Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 284 (GAU)

Inokivi Yeptho v. Aloto V. Tuccu

2020-02-26

M.R.PATHAK, NANI TAGIA

body2020
JUDGMENT : M.R. Pathak, J. 1. Heard Mr. Hisinlo, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Wati Jamir, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner and Mr. N. Angami, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent Nos. 2 to 5. 2. This writ appeal by the appellant Sri Inokivi Yeptho is against the order dated 23.07.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017 whereby his appointment as Driver in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, Nagaland issued under order No. ESTT.14 (DLRB) 2015-16 dated 13.01.2017 was set aside holding his selection and appointment to the said post as advertised on 21.09.2016 was arbitrary and in violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner, Sri Aloto V. Tuccu, in the resultant vacancy as per the waiting list made by the Selection Committee. 3. The appellant stated that in pursuance of said order dated 23.07.2018 of the learned Single Judge passed in WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017, the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto by Order No. WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017/891 dated 30.10.2018 released the petitioner from his establishment and by Order No. WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017/892 dated 30.10.2018 appointed the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner as Driver in his establishment in the pay matrix of Rs. 18,000/- per month with all other allowances as admissible to him from time to time under Nagaland Service Rules, in the resultant vacancy caused due to release of the appellant, giving effect of the said order from the date of singing of the same. 4. Along with this appeal the appellant also filed an Interlocutory Application being I.A. (C) No. 119(K)/2018 praying to stay and/or suspend the impugned order dated 23.7.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017. As the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto by Order dated 30.10.2018 had already appointed the said respondent in the post of Driver in his establishment pursuant to which the said respondent had accordingly joined his service, the Court while disposing off said I.A(C) No. 119(K)/2018 by order dated 17.10.2019 observed that the appointment of the respondent No. 1/petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the present appeal. 5. 5. Brief facts of the case are that pursuant to the communication of the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima dated 17.06.2016, the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto vide No. Estt-14/2015-16/389 dated 21.09.2016 issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible indigenous inhabitant of Zunheboto district for filling up seven posts of Dobashi, one post of LDA -cum- Computer Assistant and 2 (two) posts of Driver under his establishment stipulating that the applicants should be literate, they should be within the age limit of 21 to 35 years, specifying 21.10.2016 to be the last date of submission of applications, 28.10.2016 to be the date of issuance of Admit Cards and 24th & 25th October, 2016 as the dates of practical and oral interview for posts of Drivers. In the said advertisement dated 21.09.2016 it was also indicated that (a) the appointment to the posts advertised shall be subject to (i) Medical Examination Board Report, (ii) Authentication of Documents by NBSE and other concerned authorities and (iii) Approval of the Commissioner, Nagaland, (b) the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto reserves the right to cancel, postpone and reschedule the dates and venue of the examination in the event of unforeseen circumstances, (c) candidates already appointed against sanctioned post and whose appointment order clearly state that the appointment is till DLRB (District Level Recruitment Board) shall also apply as fresh candidates and in the event of their failure to qualify in the DLRB, their service shall be immediately terminated by the Deputy Commissioner, (d) candidates who have already applied against any of those vacancies will have to resubmit in the requisite application format with relevant documents and that (e) the DLRB Exam shall be conducted as per the Office Memorandum No. CNE/GEN/2015 dated 03.11.2015 and in case of any dispute, the decision of the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima shall be final, which shall be applicable to all categories of posts. 6. In the relevant Application Form/Application Information issued by the DLRB, Zunheboto in pursuance of said advertisement dated 21.09.2016 the applicants were asked to indicate as to which post the applicant has applied for, applicant's Full Name, father's Name, Tribe, Village, Administrative Circle, Present Address, Permanent Address, Educational Qualification, Additional Qualification, Mobile Number, Date of Birth, Age, Sex and to state whether the applicant has ever been suspended or discharged for crime and if yes to explain the same. 7. 7. In the said Application Form/Application Information, the intending applicants were asked to enclose self attested photocopies of Admit Card, Mark sheets, Indigenous inhabitant certificate, Schedule Tribe Certificate, Permanent Residential Certificate, 3 (three) copies of passport photographs, Valid Driving License and pass certificate from registered driving school for the post of Driver. 8. In pursuance of said advertisement dated 21.09.2016 both the appellant as well as the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner along with others applied for the post of Driver. The DLRB selected the appellant and another, namely, Kughaho K. Jimo for the two posts of Drivers as advertised in order of merit, against the vacancies caused due to retirement and death, where the respondent No. 1 was placed at Sri. No. 1 in the waiting list. The minutes of the meeting of the DLRB, Zunheboto was held on 27.10.2016 and the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto by his communication No. Estt-14/2011 -12 to 16 dated 27.10.2016 forwarded the said minutes of the DLRB along with the score sheet of DLRB for the posts of Drivers to the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima for his information and necessary approval. The Assistant Commissioner, Nagaland by communication No. CNE/RB/ZBTO/2011/288 dated 30.11.2016 informed the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto about the approval of the Commissioner of Nagaland regarding appointment of the candidates recommended by the DLRB including the candidates selected to the post of Driver. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner Zunheboto vide order No. ESTT. 14(DLRB)/2015-16 dated 13.1.2017 appointed the appellant as Driver in his establishment in the Pay Band of Rs. 5,200/- to Rs. 20,200/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800/- per month and all other allowances as admissible from time to time under the Nagaland Service Rules, against the vacancy caused by retirement of one Sri Lokhuvi, Driver of said establishment, observing that his appointment is purely on temporary basis, which can be terminated with one month notice from either side and that seniority will be counted as per serial number of Commissioners approval list Pursuant to the said appointment, the appellant on 16.01.2017 joined his service as driver in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner Zunheboto. 9. 9. It is stated that the respondent No. 1 made an enquiry in the office ascertaining the recommendation of the appellant, where he could come to know that the appellant allegedly submitted a fake certificate regarding the driving experience issued by Drive Away School, Dimapur wherein it was stated that the appellant completed vehicle driving lesson on 16.02.2008, though the said Drive Away Driving School was established in the year 2011. The respondent No. 1 also stated that on coming to know about the said alleged fake certificate, the Proprietor of said Drive Away Driving School on 12.05.2017 issued a clarification declaring that the certificate issued in favour of the appellant in the year 2008 is null and void. 10. On 09.03.2017 the respondent No. 1 submitted a representation before the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima for his appointment as Driver in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto by setting aside the recommendation of the DLRB, Zunheboto issued in favour of the appellant stating that he obtained said selection in a fraudulent manner since the concerned DLRB recommended the appellant on the basis of alleged fake certificate of Drive Away School, Dimapur, issued on 15.02.2008 and informed that in the said selection the respondent No. 1 was in the first position in the waiting list for the post of Driver. In that representation dated 09.03.2017, the respondent No. 1 also submitted that his father-in-law Sri Xuvishe Sema since 1989 was a Driver in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, who after serving for 27 long years, due to his ill health, took voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and that he should be considered for his appointment as Driver in place of the appellant. On 03.04.2017 the Assistant Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima forwarded the said representation of the petitioner dated 09.03.2017 to the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto directing him to give necessary comment on the matter. 11. The respondent No. 1 again on 16.5.2017 submitted a representation before the Commissioner, Nagaland. The petitioner through RTI obtained the necessary documents including the (i) copy of the advertisement/notification of the department for conducting Driver Recruitment Test during 2016 along with the documents submitted by him for the said recruitment test, (ii) copy of the recommendation of the DLRB for appointment of the appellant and (iii) copy of the recruitment test filled up form of the appellant. 12. 12. As his representations were pending without any consideration and on obtaining the necessary information through RTI, the respondent No. 1 on 05.08.2017 filed the writ petition WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017 praying amongst others to set aside and quash the recommendation of the DLRB and the approval order of the Commissioner, Nagaland for appointment of the appellant as Driver as well as his order of appointment dated 13.01.2017 to the post of Driver in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, wherein the appellant was made party respondent No. 5. The appellant as respondent No. 5 filed his affidavit on 5.10.2017 in the said writ petition denying the allegations raised by the writ petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein annexing the Office Memorandum of the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima dated 03.11.2014 pertaining to the Guidelines for Recruitment of Staff by the District Level Recruitment Board (DLRB), Government of Nagaland, the List of Candidates to appear in the Practical Test of Driver held on 25.10.2016 for selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.09.2016, Score sheet of Practical Test of Drivers, Interview Score sheet for in-service Drivers and Interview Score sheet for fresh Drivers held on 27.10.2016 along with the names and signatures of the Chairman, Member Secretary and Members of the concerned DLRB, the List of Selected Candidates for the posts of Drivers, two each in the category of in-service as well as fresh candidates dated 27.10.2016, the Proposal of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto dated 27.10.2016 for the post of Drivers with the records of selection of DLRB forwarded to the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima and the necessary Approval of the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima dated 30.11.2016 regarding the said proposal dated 27.10.2016 wherein the name of the appellant figured at the top amongst the two candidates selected as fresh candidates for appointment as Driver in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, wherein the name of the respondent No. 1 figured in the waiting list at Srl. No. 1, his order of appointment dated 13.01.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto and his date of joining dated 16.01.2017, the records that obtained by the respondent No. 1 through RTI. No. 1, his order of appointment dated 13.01.2017 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto and his date of joining dated 16.01.2017, the records that obtained by the respondent No. 1 through RTI. In the said affidavit the respondent No. 5, i.e. the present appellant also enclosed a certificate of M/s. Drive Away, Dimapur dated 20.08.2017 wherein the said authority regretted in issuing a certificate on 25.05.2017 holding that the certificate issued in the name of the appellant to be null and void (annexed by the petitioner/respondent No. 1 in his writ petition as Annexure-D) clarifying that the appellant pursued the Driving Training from the said School in the year 2008 as its first batch clarifying that the case of the appellant to be genuine. 13. The State respondents have also filed their affidavit in said WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017 on 10.11.2017 clarifying that as per the Office Memorandum issued under No. CNE-l/GEN/2015/1311 dated 03.11.2015 issued by the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima that pertains to the Guidelines for Recruitment of Staff by the District Level Recruitment Board (DLRB), Government of Nagaland, wherein for the post of Driver the mandatory requirements are that the candidate must have a valid driving license, the recruitment process should consist of both practical test as well as interview and on the basis of marks scored in both the practical test as well as interview, the candidate should be selected and recommended. From the said Office Memorandum dated 03.11.2015 the State respondents also clarified that requirement of pass certificate from any registered Driving School or any experience certificate does not carry weight age or marks for recruitment to the post of Driver and that the appellant possess a valid driving license who scored more marks than the petitioner/respondent No. 1, both in the practical test as well as in the oral interview for which he became eligible for recruitment to the post of Driver and considering the same the DLRB recommended him to the post of Driver for his appointment and rejected the contention of the respondent No. 1 that the concerned DLRB recommended the appellant on the basis of his alleged pass certificate issued by the Driving School. The State respondents also placed the relevant records of selection to the post of Driver as advertised on 21.9.2016. 14. The State respondents also placed the relevant records of selection to the post of Driver as advertised on 21.9.2016. 14. The learned Single Judge came to the finding that the application form issued in terms of the advertisement dated 21.09.2016 amongst others also specified that for the post of Driver along with the application the applicant should also enclose a valid Driving License and pass certificate from registered driving school and from the Driving License annexed by the appellant in his application form pursuant to the said advertisement the same is found that to be a Smart Card Driving License, issued only on 02.11.2016 and that along with the application form the appellant did not submit any other documents to establish that his Driving License was-issued in a booklet form on 20.10.2010. 15. With regard to the averments made in the affidavit of the State respondents, learned Single Judge observed that as per said Office Memorandum dated 03.11.2015 for the post of Driver a candidate should have a valid Driving License and on perusal of the records neither from the note-sheet nor from the said record produced before the Court, the learned Single Judge did not find any mention regarding the Driving License given to the appellant in booklet form, nor there was any Driving License of the appellant in a booklet form and came to the conclusion that the appellant did not submit it with his application, whereas only the Smart Card Driving License of the appellant issued on 02.11.2016 was a part of his application. Learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that as the advertisement dated 21.09.2016 stipulated the last date of submission of applications as 21.10.2016 and as the said Smart Card Driving License of the appellant was of 2.11.2016, the appellant pursuant to the said advertisement dated 21.09.2016 filed his application beyond the last date of submission of application form. The learned Single Judge observed that the valid Driving License being a mandatory document, its non submission within the permitted period disentitled and disqualified the appellant from being considered for appointment to the post of Driver in pursuance of said advertisement dated 21.09.2016. Relying on the decision in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Arvind Kr. The learned Single Judge observed that the valid Driving License being a mandatory document, its non submission within the permitted period disentitled and disqualified the appellant from being considered for appointment to the post of Driver in pursuance of said advertisement dated 21.09.2016. Relying on the decision in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Arvind Kr. Tiwari reported in (2012) 9 SCC 545 and for the reasons given by him, as noted above, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 23.07.2018 concluded that the appellant could not have been considered for appointment to the post of Driver in pursuance to the advertisement dated 21.09.2016 and the same being arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and accordingly, by the said impugned order dated 23.07.2018 the said selection and appointment of the appellant was set aside, observing that the case of the petitioner/respondent No. 1 herein should be considered in the resultant vacancy. In compliance of the said direction dated 23.07.2018 of learned Single Judge, the appellant was removed from the post of driver on 30.10.2018 and in his place the respondent No. 1 was appointed on 30.10.2018 itself. 16. The appellant contended that pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.09.2017 for the post of Driver, he and the respondent No. 1 along with others participated in the selection process by filing the documents as required in the application form including his Driving License. He also submitted that he secured 81 marks out of 100 in the practical examination and 11.3 marks in the interview out of 12 and altogether he secured 92.3 marks and the next candidate who was selected in the said selection secured 70 marks out of 100 in his practical examination and 11.25 marks out of 12 in his interview, in total 81.25, whereas the respondent No. 1 secured 72 marks out of 100 in his practical examination and secured 7 marks out of 12 in his interview, thereby secured 79 marks. It is contended by the appellant that the selection to the post of Driver pursuant to the said advertisement dated 21.09.2016 was held as per the guidelines of recruitment for staff by the DLRB that was issued by the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima in the relevant Office Memorandum on 03.11.2015. It is contended by the appellant that the selection to the post of Driver pursuant to the said advertisement dated 21.09.2016 was held as per the guidelines of recruitment for staff by the DLRB that was issued by the Commissioner, Nagaland, Kohima in the relevant Office Memorandum on 03.11.2015. It is also submitted by him that the said Office Memorandum dated 03.11.2015 provides that both the select list as well as the waiting list shall remain valid for 6 months and that in terms of Clause 19 said Office Memorandum dated 03.11.2015, which provides that for the post of Driver, amongst others, candidate has to place a valid Driving License, the petitioner placed the same before the authority and also enclosed it with his application. It is submitted that these aspects were not considered by the learned Single Judge. 17. The appellant also submitted that the petitioner/respondent No. 1 in his said writ petition raised a new issue of fact that was never pleaded in his pleadings and the learned Single Judge considered the said submission of the respondent No. 1 and disposed off the writ petition on the basis of said new issue, without being pleaded by the petitioner. 18. It is also pointed out by the appellant that copy of his Smart Card Driving License, issued by the concerned Licensing authority, i.e., the District Transport Officer, Zunheboto by License No. NL-0620100004909 dated 02.11.2016, which he had enclosed with his application, copy of which was annexed by the State respondents in their affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017 as Annexure-E, goes to show that his said license for LMV-NT ( light motor vehicle) and Motor Cycle was from 20.10.2010 itself and is valid up to 19.01.2030, considering his date of birth as 21.10.1991. It is submitted by the appellant that the learned Single Judge did not consider those aspects while deciding the said matter. 19. During the deliberation of the matter we noticed that in the Smart Card Driving License No. NL-0620100004909 issued on 02.11.2016 by the Licensing authority, the District Transport Officer, Zunheboto in favour of the appellant, under the column "Authorised to drive the following vehicle class throughout India" it is specifically mentioned that LMV-NT from 20.10.2010 and M. Cycle from 20.10.2010 with the remark that the same shall be valid up to 19.10.2030 (NT). As such on 02.12.2019 we directed the State respondents to submit the necessary report of the District Transport Officer, Zunheboto as to whether it issued the said Driving License No. NL-0620100004909 on 02.11.2016 to the petitioner and also to clarify whether it was newly issued on the application of the holder of the said Driving License or it was converted from Booklet Form on the basis of the earlier Driving License of the person concerned and further, to apprise whether the holder of the said Driving License had any Driving License in his name prior to the issuance of the same on 02.11.2016 and, if so, the said DTO shall clarify the same with the specific number of said Driving License and the date of its issuance along with the name of the authority who issued the same and accordingly, fixed the matter on 09.12.2019. District Transport Officer, Zunheboto, Nagaland by communication No. DTO-Z/DL-V/2019-20/555 dated 04.12.2019 submitted a report that said Driving License No. NL-0620100004909 was issued in the name of Sri Inokivi Yeptho, the appellant herein and the same was converted to Smart Card on 02.11.2016 against his Booklet format Driving License No. 32458/NTV/NZ/10 that was issued on 20.10.2010 by the then District Transport Officer, Zimheboto and that the date of birth and title of the applicant Inokivi Yeptho was corrected by the concerned authority from 20.10.1991 to 21.10.1991 as per the Birth Certificate produced by the holder of the license, i.e., the appellant, during the time of conversion of the same to Smart Card Driving License. 20. The DTO of Zunheboto through the learned Government Advocate Mr. N. Angami placed the original Driving License No. 32458/NTV/NZ/10 issued on 20.10.2010 in favour of the appellant that was issued to him by the then DTO, Zunheboto, Nagaland. Learned State counsel submitted that only after depositing the said original Driving Licence No. 32458/NTV/NZ/10 by the appellant, the Smart Card Driving License was issued to him 02.11.2016. 21. The learned State counsel has also placed the original records pertaining to the selection to the post of Driver as advertised on 21.09.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto along with the copy of the applications of the appellant and the respondent No. 1 with their testimonials and those were found to be in order. 21. The learned State counsel has also placed the original records pertaining to the selection to the post of Driver as advertised on 21.09.2016 by the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto along with the copy of the applications of the appellant and the respondent No. 1 with their testimonials and those were found to be in order. It is also seen that copy of the self attested Driving License of the respondent No. 1 is also available on record. Further, the respondent No. 1 along with his said application also enclosed a recommendation letter No. PRS J&L-SIRD/KMA/2016-17/6532 dated 26.09.2016 issued by one ER. Picto Shohe, Parliamentary Secretary, Justice and Law, SIRD, Nagaland, Kohima to the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto requesting him to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 and to appoint him to the post of Driver to his credit of qualification and merit. 22. Since it is found that the valid Driving License of the appellant was issued on 20.10.2010 itself by the DTO, Zunheboto vide Driving License No. 32458/NTV/NZ/10, self attested copy of which he enclosed with his application form, which was converted to a Smart Card Driving License later on 02.11.2016 that was annexed by the State respondents in the affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017, and the detailed report submitted by the DTO, Zunheboto on 04.12.2019 pursuant to the order of the Court dated 02.12.2019, we are of the view that the appellant submitted a valid Driving License bearing No. 32458/NTV/NZ/10 issued on 20.10.2010 along with his application form for the post of Driver that he submitted pursuant to the advertisement issued on 21.09.2016. 23. We have also observed the fact that the Office Memorandum dated 03.11.2015 pertaining to the Guidelines for Recruitment of Staff by the DLRB dated 03.11.2015 for the post of Driver it specifies that along with the Educational Qualification Certificate, Proof of Age Certificate as prescribed by the Government for various Grades, Schedule Tribes (ST) Certificate, Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate, Experience Certificate (if any) and a valid Driving License is required. But the said Office Memorandum dated 3.11.2015 does not stipulate anything regarding a Certificate of a Driving School. 24. But the said Office Memorandum dated 3.11.2015 does not stipulate anything regarding a Certificate of a Driving School. 24. After hearing the learned counsels for the parties, on perusal of the records, the report of the District Transport Officer, Zunheboto dated 04.12.2019 and considering the entire aspect of the matter, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge while issuing the impugned order dated 23.07.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017 came to a wrong finding that the appellant did not possess a valid Driving License at the time of filing of his application pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.09.2016, for which the last date of filing application was 21.10.2016 and that the appellant's Smart Card Driving License was of 02.11.2016. 25. We have also noticed that the respondent No. 1/petitioner preferred said WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017 on 05.08.2017 and the Commissioner, Nagaland on 30.11.2016 approved the select list of the Driver with regard to the selection made pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.09.2016. As such when the respondent No. 1 approached the Court in said WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017, the validity of both, the select list as well as the waiting list for the posts of Drivers in terms of said Office Memorandum dated 03.11.2015 expired on 31st May, 2017. 26. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23.07.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 156(K)/2017 is hereby set aside and quashed. Consequently, the appointment order of the appellant as Driver made by the Deputy Commissioner, Zunhebo to by order No. ESTT. 14(DLRB)/2015-16 dated 13.01.2017 in his establishment pursuant to the selection made in terms of the advertisement dated 21.09.2016, noted above, is upheld. Accordingly, the consequent release Order of the appellant issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, Nagaland under order No. WP(C). No. 156(K)/2017/891 dated 30.10.2018 releasing the appellant as well as the consequent Appointment Order No. WP(C). No. 156(K)/2017/892 dated 30.10.2018, passed by the by the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, Nagaland, appointing the respondent No. 1 in the vacancy of the appellant on his release are set aside and quashed. However, the State respondents shall not recover any salary paid to the respondent No. 1/petitioner in terms of his said Appointment Order dated 30.10.2018. 27. No. 156(K)/2017/892 dated 30.10.2018, passed by the by the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, Nagaland, appointing the respondent No. 1 in the vacancy of the appellant on his release are set aside and quashed. However, the State respondents shall not recover any salary paid to the respondent No. 1/petitioner in terms of his said Appointment Order dated 30.10.2018. 27. The respondent No. 5 Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto is directed to terminate the appointment of the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner as Driver in his establishment forthwith and to reinstate the appellant in his service with immediate effect. 28. Registry shall return the records along with the original Driving Licence No. 32458/NTV/NZ/10 of the appellant issued by the District Transport Officer, Zunheboto on 20.10.2010, placed before the Court, to Mr. N. Angami, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland, obtaining necessary acknowledgment from him. 29. With the above, observation and direction, this writ appeal stands allowed.