondent No. 5 appeared for the writ Petitioner therein. The Division Bench of this Court while disposing the aforesaid writ appeals upheld the contentions of the learned Single Judge and noted that the Respondent No. 4 therein was appointed against the post of Sweeper on the basis of his past service rendered in the establishment of the D.C. and accordingly his service was regularized and his position in the service as Sweeper has been established and the Division Bench considered that such established position should not be disturbed at this stage. However, taking into consideration that the Appellant/writ Petitioner of that case is a land owner/donor and an agreement was signed the Division Bench observed that the Appellant/writ Petitioner of that case has a preferential right to be considered for appointment to the post of Grade-IV whenever such post arises in future and accordingly directed the Respondent authorities to inform the land owner/donors including the writ Petitioner/Appellant regarding the vacancy of Grade-IV in the establishment of DC Peren so that they can apply for the post and their cases can be considered for appointment in terms of the agreement and guidelines. 12. As in Shri Ramta (supra), the Division Bench of this Court did not lay down any law relating to public employment and in that case the order of appointment of private Respondent was also not issued at the behest of any Minister, the same cannot be considered as a precedent in view of the decision of the Apex Court, inter alia, that every decision of Court cannot be considered as precedent unless the Court lays down any law. 13. Mr. Jamir in terms of the order of this Court, dated 08.6.2011 produced the file bearing No. CSK-6/9/Grd-IV/Peren/2004 and stated that admittedly when the Respondent No. 5 was appointed as Cook there was no advertisement and the authority also did not follow the prescription of public employment policy as required under the constitutional scheme. He was given appointment on the basis of his application. 14. Mr. Wati Jamir while resisting the contentions of Mr. Sema submits that the Respondent No. 5 did not commit any wrong applying for the post of Cook and he is not aware whether his name was recommended by the then Minister, Health and Family Welfare, Excise, Nagaland or not. He also submits that the Court may direct the Respondent authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner without disturbing the appointment of the Respondent No. 5 as he has been working in the post since 2006. 15. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and also has given anxious consideration to the relevant records available before the Court. 16. 15. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and also has given anxious consideration to the relevant records available before the Court. 16. For appreciating the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the rival parties, it is necessary to reproduce the agreement between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 8 which has been approved by the Respondent No. 7, the Deputy Commissioner, Peren, Nagaland. Accordingly, the same is reproduced herein under: AGREEMENT This day the 4th June Nineteen hundred Ninety eight anno Domini the Village Council of Tening Village has agreed upon to donate a portion of land to General Administration for extension of Tening Town. In this connection an agreement has been drawn between the two parties namely Tening Village Council (donor) and SDO(C) Tening on behalf of the General Administration (done) with the following Terms and conditions: (1) The land shall be donated to the General Administration at free of cost with the following boundary: (a) Ist location: North: CIRCULAR ROAD East: STREAM South: VILLAGE LAND WEST: RIDGE (b) 2nd location: PWD: REST HOUSE AREA. (2) While constituting the land settlement Board for land allotment to Govt. Department and private individuals the SDO(C) Tening shall induct one member to the board from Tening Village. (3) Special preference shall be given to the land owners on the recommendation of Tening Village Council while recruiting any Grd-III & IV staff in various departments under Tening Sub-Division. (4) Minor contract works such as side leveling shall be given to the land owners, on the recommendation of Tening Village Council. Signature of Donors. - Signature of Donee 1. Sd/- Sri KIUKAMEO sd/- (KELET ZELIANG) 2. Sd/- Sri SINRUNBO, Head CD Sub-Divisional Officer Tening 3. Sd/- Sri illegible 4. sd/- ZENGDIBO Member 5. Sd/- Sri RENGKHUN GB 6. Sd/- Sri NAMKHAMBI " 7. Sd/- Sri ACHANGBO " 8. Sd/- Sri HILAKBO " 9. Sd/- Sri WIMANBO " 10. Sd/-Sri KENIBO " 11. Sd/- Sri NAMTHICBO " 12. Sd/- Sri ANIBO " 13. Sd/- illegible " 14. Sd/- illegible " 15. Sd/- Sri RAMGABO " 16. Sd/- Sri SANGSUNG " 17. Sd/- Sri BIWANGBO " 18. Sd/- Sri KAILIALAK " 19. Sd/- Sri PIRU " 20. sd/- Sri KINTHUILU " 21. sd/- Sri KERABO " COUNTERSIGNED Sd/- (LANU TEKA AO) ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 17. Sd/- Sri ANIBO " 13. Sd/- illegible " 14. Sd/- illegible " 15. Sd/- Sri RAMGABO " 16. Sd/- Sri SANGSUNG " 17. Sd/- Sri BIWANGBO " 18. Sd/- Sri KAILIALAK " 19. Sd/- Sri PIRU " 20. sd/- Sri KINTHUILU " 21. sd/- Sri KERABO " COUNTERSIGNED Sd/- (LANU TEKA AO) ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER 17. It would also be profitable for coming to a proper conclusion to reproduce the letter of the Minister, Health and Family Welfare, Excise, Nagaland, the then. Accordingly, the same is reproduced below: MINISTER HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, EXCISE NAGALAND, KOHIMA. No. MIN (H/FW/EX)- 19/2005 Dated 24th May, 2006 An application was received by me from Sri Abang Zeliang son of Sri Namsi Zeliang of Peren Town seeking for the post of Cook against the superannuation retirement of Sri Songwibo Zeliang under the establishment of SDMO Peren duly recommended by the Hon'ble Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) Accordingly I have recommended on the body of the application for appointment against the existing vacancy. I am made to understand that you have received three applications and have sent back to Civil Surgeon, Kohima instead of giving appointment order in favor of Sri Abang Zeliang. I will impress upon you to issue appointment order in favor of Sri Abang Zeliang for the post of Cook as recommended by Hon'ble Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) I would also request you to issue necessary appointment order by 24th May itself to avoid any complication. Sd/- illegible (Dr. T.M. Lotha) Director, Health Services, Nagaland, Kohima. 18. It appears from the record placed by Mr. LS Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General that the Minister, Health & Family Welfare, Excise, the then, Dr. T.M. Lotha not only directed the Respondent No. 2 for appointing the Respondent No. 5 as requested by the Member of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha), he also directed the Respondent No. 2, Director, Health Services, Nagaland to appoint another Shri Gambhe Ranghau at the request of Mr. T.R. Zeliang, the said Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). T.M. Lotha not only directed the Respondent No. 2 for appointing the Respondent No. 5 as requested by the Member of the Parliament (Rajya Sabha), he also directed the Respondent No. 2, Director, Health Services, Nagaland to appoint another Shri Gambhe Ranghau at the request of Mr. T.R. Zeliang, the said Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha). It is also the admitted position that the then Minister, Health & Family Welfare, Excise requested the Respondent No. 2 on 24.5.2006 and on the same date the Respondent No. 2 asked the Respondent No. 3 to appoint the Respondent No. 5 as Cook and the Respondent No. 3 on that date itself issued the appointment letter in favor of the Respondent No. 5. The entire exercise done by the Respondent authorities while appointing the Respondent No. 5 flouted the employment policy as prescribed under the Constitution. 19. In the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Uma Devi and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 1 while the Apex Court considering the litigious employment noted that Articles-14, 16 and 309 of the Constitution aim at ensuring public appointment should be given only in a far and equal manner by providing opportunities, to those who are eligible and waiting for employment. 20. When the Government has framed a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution for filling up the public post or the Govt. framed a policy covering the field of appointment, no appointment is permissible in exercise of the power by the administrative authority at the instance of the Ministers or any other person as that would frustrate the public employment policy as a whole and not only that the wrong action of the authority would close the door of opportunity to the thousands of unemployed youths who are waiting for employment following the procedure as prescribed by law. 21. In Uma Devi (supra), the Apex Court also stated that it is clear that adherence to the rule of equality in public employment is a basic feature of our Constitution and since the rule of law is the core of our Constitution, a Court would certainly be disabled from passing an order upholding a violation of Article 14 or in ordering the overlooking of the need to comply with the requirement of Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, consistent with the scheme for public employment, this Court while laying down the law has necessarily to hold that unless the appointment is in terms of the relevant rules and after a proper competition among qualified persons, the same would not confer any right on the appointee. It is a contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term, of appointment. It has also to be clarified that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules. 22. In the instant case, from the appointment letter of the Respondent No. 5 itself, it appears that he was appointed purely on temporary basis on condition that the appointment may be terminated by one month's notice given by either side at any time without assigning any reasons and will be governed by the terms and conditions of Nagaland Govt. rules and regulations. Therefore, it is the admitted position that the Respondent No. 5 is a temporary employee and he can be terminated by the authority concerned following the terms and condition made in the appointment letter. 23. Mr. Wati Jamir while mentioning that the Respondent No. 5 has been working since 2006 tried to get some sympathy from the Court so that the Court should not quash the order of appointment issued in favor of Respondent No. 5 though admittedly the said appointment letter was issued at the instance of the Minister without following the public employment scheme as required under the Constitution and even without issuing any advertisement for filling up the said post of Cook. Non-issuance of advertisement is nothing but the denial of right to information of the citizens regarding the vacancy of the post and also deprivation of their right for making application for considering their candidature for the said post. Non-issuance of advertisement is nothing but the denial of right to information of the citizens regarding the vacancy of the post and also deprivation of their right for making application for considering their candidature for the said post. When an appointment order is issued dehors to the public employment policy, admittedly at the instance of a Minister who took oath to uphold the Constitution and constitutional schemes, sympathy cannot take the place of justice. A Court is not established for providing sympathy to a justice seeker, but to do justice in accordance with law. 24. The Apex Court in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (supra) noted that sympathy or equity is out of place especially where selection is governed by statutory rules. Once the consideration of equity in the face of statutory rules is accepted then eligible and qualified persons would be sufferers as they would not get any chance to be considered for appointment. In the said judgment, the Apex Court also noted that the result would be that persons lesser in merit would get preference in the matter of appointment merely on the ground of equity and compassion. Therefore, it is not safe to bend the arms of law only for adjusting equity. 25. In State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute and Anr., (1991) 3 SCC 87 , the Apex Court noted that Court cannot grant relief on humanitarian ground contrary to law. 26. In State of M.P. and Ors. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Ors., (2008) 1 SCC 456 observed that the writ court should not, in absence of any legal right, act on the basis of sympathy alone. 27. As the Respondent No. 5 is the product of favoritism and nepotism and has been continuing as Cook on the basis of an order which was passed without following the constitutional scheme depriving the other eligible candidates he has no right to be continued in the said post. At the same time, the Court cannot ignore the fact as available from the record that even though other three persons also applied for the said post, those persons were also not considered by the authority while appointing the Respondent No. 5 at the behest of the then Minister, Health & Family Welfare, Excise, Nagaland, far to consider the case of the Petitioner. 28. 28. Above being the position, this Court has no hesitation to quash the order of appointment of the Respondent No. 5, dated 24.5.2006 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) and the subsequent correction done by the authority by the corrigendum dated 21.6.2006 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) directing the official Respondents not to act on illegal direction/order of Minister. Order accordingly. 29. As the Minister concerned is not made party either in his official capacity or personal capacity, this Court is restraining itself from making any order against the said Minister. However, this Court hope and trust that any Member of the Council of Ministers would not interfere with the administrative work of the administrative authorities, particularly in public employment matter except the framing of policy for which they are in the Council of Ministers. 30. As this Court is not in a position to direct the State Respondents to appoint the Petitioner in view of the observations of the Apex Court in various decisions, this Court is directing the State Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner along with other land donors as per the agreement. As the Respondent No. 5 is not admittedly a land donor, his case should not be considered with the applicant land donors. However, if he applies for any post as advertised by the Respondent authorities then the same can be considered in accordance with law. 31. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 32. At this stage, Mr. LS Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General submits that discontinuation of the service of the Respondent No. 5 would affect the public interest, particularly the PHC in which the Respondent No. 5 is working will suffer a lot. 33. Considering the above submission of the learned Addl. Advocate General, liberty is given to the Respondent authorities to appoint a Cook on daily rated basis for a period of two months so that the PHC may not suffer and meanwhile, the Govt. may take necessary steps for filling up the post of Cook after proper advertisement and following the necessary procedure of law as prescribed in the Constitution. Petition allowed