JUDGMENT : 1. In this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner - Smti. Kezhanguu Khromo has put to challenge the approval letter, No. UDD/ESTT-6-98 (pt.), dated 20.05.2014, and the office Order No. UD/ESTT/14/07/504, dated 07.06.2014, issued by the Director-in-Charge, Urban Development Department, appointing the respondent No. 5 - Smti. Kecalhounuo to the post of sweeper. 2. It is to be noted here that vide impugned letter, dated 20.05.2014, the Additional Secretary to the Govt. of Nagaland has accorded approval of appointment of respondent No. 5 Smti. Kecalhounuo to the post of Sweeper in the Urban Development Department and vide impugned order, dated 09.06.2014, the Director-in-Charge, Urban Development Department has appointed the respondent No. 5 Smti. Kecalhounuo, to the post of Sweeper against the vacancy, that arose on account of death of Lt. Dopari, Sweeper of the said Department. 3. The factual background leading to filing of the present petition is adumbrated herein below:- “The Government of Nagaland has acquired land for construction of new capital complex in the new secretariat area and in the process of acquisition of land, the Govt. entered into an agreement with the land owners, vide letter No. Cm.8/8, dated 09.05.1989, and 13.03.1992, to the effect that the appointment to the post of Grade -IV shall be reserved for land owners. In the said capital complex, the Directorate of Urban Development was constructed over the land of the petitioner’s paternal uncle -Shri Neilathie Khruomo. The aforesaid exercise was carried out in the year, 1989 and 1992. Thereafter, on account of death of Smti. Dopari, a Sweeper of the said Department on 31.07.2014, the petitioner has applied for appointment to the said post of Sweeper on the ground of land ownership and the Parliamentary Secretary, Urban Development Department had recommended her application for consideration of her case along with others. The entire plot of land, over which the Directorate of Urban Development Office was constructed, was acquired from Shri Neilathie Khruomo, who is the signatory of the agreement with the Government that any contract work/supply/Grade-IV staff/work-charged appointment, is to be given to the land owners. The petitioner, being his niece Shri Neilathie Khruomo, had recommended her for the said vacant post of Sweeper, which arose on account of death of Lt. The petitioner, being his niece Shri Neilathie Khruomo, had recommended her for the said vacant post of Sweeper, which arose on account of death of Lt. Dopari, in the Directorate Urban Development, as he being the land owner and not having availed any post/service under the Department. But, vide impugned letter, dated 20.05.2014, administrative approval was given to the respondent No. 5 for appointment as Sweeper, and vide impugned order, dated 09.06.2014; respondent No. 5 was appointed to the vacant post of Sweeper. It is stated that the Government/respondents are bound to consider her case on the ground of land ownership right, but without considering her application, respondent No. 5 was appointed illegally which is not at all permissible and the land owners are given privilege for appointment in Grade-IV posts in Nagaland and the Govt./respondents are estopped by the principles of promissory estoppels to go by their own agreement and as such, appointment of respondent No. 5 is illegal and unsustainable in law and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition for setting aside the impugned letter, dated 20.05.2014 and the appointment order, dated 09.06.2014 and for issuing direction to the State respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of sweeper. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein, they have denied the averments made in the petition and also denied that the petitioner is Smti. Kezhanguu Khromo. It is stated that the petitioner has already entered into a contract agreement with the Directorate of Urban Development Department, Nagaland on 01.10.2010, for running the Directorate canteen on the ground of Land Ownership in the name of Smti. Khrielemuo and still she have been running the said canteen in the name of Smti. Khrielenuo. The petitioner, in the name of Smti. Kezhanguu Khromo approached this Court by using a fictitious name with active cooperation of her paternal uncle Shri Neilathie Khruomo and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India are available to its citizen only not to the fictitious person or name. Khrielenuo. The petitioner, in the name of Smti. Kezhanguu Khromo approached this Court by using a fictitious name with active cooperation of her paternal uncle Shri Neilathie Khruomo and the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India are available to its citizen only not to the fictitious person or name. It is also stated that the Government letter, dated 13.03.1992, recorded only the points and demands put forth by the representatives of Land Settlement Committee, Tsierama Khel for land acquisition in the new secretariat area during the discussion held between them and the District Administration, Kohima and nowhere in the said two documents, dated 09.05.1989 and 13.09.1992 states anything about entering into an agreement by the Nagaland Government with the land owners. It is also stated that a considerable amount of compensation has already been paid to the petitioner’s uncle Shri Neilathie Khruomo and receipt of the same is admitted by him in his letter, dated 01.09.2005, to the respondent No. 4. Besides, as gesture of good will, the Department has allotted the contract work of construction of retaining wall of the land, at the Directorate, was alloted to the paternal uncle of the petitioner on 20.12.2012, under the registered firm M/s Tri Enterprise and M/s Oriental Trade Agency, as he was not a registered contractor and as such, the State respondents has no obligation to act upon on the basis of Govt. letter, dated 09.05.1989, and 13.03.1992, and there is no binding agreement with the land owners and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. xxxx 6. Respondent No. 5 Smti. Kecalhounuo also submitted her affidavit-inopposition denying the averments made by the petitioner and reiterated the grounds stated by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and further stated that in the order, dated 12.11.1979, issued by the Govt. of Nagaland, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reports (Administrative Reports Branch), it is mentioned that all the appointment to the Grade -IV post in the State level offices like Secretariat and Directorate shall be made providing proportional representation to all tribes and as such, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court and therefore, contended to dismiss the same. 7. It is to be noted here that the petitioner had submitted her affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 7. It is to be noted here that the petitioner had submitted her affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1 to 4, and respondent No. 5, wherein she had denied the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition and reiterated her assertion made in the writ petition. 8. It is also to be noted here that the petitioner had submitted one additional affidavit stating that during the pendency of the writ petition No. WP (C) 102 (K) 2014, filed by the petitioner one Smti. Nsungbeni filed writ petition No. WP (C) 140 (K) 2014, on 25.07.2014, challenging the appointment of private respondent No. 5 and praying for regularization of her service against the same post of Sweeper and while hearing of WP (C) 140 (K) 2014 was taken up for hearing pendency of WP (C) 102 (K) 2014 was not brought to the notice and vide order, dated 11.02.2015, this Court was pleased to allow the WP (C) 140 (K) 2014 and quashed the appointment of private respondent No. 5 to the post of Sweeper and also quashed the letter, dated 20.05.2014, and the appointment order, dated 09.06.2014 and thereafter, her service has been regularized vide office order No. UD/ESTT/14/14/1502, dated 18.03.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed one civil review petition No. 02 (K) 2015 and on 12.06.2015 and this Court vide order, dated 29.04.2016, allowed the review petition and recalled the order passed in WP (C) 140 (K) 2014 and directed that WP (C) 102 (K) 2014 and WP (C) 140 (K) 2014, both will be heard together in its usual course. It is also stated that on 17.09.2020, the petitioner in WP (C) 140 (K) 2014 filed additional affidavit placing on record the office letter No. EE/UD/Estt/SC/132/2019-20, by which the name of Smti. Nsungbeni (petitioner in WP (C) 140 (K) 2014) along with 11 others were forwarded for medical examination for confirmation of service, which defeats the order, dated 11.06.2014, passed by this Court in WP (C) 102 (K) 2014. 9. It is also to be noted here that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 also filed additional affidavit and denied disregarding the order passed by this Court and further states that forwarding the name of the petitioner (Smti. 9. It is also to be noted here that respondent Nos. 1 to 4 also filed additional affidavit and denied disregarding the order passed by this Court and further states that forwarding the name of the petitioner (Smti. Nsungbeni) in WP (C) 140 (K) 2014, in the list sent for medical fitness certificate to the medical examination board for confirmation of service, was an inadvertent error and not intentional and deliberate one. 10. It is to be noted here that pursuant to the order dated 29.04.2016, in Civil Review Petition No. 2(K)/2015, (in W.P.(C) No.102(K)/2014), both the writ petitions, being WP (C) 102 (K) 2014 and WP (C) 140 (K) 2014, are heard together. But, it is decided to pronounce separate judgments in both the writ petitions as none of the petitioners have been arraigned as respondent in their respective petitions. 11. I have heard Mr. I. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. Angami, learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Nagaland. 12. Mr. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the niece of Shri Neilathie Khruomo, whose land was acquired by the Government for construction of Directorate of Urban Development Department, Nagaland and pursuant to letter, dated 09.05.1989 and dated 13.03.1992, one of family of the land owner is entitle to be appointed to Grade-IV post and on account of death of Lt. Dapori, a post of Sweeper fell vacant in the Directorate of Urban Development Department and the petitioner has applied for the post of Sweeper and her candidature was recommended by the Parliamentary Secretary of the Department. But, despite agreement between the land owners and the Government, the State respondents had appointed private respondent No. 5 to the said post and as such, the legal and constitutional right of the petitioner stands violated. It is further submitted that there is an order of the Government for giving proportional representation of the different tribes to the post of Grade -III & IV in the Govt. Departments and the petitioner belongs to Tsierama Khel and she is entitled to be appointed to the said post. It is further submitted that there is an order of the Government for giving proportional representation of the different tribes to the post of Grade -III & IV in the Govt. Departments and the petitioner belongs to Tsierama Khel and she is entitled to be appointed to the said post. It is also stated that one Nsungbeni has filed another writ petition being WP (C) 140 (K) 2014 and in the said writ petition, this Court has quashed the appointment of respondent No. 5 and directed to regularize her service but in the said writ petition, the present petitioner has not been made a party, but, subsequently, the present petitioner has filed one review petition before this Court and then this Court was pleased to recall the earlier order passed in WP (C) 140 (K) 2014 and directed to list both the writ petition together for hearing. It is further submitted that the State of Nagaland is enjoying special status under Article 371 (A) of the Constitution of India and 1/3rd of the post of Grade - IV are reserved for backward tribes and the petitioner belongs to a backward tribe and therefore, she is entitle to be appointed in the said post. Therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. Mr. Longchar also referred following case laws in support of his submission:- (i) Tolaram Bafna Artificial Limb & Caliper Center -vs.- State of Assam and Others; reported in 2014 (1) GLT 837; (ii) State of Assam and Another -vs- Rabhava Rajgopalachari; reported in 1972 SLR (SC) P. 44 (Civil Appeal No. 1561/1966; (iii) State of Meghalaya -vs- All Dimasa Students Union, Dima Hasao District Committee & Others; reported in 2019 (VIII) SCC 177. 13. Per contra, Mr. Angami, learned Govt. 13. Per contra, Mr. Angami, learned Govt. Advocate for the State of Nagaland submits that there was no agreement between the land owners and with the Government for appointing the family members of the land owners to the post of Grade-IV, as contended by the petitioner and the uncle of the petitioner, who was the land owner, has been compensated for acquiring his land and he has been given some contract work for construction of retaining wall of the plot of land, where the Directorate Urban Development is constructed and besides the petitioner has been allotted the canteen of the Directorate of Urban Development Department and an agreement was also signed to that effect and the petitioner has been running the canteen till date and as such, no legal right is created in favor of the petitioner to be appointed to the Grade-IV post. Therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 14. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on the record and also the additional affidavit submitted by the petitioner and also the affidavit of State respondent Nos. 1 to 4, and respondent No. 5 and also the additional affidavit submitted by the State respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 15. There is no quarrel at the Bar that the land of the uncle of the petitioner, namely, Shri Neilathie Khruomo was acquired for construction of new capital complex in the new secretariat area. It is also not in dispute that for acquiring the land of the uncle of the petitioner, he has been compensated by the Government and besides, as a good will gesture, he has been allotted contract work for construction of retaining of the land where the Directorate of Urban Development Department is situated. Besides, the petitioner has been allotted to run the office canteen of the Directorate of Urban Department and she has been running the same till date. 16. It also appears that the petitioner has claimed to be appointed to the post of Sweeper that arose on account of death of Lt. Dapori on 31.07.2014. According to the petitioner, her right to be appointed accrued on the basis of letter, dated 09.05.1989 and 13.03.1992, but as contended by the State respondent, the aforesaid letters are not agreement. 16. It also appears that the petitioner has claimed to be appointed to the post of Sweeper that arose on account of death of Lt. Dapori on 31.07.2014. According to the petitioner, her right to be appointed accrued on the basis of letter, dated 09.05.1989 and 13.03.1992, but as contended by the State respondent, the aforesaid letters are not agreement. But, it appears that the letter, dated 09.05.1989, was written to the Chief Secretary, Nagaland by the then Deputy Commissioner, Kohima for examination and approval of the proposal submitted by the Chairman, Kohima village council incorporating several terms and conditions on behalf of the land owners at Ruziezou, whose land have been proposed for acquisition for the new capital complex, for placing on record for future guidance. And in the letter, dated 13.03.1992, the Govt. recorded about the points and demands put forth by the representatives of the land settlement committee Tsieramia Khel for land accusation in the new secretariat area during the discussion held between them and the District Administration, Kohima and nowhere in the said two documents the Govt. have said anything about entering into an agreement with the land owners. 17. Having carefully gone through the aforesaid two letters which are annexed with the petition as Annexure-1 & 2, this Court is unable to agree with the submission so advanced by Mr. I. Longchar, the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was an agreement between the land owners and the Government for reservation of the post of Grade-IV to the family members of the land owners and as such, it cannot be said that letter, dated 09.05.1989 and 13.03.1992 creates any legal right in favor of the petitioner for being appointed in Grade-IV post of the Department. 18. I have also carefully gone through the case laws (i) Tolaram Bafna (supra), (ii) Rabhava Rajgopalachari (supra) (iii) All Dimasa Students Union (supra), referred by Mr. I. Longchar, learned counsel for the petitioner and I find that none the ratio laid down in the referred cases would advance his case. And therefore, I am not inclined to burden this judgment with detail discussion of referred judgments. 19. Besides, the petitioner is the niece of the land owner, namely, Shri Neilathie Khruomo and she has been allotted to run the Departmental Canteen by the Department and till date she has been running the same. And therefore, I am not inclined to burden this judgment with detail discussion of referred judgments. 19. Besides, the petitioner is the niece of the land owner, namely, Shri Neilathie Khruomo and she has been allotted to run the Departmental Canteen by the Department and till date she has been running the same. Her uncle, the land owner has been compensated for acquisition of the land and as a good will gesture he has also been awarded with the construction of retaining wall where the Urban Development Department is situated. 20. The submissions, so advanced at the Bar, received due consideration of this court. But, in view of the above discussion and findings, this Court is unable to record concurrence with the submission, so advanced by Mr. I. Longchar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, I find substance in the submission of Mr. K. Angami, learned Govt. Advocate and I record concurrence with the same. 21. In the result, I find no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. The parties have to bear their own cost(s).