JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Moa Imchen, learned Senior Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Also heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the administrative approval dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure-4), communicated by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services for appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Bull Attendant against the retirement vacancy of the earlier incumbent. The petitioner has also challenged the appointment order dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure-5), by which the respondent No. 5 has been appointed as Bull Attendant under the establishment of the Chief Veterinary Officer, Zunheboto. 3. Mr. P.B. Paul, learned counsel submits that the appointment of respondent No. 5 has been made without floating any open advertisement as required under the relevant guidelines of the State Government. In this connection, the learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 04.06.2016 annexed by the State respondents in their counter affidavit as Annexure-3. The learned counsel submits that as per the said OM, more particularly at paragraph 4, all vacancies excepting Grade-III post in the district are to be filled up by the Head Department through open advertisement and the District Selection Committee shall be constituted by the respective Deputy Commissioners to conduct the selection. In the instant case, the same having not been done, the appointment of respondent No. 5 cannot be sustained. The learned counsel has also submitted that although the petitioner approached this Court earlier, by filing W.P. (C) No. 51(K)/2019, the present petitioner is not barred by res-adjudicata in as much as the issue regarding advertisement having not been floated prior to the appointment of respondent No. 5 was not raised and decided. He submits that the only issue raised in the earlier writ petition was with regard to the claim for appointment by the petitioner being a landowner in terms of the existing guidelines of the State Government. He, therefore, submits that present writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 4. Mr. He submits that the only issue raised in the earlier writ petition was with regard to the claim for appointment by the petitioner being a landowner in terms of the existing guidelines of the State Government. He, therefore, submits that present writ petition be allowed as prayed for. 4. Mr. Moa Imchen, learned State counsel, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition of the State respondents submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable in as much as the claim of the petitioner has already been decided in the earlier round of litigation. He submits that the prayer made in the earlier round of litigation and in the instant writ petition are one and the same. For this reason, the writ petition should be dismissed being barred by the principles of res-adjudicata. On merits, the learned State counsel submits that the respondent No. 5 being an indigenous inhabitant of Zunheboto and he being the only contender, he was appointed as such. He also submits that due to the retirement of the earlier incumbent there was urgency and the respondent No. 5 was accordingly appointed to the post. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition has no merits and the same should be dismissed. 5. Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 adopts the argument of the learned State counsel. He also submits that although the petitioner claims that the issue of there being no open advertisement prior to the appointment of respondent No. 5 has been raised in the present writ petition but no such prayer is made in the prayer portion of the writ petition. He submits that the writ petition otherwise is clearly barred by res-adjudicata and the same should be dismissed. In support of his submission, the learned counsel has relied upon the following authorities: (i) Canara Bank vs. N.G. Subaraya Sethi, (2018) 16 SCC 228 (ii) Dadu Dayalu Mahasabha, Jaipur (Trust) vs. Mahant Ram Niwas and Another, (2008) 11 SCC 753 (iii) Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and Others vs. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy, (1970) 1 SCC 613 6. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials and the decisions relied upon. 7. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials and the decisions relied upon. 7. From the projection made by the petitioner and the respondents, the issue to be considered is as to whether the advertisement is barred by the principles of res-adjudicata and secondly, as to whether the appointment of the respondent No. 5 is sustainable in view of the OM dated 04.06.2016. 8. For the purpose of convenience, both the issues are taken up together for consideration. The petitioner himself has annexed a copy of the order dated 22.04.2019, passed by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 51(K)/2019, while the respondent No. 5 has annexed a copy of the entire writ petition as “Annexure-A” to his affidavit-in-opposition. A careful perusal of the same would go to show that the petitioner has made similar prayer in both the writ petitions but, however, the issue regarding non-advertisement of the post of Bull Attendant pursuant to the retirement of the earlier incumbent has not been raised or decided in the earlier writ petition. In the earlier writ petition, the case of the petitioner was that he should be considered for appointment against the said post in view of he being a land doner. This issue solely was considered by this Court and the claim of the petitioner was rejected. In the present case, although the petitioner has again sought for setting aside of the appointment of the respondent No. 5, the ground for making such prayer is due to non-publication of advertisement of the post so as eligible persons including himself can participate or apply for the post. Although the petitioner has not clearly specified in his writ petition as to what guidelines would apply for undertaking such process, the same has been answered by the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition where the OM dated 04.06.2016 has been enclosed as “Annexure-3.” In order to appreciate the contents of the OM, the same is being abstracted herein below for ready perusal: “Government of Nagaland Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department (Administrative Reforms Branch) OFFICE MEMORANDUM Dated, Kohima, the 4th June, 2016 No. AR-3/Gen-174/2007 (Pt): In super-cession of this Department’s Office Memorandum of even number dated 16th November, 2015, the Governor of Nagaland is pleased to make the following provision for recruitment of Grade-III and IV posts in the District Offices with immediate effect. 1. 1. All direct recruitment vacancies occurring in Grade-IV posts in the District Offices shall be filled up by the indigenous inhabitants of the respective District. 2. All direct recruitment vacancies occurring in Grade-III posts under the establishment of Deputy Commissioners in district administration shall be filled up by the indigenous inhabitants of the respective District. However, vacancies in Grade-III posts in other district offices, other than the district administration, will continue to be filled up by the respective Heads of Departments by following the normal recruitment policy of the State Government. 3. The Indigenous Inhabitant Certificate may be verified with the help of the latest census records to rule out possibility of multiple Indigenous Inhabitant Certificates in the name of the same person. 4. All vacancies in the above posts occurring in the Districts, excepting the Grade-III posts to be filled up by the Heads of Departments, shall be filled up through open advertisement and a District Selection Committee shall be constituted by the respective Deputy Commissioners. The Selection Committee will be headed by the Deputy Commissioner and will include two District level Heads of Office, an Administrative Officer and the Principal or Senior Lecturer of local College to be nominated by the Deputy Commissioner. The Committee shall follow the reservation policy for persons with disabilities in respect of Grade-III posts, except in the case of Dobashi posts. However, all appointment orders in respect of Grade-IV posts excepting those under the District Administration, will be issued by the respective Heads of Departments on the recommendation of the District Selection Committee. Sd/- PANKAJ KUMAR Chief Secretary to the Government of Nagaland.” 9. From the above abstract, it may be seen that for all vacancies in the Grade-IV posts occurring in the districts except for Grade-III posts, the same has to be filled up by the Heads of Department through open advertisement. This apart, the District Selection Committee has to be constituted by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, who shall be the chairman of such Selection Committee. The Committee shall also include two District Level Officers, an Administrative Officer and the Principal or Senior Lecturer of the Local College as nominated by the Deputy Commissioner. This apart, the District Selection Committee has to be constituted by the Deputy Commissioner concerned, who shall be the chairman of such Selection Committee. The Committee shall also include two District Level Officers, an Administrative Officer and the Principal or Senior Lecturer of the Local College as nominated by the Deputy Commissioner. While such is the procedure laid down, the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition have only stated that the Grade-IV post has to be filled up by the indigenous inhabitant of the district and that the respondent No. 5 being an indigenous inhabitant of Zunheboto district, there was no restriction to appoint him against the said post. This reasoning in my considered view, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the petitioner admittedly is also an indigenous inhabitant of Zunheboto district. It is no longer res integra that in matters of public employment, all persons who are eligible are to be given a chance to participate in the process of selection. In the present case as well, the OM dated 04.06.2016, clearly stipulates that an open advertisement should be made for vacancies in the Grade-IV post and that a selection process has to be initiated under the chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner concerned. The same admittedly has not been done. 10. As already stated herein above, the issue regarding non-publication of advertisement has not been decided in the earlier round of litigation and therefore, the present writ petition, in my considered view, cannot be said to be barred by the principles of res-adjudicata. The authorities relied upon by the respondent No. 5, in my considered view are quite distinguishable in as much as the matter directly and substantially any issue in the present case and in the earlier case are not similar. In short, this Court has not held in the earlier round of litigation that despite the OM dated 04.06.2016, the respondent No. 5 could be appointed to the post in question. As already stated herein above, the cause of action are not similar and therefore, upon due consideration, I find merit in the writ petition. The petitioner may not have the right to be appointed against the said post, but he definitely has a right to be considered for being appointed to the post alongwith all other eligible candidates in terms of the relevant guidelines. 11. The petitioner may not have the right to be appointed against the said post, but he definitely has a right to be considered for being appointed to the post alongwith all other eligible candidates in terms of the relevant guidelines. 11. In the result, I find merit in the writ petition and the impugned Communication dated 05.02.2019 (Annexure-4) and the appointment order dated 13.02.2019 (Annexure-5) of the respondent No. 5 are hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to initiate the process of filling up the post in question by strictly following the OM dated 04.06.2016 apart from any other relevant guidelines that may be relevant. It is also made clear that both the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5 will be given due opportunity to participate in the said process. The said process should be initiated and completed within the outer limit of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 12. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.