Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 130 (GAU)

Ali Tallang v. State Of Arunachal Pradesh

2022-02-11

NANI TAGIA

body2022
JUDGMENT : NANI TAGIA, J. Also heard Mr. Dugmar Kamduk, learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, appearing on behalf of official respondent Nos. 1 to 5; Ms. Nani Anju, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6; Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 7 and 8; and Mr. Rintu Saikia, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 10. However, respondent No. 9 remained unrepresented despite duly served with the notice. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the following prayers, which are extracted, as under: 1. A writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued quashing and setting aside the order No. LR-76/86 (Vol-IV) dtd. 10/6/2016 issued by the Director, Department of Land management by which the respondent no. 6 was appointed to the post of Supervisor Kanungo. 2. A writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued quashing and setting aside the Order No. LR-76/86 (Vol-IV) dtd. 25/1/2018 issued by the Director, Department of Land Management by which the officiating service of the respondent no.7 was regularized in the post of Supervisor Kanungo. 3. A writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued quashing and setting aside the Order No-LR-76/86 dtd. 17/7/2018 issued by the Director, Department of Land Management by which the respondent no. 8 was appointed to the post of supervisor Kanungo. 4. A writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued quashing and setting aside the Order No. LR-71/2013 dtd. 17/7/2018 issued by the Director, Department of Land management by which the respondent no. 9 was appointed to the post of Supervisor Kanungo. 5. A writ in the nature of certiorari should be issued quashing and setting aside the Order No. LR-77/86 dtd. 17/7/2018 issued by the Director, Department of Land Management by which the respondent No. 10 was appointed to the post of Supervisor Kanungo. 6. A writ in the nature of Mandamus not be issued directing of Supervisor Kanungo and fill the same through competitive examinations as per the principles of public employment and the relevant recruitment rules regulating the method of appointment to the post of Supervisor Kanungo for giving equal opportunity to all qualified and eligible candidates. 7. 6. A writ in the nature of Mandamus not be issued directing of Supervisor Kanungo and fill the same through competitive examinations as per the principles of public employment and the relevant recruitment rules regulating the method of appointment to the post of Supervisor Kanungo for giving equal opportunity to all qualified and eligible candidates. 7. Pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances so the case. 3. The facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition, briefly, stated, are, as follows: While challenging the appointment made to private respondents No. 6 to 10 as Supervisor Kanungo('SK', for short) in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, as indicated above; the petitioner contends that he is a citizen of India and a Scheduled Tribe of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, having his residence at Tallang village, Seppa, Arunachal Pradesh, maintaining a good academic career, had obtained Bachelor's Degree from the Government College, Seppa, which is affiliated under the Rajiv Gandhi University, Rono Hills, Doimukh, and thereafter, he had obtained the Integrated Master of Library and information Sciences from the Himalayan University, Itanagar, in 2016. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh in exercise of its power conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, has framed rules to regulate the method of recruitment to the post(s) of SK in the Land Management Department under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, namely, "The Recruitment Rules to the post of Supervisor Kanungo Rules, 2008"(hereinafter referred to as "Recruitment Rules of 2008", for short). Column 11 of the Rules, 2008, provides that the post of SK shall be filled up 50% by direct recruitment from the select list prepared on the basis of Common Recruitment Examination scheme issued vide No. OM-21/85, dt. 28/8/2006, and No. OM-54/2006, dtd. 7/1/2008, and 50% by way of promotion from amongst the serving Mandals who have rendered 8(eight) years regular service in the Grade and passed in the Survey & Settlement course/Recorder course from the recognized Boards/Institutions. The Office Memorandum vide No. OM-21/85, dt. 28/8/2006, and No. OM-54/2006, dtd. 7/1/2008, and 50% by way of promotion from amongst the serving Mandals who have rendered 8(eight) years regular service in the Grade and passed in the Survey & Settlement course/Recorder course from the recognized Boards/Institutions. The Office Memorandum vide No. OM-21/85, dt. 28/8/2006, issued by the Commissioner & Secretary (Administrative Reforms), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, provides that all recruitment examination process for appointment in the level of Group-C to Group-B(Non-gazetted) posts against the direct recruitment quota includes the posts in police administration shall be conducted under the process detailed below: The Office Memorandum, dt.28/8/2006, further provided that the candidates who secure more than 45 percent out of aggregate mark of 300 but not exceeding 3 times of the actual vacancy, may be eligible for appearing in the viva-voce test. The Selection Committee/ Board is allowed to increase or reduce the limit of 45 percent to certain extent to maintain the required number of candidates to 3 times of the actual vacancy. However, in case of non-availability of sufficient APST candidates, the Selection Committee/Board may reduce the limit and the merit list of the selected candidates shall be prepared by the Selection Committee/Board on the basis of marks secured by the candidate(out of the aggregate total of 340 marks). Thereafter, in modification to the Office Memorandum, dtd. 28/8/2006, the Secretary (AR), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued another Office Memorandum being No. OM-54/2006/448 dt. 7/1/2008, wherein, points No. 2 and 3 of the Office Memorandum, dtd. 28/8/2006, was modified and the following procedure was prescribed: 1) For appearing in the viva-voce test, candidates shall be selected in the 'ratio' of 1:3 (meaning 3 candidates shall be selected for each vacancy or 3 (three) times of the number vacancies) on the basis of written examination papers. However, ratio of 1:3 shall not apply in case the candidates appearing the written examination is less than 3 times of the number of vacancies. In case of the candidates appearing in the written examination is less than 3 times of the number of vacancies, all the candidates securing 33% of marks in each written examination papers shall be eligible for appearing viva-voce test. In case of the candidates appearing in the written examination is less than 3 times of the number of vacancies, all the candidates securing 33% of marks in each written examination papers shall be eligible for appearing viva-voce test. 2) The candidates securing a minimum of 33% or more marks in each written examination papers and has secured 45% of marks out of aggregate total marks in the written examination papers shall be eligible for viva-voce test. On the other, it will further mean that selection for viva-voce test shall be based on the aggregate total marks secured in the written examination papers and subject to ratio of 1:3. The candidates securing less than 33% of marks in any of written examination paper shall not be eligible for appearing in the viva-voce test. 3) The Selection Committee or Commission may lower the 'cut off marks' of 45% to certain extent, in case of non-availability of Arunachal Pradesh Scheduled Tribe candidates securing the 'cut off marks'. 4. The petitioner contends that despite the ' Recruitment Rules of 2008' for recruitment to the post of SK in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, having been framed in exercise of the power conferred under proviso to 309 of the Constitution of India, providing elaborate method of selection in the manner as indicated hereinabove; the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 4/Director of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, have illegally issued the aforesaid orders of appointment in favour of respondent Nos. 6 to 10 thereby appointing them in the posts of SK in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in utter violation of the 'Recruitment Rules of 2008' and Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. The respondent Nos. 9 and 10 are also stated to be the daughters of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 who are presently serving as the Director and Joint Director of the Department of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, respectively. 6. The State Respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, in their counter affidavit filed, have stated in Paragraphs No. 4 and 5, as under: "4. 4 and 5 who are presently serving as the Director and Joint Director of the Department of Land Management, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, respectively. 6. The State Respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, in their counter affidavit filed, have stated in Paragraphs No. 4 and 5, as under: "4. That with regard to the averment made in para-6 of the Writ petition, your humble deponent begs to state and submits that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has directed the Department of Land Management to carry out survey of the private land and prepare Records of Rights in the State of Arunachal Pradesh which necessitated the Department to create 5(five) posts of Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer (In short herein called ASSO). These 5 posts were filled up from the serving Supervisor Kanungo (SK) on officiating basis owing to the extreme exigency as the Department was facing acute shortage of SK's in view of task of survey of private land and prepare Records of Rights in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. It is further begs to state that due to the exigency, the Department had to skip the advertisement as it would take time to conduct the interview and as such, considering the education qualification and survey Training Course possessed by the private respondents, the Department has given officiating appointment to the respondents. It is further submits that Miss Ayiti Nangkar Respondent No.9 and Miss Leepi Jii Respondent No. 10 were already serving as contingency staff in the Department for last 1 and 3 years respectively and possesses survey and Settlement Training Course certificates from Archana Institute of Technical Education and Research, West Bengal and Regional Survey Training Institute, Agartala (Tripura) respectively which is essential for field oriented post Mandal etc. in the Department. As such, their appointments were considered based on their education qualification, experience and knowledge in survey and settlement which is the main activity of the Department. 5. That with regard to the statement made in 7, 8 and 9 your humble deponent begs to state that for the recruitment to the post of Mandal in the Department, one has to posses Survey and Settlement Training course from any recognized institution. 5. That with regard to the statement made in 7, 8 and 9 your humble deponent begs to state that for the recruitment to the post of Mandal in the Department, one has to posses Survey and Settlement Training course from any recognized institution. Although for the recruitment to Supervisor Kanunggo, it does not prescribe for possessing Survey and Settlement Training certificates, but supervisor Kanungo being the promotional post from Mandal cadre, it is well understandable that SK being the promotional post needs more expert and experienced staff having knowledge about Survey and Settlement. Petitioner does not possess Survey and Settlement Training Certificate, whereas the private respondents have posses. The deponent craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to produce and rely on the recruitment for Mandal during time of hearing". 7. The respondent No. 6 has chosen not to file any counter affidavit despite having been provided with the adequate opportunity to file such affidavit. However, Ms. Anju, learned counsel for respondent No. 6, while defending the case of the said respondent No. 6, had argued that after his appointment in 2016, he underwent the requisite training, and as such, the appointment of respondent No. 6 may not be interfered with, at this stage. 8. The respondents No. 7 and 8 have also chosen not to file the counter affidavit despite ample opportunity having been granted to them to file such affidavits. However, Mr. Pertin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondents No. 7 and 8, has contended that the appointment of respondents No. 7 and 8 in the post of SK in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, was made in the exigency of service and presently, the respondent No. 7 has been entrusted with a very important time-bound programme of carrying-out the field verification-cum-assessment of properties being damaged due to construction of 132 KV line under 'Comprehensive Scheme for Strengthening of Transmission and Distribution System in Arunachal Pradesh(CSST and DS-AP) and NER-II project, with local administrative officers of various circles of Papum Pare District till completion of the said project. Hence, the appointment of respondents No. 7 and 8 may not be interfered with, at this stage. 9. The respondent No. 9 has also chosen not to contest the case despite being duly served with the notice. 10. Hence, the appointment of respondents No. 7 and 8 may not be interfered with, at this stage. 9. The respondent No. 9 has also chosen not to contest the case despite being duly served with the notice. 10. The respondent No. 10 who has filed the counter affidavit, in defence of her appointment to the post of SK, in Paragraph No. 3 of the counter affidavit, has stated, as under: "3. That before adverting to the paragraph wise reply to the writ petition, your humble deponent begs to place in brief the facts leading to appointment of your humble deponent to officiate the post Supervisor Kanungo (SK in brief hereinafter for the sake brevity) in the Department of Land Management: I. That your humble deponent/respondent No.10 has graduated from Delhi University, being unemployed, looking for job in private as well as Government establishment and came across a vacancy of contingent post being left by one Shri Dogan Jopir in the department of Land Management. Your humble deponent, applied for the said vacant contingent post by filling an application dtd. 20/10/2015 before the respondent No. 4, of the said department seeking the said job; II. By appointment order No.LR-37/88 (Vol-IV) 1469 dtd. 2/11/2015, the respondent No. 4., pleased appoint your humble deponent as a unskilled contingency staff in the vacant post as abandoned by one Shri Dogan Jopir in fixed monthly wage of Rs.4500.00 only purely on temporary basis and your humble deponent joined the establishment on dtd. 6/11/2015 in terms of the appointment order; III. Considering the efficiency and having being satisfied with services rendered by the Contingency staff, the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh was pleased to revise the wages contingency staff including that of your humble deponent by an order No. LR-37/88 (Vol-IV) dtd. 11/5/2016 issued by the respondent No. 3, the Secretary of the department; IV. In the meanwhile your humble deponent completed Masters Degree and Diploma in Computer Education. While serving in the said department/establishment your humble deponent came to know about Government decision of sponsoring serving officials for undergoing Survey Training Course-I, II and III at RSTI, Agartala and requested to allow to undergo the said training course on her personal expenses by submitting a representation dtd. 15/6/2016 to the respondent No. 4 and authority concern was pleased to allow your humble deponent to undergo the training course. 15/6/2016 to the respondent No. 4 and authority concern was pleased to allow your humble deponent to undergo the training course. Accordingly, deponent completed her Training Course-II in 1st Class in Survey and Settlement Training at the Regional Survey Training Institute, Agartala and by released from the institute by release order dtd. 31/12/2016 issued by the Principal. On completion of Training Course-II, by application dtd. 27/6/2018, requested to engage her as Supervisor Kanungo in any vacant post. V. By order No.LM-77/86 dtd. 17/7/2018, the respondent No. 4 was pleased appoint the deponent as Supervisor Kanungo (SK) purely on officiating basis against vacancy created on one Shri Budhi Gyati, SK promoted to the promotional post of Assistant Survey and Settlement Officer on officiating basis by order No. LR-36/90 (Vol-II) dtd. 7/7/2018. It is pertinent to mention herein that one of terms of the appointment clearly specifies that the appointee shall not claim for regularization and same shall be subject to the regularization by DPC as per RR. Meaning thereby, the deponent's appointment is only officiating against the vacant post created by Sri Budhi Gyati. The appointment of the deponent to officiate as SK in the vacant post is in consonance and within ambit of Office Memorandum dtd. 20/8/2008 issued by the Secretary (AR and P), Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh whereby the departments are allowed to make appointment on ad hoc or officiating or contractual basis in extreme exigency services. And hence the temporary appointment of the deponent on officiating basis has not grossly violated any provisions of law warranting interference of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 proceeding". 11. I have heard the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties at length and have also gone through the documents and materials made available on record. 12. Mr. Tayuk, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 to 10 in the post(s) of SK in Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, have been made without conducting any recruitment process after duly putting it to a public advertisement, the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 to 10 is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India besides the same having been made in violation of the "The Recruitment Rules to the post of Supervisor Kanungo Rules, 2008". Mr. 6 to 10 is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India besides the same having been made in violation of the "The Recruitment Rules to the post of Supervisor Kanungo Rules, 2008". Mr. Tayuk, learned counsel, therefore, submits that the appointment made to the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 to the posts of SK in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, is liable to be set aside and quashed with a further direction to the respondent authorities to fill-up the would-be vacant post(s) of SK in accordance with the Recruitment Rules and with due compliance of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. Mr. Kamduk, learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has argued that the petitioner does not have the locus-standi to challenge the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 to 10 since he does not possess the 'Survey and Settlement Course' which is a course required to be possessed for appointment in the post of SK in the said Department. The learned standing counsel, however, fairly admits that the appointment of respondents No. 6 to 10 was made without any recruitment process in the exigency of service since the appointment to a post consumes a lot of time when it is made after an advertisement is floated and recruitment process is held in that regard. The Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, had no such time for filling up the vacant post(s) of SK by conducting recruitment in accordance with the 'Recruitment Rules of 2008' as the Department was in urgent need of manpower and that, the respondent Nos. 6 to 10 were appointed as SK in the exigency of service, however, without following the due process of recruitment in terms of the 'Recruitment Rules of 2008'. 14. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel, while justifying the appointment of respondent No. 10, has argued that the respondent No. 10 was not appointed from the open market as she was already working as a contingent employee in the Department and she was, thereafter, appointed as SK on officiating basis, on 7/7/2018, against the post which fell vacant after one Shri Budhi Gyati(SK) was promoted to the post of Assistant Surveyor and Settlement Officer. The learned counsel, however, contends that the Office Memorandum, dtd. The learned counsel, however, contends that the Office Memorandum, dtd. 28/8/2008, provides that the concerned appointing authorities are authorized to appoint the incumbent on ad-hoc/officiating/contract basis till such time, the post is filled up in terms of the Rules and Regulation in force. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that there is no illegality in the appointment of respondent No. 10 as SK in the Department on officiating basis in a post that has been vacated by Shri Budhi Gyati on his further promotion from SK to Assistant Surveyor and Settlement Officer. 15. Rival contentions advanced at the Bar by the respective learned counsel representing the parties, and the materials made available on record, have received due consideration of this Court. 16. Before examining the legality of the appointment made to private respondents No. 6 to 10, the contention raised by Mr. Kamduk, learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, regarding the locus standi of the petitioner to challenge the appointment of Respondents No. 6 to 10, may, at the outset, be dealt with. 17. While contending that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of Respondents No. 6 to 10 as SK in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, it is submitted that for appointment as SK in the said Department, a candidate has to possess the Survey and Settlement Course which the petitioner does not possess and accordingly, in the absence of the petitioner possessing the requisite Survey and Settlement Course, the petitioner though may be a Graduate, but, he does not have the locus standi to challenge the appointment of private respondents No. 6 to 10 as he himself is not eligible and qualified to be appointed as SK in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 18. The above argument advanced by Mr. Kamduk, learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, can be answered on the basis of the Recruitment Rules of 2008 annexed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition for the post of SK, provides that 50% of the post shall be filled-up by direct recruitment from the select list prepared on the basis of common recruitment examination issued vide Office Memorandum, dtd. 28/8/2006, and Office Memorandum, dtd. 28/8/2006, and Office Memorandum, dtd. 7/1/2008, and 50% of the post(s) by promotion from amongst the serving Mandals who have rendered 8 (eight) years regular service in the Grade and passed in the Survey and Settlement course/Recorder course from the recognized Boards/ Institutions. The essential educational qualification for direct recruitment has been provided under the Rules as Bachelor's Degree from any recognized University. 19. That the petitioner, herein, is a Graduate, has not been disputed by any of the respondents. 20. In view of the above, the contention raised by Mr. Kamduk, learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, insofar as the locus standi of the writ petitioner to challenge the appointment of Respondents No. 6 to 10 in the post of SK does not hold any water, as for the direct recruitments, apart from the requirement of possessing a Bachelor's Degree from any recognized University, the 'Recruitment Rules of 2008' does not prescribe any other additional qualification as contended by Mr. Kamduk, learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 21. On the other hand, the Survey and Settlement Course referred to hereinabove by Mr. Kamduk, learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, has been provided under the 'Recruitment Rules of 2008' to be possessed by the serving Mandals who have rendered 8 years of regular service in the Grade so as to be qualified and eligible for the post of SK within the 50% post earmarked for promotion. It is not even the case of the State Respondents or any of the private respondents that though the Respondents No. 6 to 10 may have undergone a Survey and Settlement Course; they were working as Mandals in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and have rendered 8 years of regular service in the Grade as well. 22. In view of the above, since the petitioner is a Graduate from a recognized University, the contention of Mr. Kamduk, learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, that he does not have the locus standi to challenge the appointment of private respondents No. 6 to 10 as SK, is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. 23. Kamduk, learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, that he does not have the locus standi to challenge the appointment of private respondents No. 6 to 10 as SK, is liable to be rejected and the same is accordingly rejected. 23. From the rival pleadings made by the contesting parties, it is not in dispute that the private respondents No. 6 to 10 were appointed by an order of appointments described in paragraph No. 2, hereinabove, without any selection process having been undertaken by the respondent authorities in accordance with the 'Recruitment Rules of 2008'. 24. The State Respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition filed and the learned standing counsel, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, have, in fact, admitted that the appointment of Respondents No. 6 to 10 in the post of SK in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, was made without conducting any recruitment process, in the exigency of service. 25. Though the learned counsels for Respondents No. 6, 7 and 8, in their submissions, have explained the manner in which their appointments to the post of SK were made in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 10, the Respondent No. 10 has also explained the manner in which, he was appointed in the post of SK, vide the impugned orders of appointments, it has not been disputed by any of the respondents that the appointments of private respondents No. 6, 7 and 8 as well as Respondent No. 10 in the posts of SK in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, was made, without any recruitment process. 26. Appointment to a public post is required to be made in accordance with the Recruitment Rules governing the post and after affording equal opportunity of participation to each of the eligible candidates, is too well-settled to be reiterated. Suffice it to mention that the said position of law has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi(3) and Ors. [reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], wherein, in paragraph No. 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "2. Suffice it to mention that the said position of law has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Uma Devi(3) and Ors. [reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 ], wherein, in paragraph No. 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "2. Public employment in a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic, has to be as set down by the Constitution and the laws made thereunder. Our constitutional scheme envisages employment by the Government and its instrumentalities on the basis of a procedure established in that behalf. Equality of opportunity is the hallmark, and the Constitution has provided also for affirmative action to ensure that unequals are not treated as equals. Thus, any public employment has to be in terms of the constitutional scheme." In the case of State of Orissa and Anr. Vs. Mamata Mohanty reported in (2011) 3 SCC 436 , in paragraph No. 36, as well, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: "36. Therefore, it is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the employment exchange or putting a note on the notice board, etc., that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary. For a valid and legal appointment mandatory compliance with the said constitutional requirement is to be fulfilled. The equality clause enshrined in Article 16 requires that every such appointment be made by an open advertisement as to enable all eligible persons to compete on merit." 27. Thus, the appointment of private Respondents No. 6 to 10 in the post of Supervisor Kanungo (SK) in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, is found to have been made contrary to the constitutional scheme of providing equality of opportunity of participation thereby denying the petitioner's fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 28. 28. In view of the above, the appointments of private respondents No. 6 to 10 in the post of Supervisor Kanungo (SK) in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, are found to be unsustainable in law and the same, are, therefore, liable to be set aside and quashed thereby enabling the respondent authorities to fill-up the vacant post of Supervisor Kanungo(SK) in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, presently occupied by the private respondents No. 6 to 10 in accordance with "The Recruitment Rules to the post of Supervisor Kanungo Rules, 2008" by following the constitutional scheme of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment guaranteed to the Citizens of India under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 29. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders dated:- (i). 10/6/2016, issued by the Director, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. LR-76/86(Vol-IV) /410, appointing the private Respondent No. 6; (ii). 25/1/2018, issued by the Director, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. LR-76/86(Vol-IV)/3783, appointing the private Respondent No. 7; (iii). 17/7/2018, issued by the Director, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. LM-77/86/1159, appointing the private Respondent No. 8; (iv). dtd. 17/7/2018, issued by the Director, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. LM-71/2013/1161, appointing the private Respondent No. 9, and (v). dtd. 17/7/2018, issued by the Director, Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, vide Memo. No. LM-77/86/1160, appointing the private Respondent No. 10, to the posts of Supervisor Kanungo (SK) in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, are hereby set aside and quashed, with a further direction to the respondent authorities to initiate necessary steps immediately to fill-up the posts of Supervisor Kanungo (SK) in the Land Management Department, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, in accordance with "The Recruitment Rules to the post of Supervisor Kanungo Rules, 2008" and also following the constitutional scheme of public employment. 30. With the above directions, the writ petition stands allowed and accordingly stands disposed of.