Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 18 (GAU)

KHRIELELIE PESEYIE v. STATE OF NAGALAND

2014-01-06

A.M.SAPRE, UJJAL BHUYAN

body2014
JUDGMENT (A.M. Sapre, C.J.) Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellants, Mrs. Ajungla Aier, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Nagaland, Mr. Tia Ao, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, Nagaland and Mr. P.K. Khataniar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The decision rendered in this writ appeal shall also govern disposal of other connected appeal being Writ Appeal No.271 of 2012 because both these appeals arise out of common judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, This is an intra-court appeal filed by the respondents No.3 and 4 of Writ Petition (C) No.135(K) of 2012 against the order dated 22.08.2012 passed by learned Single Judge under Rule 2(3) of Chapter-VA of the Gauhati High Court Rules. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the Respondents No.1, 2 and 3 herein and in consequence set aside the promotion order dated 27.6.2012 in relation to the appellants on the post of Joint Director, State Council of Education Research and Training (SCERT) which was impugned in the writ petition. At the outset, we would like to mention that all the learned counsels appearing for the parties jointly made a statement by bringing to our notice a notification No.DSE/SCERT/CR-57/2011 dated 14th October, 2013 issued by the Government of Nagaland and, on that basis, submitted that in the light of this notification issued in relation to promotion of the employees who are parties to these appeals the matter is required to be examined afresh because this notification was issued subsequent to the impugned order and has a material bearing while deciding the issue of promotion of the eligible candidates. In the light of the joint prayer made by all the parties to these appeals, we do not find any legal impediment in directing the State (concerned authorities) to re-examine the cases of promotion of the eligible employees and then pass appropriate orders keeping in view the relevant rules applicable and all notifications issued from time to time including the one dated 14th October, 2013 referred above and then pass appropriate orders in relation to the cases of promotion of the eligible employees. We also make it clear that while examining the cases of the eligible employees, the observations made by the learned Single Judge would not come in their way. We also make it clear that while examining the cases of the eligible employees, the observations made by the learned Single Judge would not come in their way. We also grant liberty to the parties to take recourse to any legal remedy as may be available to them in law in the event of decision going against any of them and if occasion so arises for vindication of their rights. It is with these directions and liberty, we are inclined to dispose of these appeals without burdening this order by narrating the entire factual issue arising in the cases because we feel that it is not necessary having formed the opinion for disposal of the appeals in the light of the joint statement made by the parties, as noted above. We direct the concerned State authorities to decide the issue within a period of six months from the date of submission of the copy of this order. No cost.