JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Angami, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondents as well as Mr. I. Imti Longchar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 4. 2. This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the communication dated 22.10.2018 whereby the Under Secretary of the Government of Nagaland, Health and Family Welfare Department had conveyed the approval to the Government for appointment of various persons including respondent No. 4; the order dated 25.10.2018 whereby the respondent No. 4 was appointed to the post of Medical Attendant at Sitimi PHC, under the establishment of Chief Medical Officer, Kiphire against the vacancy created due to the retirement of Shri Ivishe Sema, Medical Attendant at Sitimi PHC on 31.05.2016 and for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner as a Medical Attendant at Sitimi PHC under the establishment of Chief Medical Officer, Kiphire. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he is an educated unemployed youth and on coming to learn that one Ivishe Sema serving as Medical Attendant at Sitimi, PHC under the establishment of Chief Medical Officer, Kiphire was due to retire on 31.05.2016, he submitted an application dated 06.04.2016 to the respondent No. 2 requesting to consider his case for appointment against the said resultant vacancy. The said Shri Ivishe Sema was released from service upon superannuation w.e.f. 31.05.2016. It is the further case of the petitioner that two more applicants applied for the appointment against the vacancy created due to retirement of the said Shri Ivishe Sema and the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 25.03.2017 had intimated the various Chief Medical Officers including the respondent No. 3 to follow the certain criterion mentioned in the said communication during the sitting of the Screening Committee. It is the further case that in compliance with the letter dated 25.03.2017, the respondent No. 3 constituted a Screening Committee and held its sitting on 26.04.2017 in presence of the Village Council, Gaonburas and Dobashis from Sitimi Village and the neighbouring villages of Sitimi Village. It is the further case that in compliance with the letter dated 25.03.2017, the respondent No. 3 constituted a Screening Committee and held its sitting on 26.04.2017 in presence of the Village Council, Gaonburas and Dobashis from Sitimi Village and the neighbouring villages of Sitimi Village. At this stage, it may be relevant herein to mention that the persons present in the said Screening Committee meeting held at 26.04.2017 were the Chief Medical Officer, BEE, Pharmacist, Attendant (NHM), LDA, Head Dobashis (Sitimi Town), Gaonbura (Natsami Village) and Sitimi Village as well as the person who retired, Shri Ivishe Sema. 4. The said Screening Committee selected the petitioner for appointment to the post of Medical Attendant at Sitimi PHC in terms with the Sitimi Area GB resolution dated 18.02.2006. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 forwarded the meeting minutes of the Screening Committee to the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 09.08.2017 and in the said report the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No. 1 against the vacancy caused due to retirement of Shri Ivishe Sema. It is the further case of the petitioner that the concerned respondent authorities kept the matter pending for more than a year for which the petitioner submitted a representation dated 02.05.2018 to the respondent No. 2 requesting to appoint him to the post of Medical Attendant in terms with the select list dated 26.04.2017. It is the case of the petitioner that the concerned authorities informed the petitioner that the original application dated 06.04.2016 was not in the file and requested the petitioner to submit another application along with his bio-data, for which the petitioner submitted another application on 16.05.2018. The petitioner further contends that to his utter surprise the appointment of respondent No. 4 was approved on 22.10.2018 and thereupon vide impugned order dated 25.10.2018, the respondent No. 4 was appointed to the post of Medical Attendant, Sitimi against the vacancy caused due to the retirement of Shri Ivishe Sema. The petitioner thereafter being aggrieved has filed the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned herein above. 5. This Court, vide order dated 12.12.2018, issued notice and the appointment order of respondent No. 4 was made subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The record further reveals that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had filed Affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioner thereafter being aggrieved has filed the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned herein above. 5. This Court, vide order dated 12.12.2018, issued notice and the appointment order of respondent No. 4 was made subject to the outcome of the writ petition. The record further reveals that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had filed Affidavit-in-opposition. In the said Affidavit-in-opposition, the specific stand taken was that the Screening Committee which recommended the petitioner was not in accordance with the communication dated 26.05.2017 as well as the OM dated 07.12.2016 and as such the recommendation made was in favour of the petitioner dated 26.04.2017 was done by wrongly constituted Screening Committee for which the petitioner had no claim on the basis of the said recommendation made on 26.04.2017. Paragraph 7 of the said Affidavit-in-opposition being relevant is quoted herein-below: “7. That as regard the statements made in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the writ petition the answering deponent respectfully states that although the screening committee which had a sitting on dated 26.04.2017, decides to selected the petitioner, the Government has by letter dated 26.04.2017, directed the Director, Health and Family Welfare, that all Grade- III and IV posts in the department shall be filled up based on the recommendation of the Departmental Screening Committee which is to be constituted as per the P&AR OM dated 07.12.2016 and directed the Director, Health and Family Welfare Department to recall all the applications to Grade-IV appointment which was forwarded to the respective DCs, CMOs and MSs so as to facilitate further examination and decision by the Committee. Therefore, even though a Screening Committee had a sitting on dated 26.04.2017, wherein a decision was taken by the Screening Committee to select the petitioner to the post of Medical Attendant at PHC, Sitimi, this Screening Committee was not constituted as per the OM dated 07.12.2016, issued by the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Administrative Reforms Branch) which provides the procedure of filling up of Grade-III and IV posts in the Departments. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim a right over the decision taken by a wrongly constituted Screening Committee to select him for appointment in the post in question. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim a right over the decision taken by a wrongly constituted Screening Committee to select him for appointment in the post in question. Hence, the contention of the petitioner that the respondent authorities should be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post in question in term of the decision taken by the Screening Committee on dated 26.04.2017, is nothing but seeking a direction from this Hon’ble Court to perpetuate an illegality.” 6. It is the further case of the respondent authorities in the Affidavit-in-Opposition that the respondent authorities after taking into consideration the applications for appointment to Grade-III and Grade-IV post which was forwarded to the respective Deputy Commissioners, Chief Medical Officers and Medical Attendants was recalled by the letter dated 26.05.2017 and thereafter the Department had compiled all the applications for appointment to Grade IV post in respect of the establishment of the Chief Medical Officer, Kiphire and forwarded it to the Government vide letter dated 10.08.2018, for examination and necessary action. The Government had thereafter by letter dated 22.10.2018, gave the approval for appointment and basing on the approval given by the Government, the Department has issued an order dated 25.10.2018 appointing the private respondent to the post in question. The said letter dated 10.08.2018 along with the enclosure has been enclosed as Annexure C in the Affidavit-in-opposition. The said enclosure to the Annexure C being relevant is quoted herein-below: “Post Vacancy under Kiphire District (Grade IV) Applicants for the post of Medical Attendant at Sitimi PHC against the retirement of Shri Ivishe Sema (retired on 31.05.2016) Name of Candidate Father Name Name of Village Tribe Educational Qualification Date of Birth Remarks/Comments Pughuka K. Sumi Kavito Sitimi Village Sumi Cl-VI 18.02.1997 NOC by Suhokhu Sumi Head GB Sitimi Village. Bokai Sumi Ivishe Sumi Natsami Village Sumi Cl-IX Passed 16.08.1990 Recommended by the Hon’ble Minister Power and Head Dobashi Sitimi Town, enclosed Meeting Minutes of Screening Committee/ Selection Board and Meeting Minutes of GB’s Union Sitimi Area. Athrichum Sangtam Applying for regularisation of service, working as MA on Adhoc basis at District Hospital Kiphire. Hekani Sangtam Vihokhu Sitimi Village Sangtam Cl-XII 12.12.1988 Recommended by Hon’ble Minister Health and Family Welfare and Minister Soil and Water Conservation, Geology and Mining. 7. Athrichum Sangtam Applying for regularisation of service, working as MA on Adhoc basis at District Hospital Kiphire. Hekani Sangtam Vihokhu Sitimi Village Sangtam Cl-XII 12.12.1988 Recommended by Hon’ble Minister Health and Family Welfare and Minister Soil and Water Conservation, Geology and Mining. 7. From the above quoted portion of the enclosure of Annexure C it would be relevant to mention that while the petitioner was recommended by the Minister, Department of Power, and also the Head Dobashis, Sitimi Town along with the minutes of the Screening Committee/Selection Board, the Sitimi Area, the respondent No. 4 was recommended by the Minister of Health and Family Welfare and Minister of Soil and Water Conservation, Geology and Mining. 8. The respondent No. 4 had also filed Affidavit-in-opposition. In the said Affidavit-in-Opposition the respondent No. 4 has raised preliminary objections on the basis of the OM dated 14.02.2005 as well as that the approval order impugned is a common approval order, giving approval to as many as 6(Six) persons and the petitioner having sought the setting aside and quashing the said approval order and not having made the remaining 5(five) persons parties to the instant proceedings, the instant writ petition was not maintainable. A further perusal of the said Affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent No. 4 would show that the said respondent No. 4 had apart from taking the preliminary objections, adopted the stand which was taken by respondent No. 1, 2 and 3 in their Affidavit-in-opposition. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and I have also perused the materials on record. At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Limawapang submits that the challenge to the approval order dated 22.10.2018 enclosed as Annexure J to the writ petition is only limited to the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner is not challenging the approval respect to the other candidates. 10. On the perusal of the materials on record it would show that the petitioner filed the application on 06.04.2016 prior to the consideration of the case of the petitioner the OM dated 07.12.2016 had come into effect which mandates the procedure for filling up of Grade III and Grade IV posts in the Department. 10. On the perusal of the materials on record it would show that the petitioner filed the application on 06.04.2016 prior to the consideration of the case of the petitioner the OM dated 07.12.2016 had come into effect which mandates the procedure for filling up of Grade III and Grade IV posts in the Department. Clause (1) of the OM dated 07.12.2016 stipulates that all direct recruit vacancies arising in Grade III as well as Grade IV posts under the establishment of Deputy Commissioner in District Administration shall be filled up by indigenous inhabitants of the respective District through a Selection Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner and having three District level Heads of Offices, and Administrative Officer, the Regional Employment Officer or District Employment Officer and the Principal or Senior Lecturer of the local College to be nominated by the Deputy Commissioner. Clause (2) and (3) of the said OM dated 07.12.2016 being relevant for that purpose of deciding the instant case is quoted herein-below: “2. Further, all direct recruitment vacancies in Grade-III posts which are outside the purview of NPSC as well as in Grade-IV posts in a Department, including such vacancies in the District offices of that Department, shall be filled up based on recommendation of the following Departmental Screening Committee (except Police Department): (1) Director/Head of Department Chairman (2) Representative of concerned Administrative Department not below the rank of Under Secretary Member (3) Representative of P&AR Department not below the rank of Under Secretary Member (4) A senior officer of concerned Directorate not below the rank of Deputy Director in-charge of administration Member Secretary 3. Appointments shall be made after the recommendations of the Departmental Screening Committee are approved by the Government.” 11. Appointments shall be made after the recommendations of the Departmental Screening Committee are approved by the Government.” 11. From a perusal of the said Clause (2) and (3) it would appear that all direct recruit vacancies in Grade III post which are outside the purview of NPSC as well as Grade IV posts in a Department, including such vacancies in the District Offices of that Department, shall be filled up based on recommendation of the Departmental Screening Committee of which the Directorate/Head of Department who would be the Chairman; the Representative of concerned Administrative Department not below the rank of Under Secretary; the Representative of P&AR Department not below the rank of Under Secretary would be a Member and a senior officer of concerned Directorate not below the rank of Deputy Director in-charge of administration shall be a Member Secretary. Clause (3) stipulates that all appointments shall be made after the recommendations of the Departmental Screening Committee are approved by the Government. 12. In the backdrop of the facts of the instant case, it would be seen that the Screening Committee who had recommended the petitioner on 26.04.2017 is not a properly constituted Committee in terms with the OM dated 07.12.2016. The recommendation so made in favour of the petitioner cannot be taken as a recommendation on the basis of which the petitioner can claim right of appointment. Now coming to the question of appointment being given to the respondent No. 4, it would be seen that the said approval has been granted on 10.08.2018 on the basis of the recommendation by the Minister of Health and Family Welfare and the Minister of Soil and Water Conservation, Geology and Mining. This approval so granted by the Government on 22.10.2018 in favour of respondent No. 4 and the subsequent order dated 25.10.2018 appointing respondent No. 4 are liable to be set aside and quashed as there has been no recommendation made by the Selection Committee as envisaged under Clause (2) of the OM dated 07.12.2016. On a specific query being made to the learned counsel for respondent Nos. On a specific query being made to the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as to whether there is a recommendation made by the Screening Committee in terms with the OM dated 07.12.2016, the learned counsel with all his condone submits that as per his instructions there is no Screening Committee recommendation in terms with the OM dated 07.12.2016 in favour of the respondent No. 4. Consequently the appointment made in favour of the respondent No. 4 on the basis of the recommendation made by the Minister is in violation of the OM dated 07.12.2016 and consequently the approval order dated 22.10.2018 in so far as the respondent No. 4 as well as the impugned order dated 25.10.2018 are in violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for which the approval order dated 22.10.2018 in so far as respondent No. 4 is concerned as well as impugned order dated 25.10.2018 are set aside and quashed. 13. The respondent authorities are directed to take steps for appointment against the resultant vacancy due to the retirement of Shri Ivishe Sema in terms with OM dated 07.12.2016. 14. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed off.