JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has instituted the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking setting aside and quashing of an Office Order bearing no. E-In-C/ESTT- 7/APPP/17[TULI]/2020 dated 04.03.2020 issued under the hand of the respondent no. 3 i.e. the Engineer-In-Chief, Nagaland Public Works Department [NPWD], Nagaland, Kohima whereby the respondent no. 6 has been appointed in a Grade - IV post of Chowkidar on temporary basis with effect from the date of his joining the post and posted in the establishment of the respondent no. 5 i.e. the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. [R&B], Feeder Roads Division, Tuli, District – Mokokchung, Nagaland and also for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner against the said post. 2. The case that is laid before the Court by the petitioner, in brief, is that : 2.1. The Government of Nagaland in the Land Revenue Department having considered the peculiar land holding system prevailing in the State of Nagaland, has framed a policy relating to appointments in Grade - IV posts under the Government of Nagaland on landownership basis and the said policy has been notified by a Notification bearing no. LR/6-181/LIT/2015 dated 05.03.2018. The guidelines framed in the policy is followed by the State Government in making appointments in Grade - IV posts whenever it is found that the piece of land where any Government office is set up, was donated freely by individuals, villages or people of that area, as the case may be, and there is either a specific written agreement or an oral agreement, entered into at the time of taking the piece of land, to provide employment to the members of the families of the landowners. 2.2. In the year 1967, the Merangkong Village Council, District – Mokokchung had donated a plot of land, measuring about 15 acres, at Tuli for establishment of the office of the then Sub-Divisional Officer [SDO], PWD [R&B], Tuli and the said office had, later on, been upgraded to the present office of the Executive Engineer [R&B], Feeder Roads Division, Tuli [the respondent no. 5]. 2.3. A vacancy in a Grade - IV post of Chowkidar in establishment of the respondent no. 5 was likely to arise on 30.11.2019 due to retirement of one Sri Probin Gogoi. 5]. 2.3. A vacancy in a Grade - IV post of Chowkidar in establishment of the respondent no. 5 was likely to arise on 30.11.2019 due to retirement of one Sri Probin Gogoi. In view of the impending vacancy in the said Grade - IV post of Chowkidar on 30.11.2019, the petitioner decided to submit his candidature for the said post on landownership basis in terms of the policy of the State Government for appointment in Grade - IV posts, notified vide the Notification dated 05.03.2018. To support the petitioner’s such claim for the said Grade - IV post on landownership basis, the petitioner was issued a certificate by the Merangkong Medemsanger Putu Menden on 22.06.2019 recommending the petitioner’s name for appointment against the post of Chowkidar in the establishment of the respondent no. 5 which was to arise with the retirement of Sri Probin Gogoi. The petitioner stated to have submitted his candidature for the likely vacancy in the Grade - IV post of Chowkidar along with the said certificate issued by the concerned Village Council. On receipt of the application from the petitioner, the respondent no. 5 had forwarded the same vide his letter bearing no. EE/FR/TLI/ESTT-02/115 dated 25.06.2019 to the respondent no. 3 strongly recommending the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, when the petitioner was expecting his appointment in the said Grade - IV post of Chowkidar in the establishment of the respondent no. 5, the impugned Office Order bearing E-In-C/ESTT-7/APPP/17[TULI]/2020 dated 04.03.2020 came to be issued under the hand of the respondent no. 3 and the same has been assailed in the instant writ petition seeking the reliefs, mentioned above. 3. I have heard Mr. Moa Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Junior Government Advocate, Nagaland for the respondent nos. 1 – 5; and Mr. Taka Kichu, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 4. Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there was no specific written agreement between the State Government officials and the concerned Village Council/landowners at the time of establishment of the office of the erstwhile SDO, PWD [R&B], Tuli which had, later on, been upgraded to the present office of the respondent no. 6. 4. Mr. Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there was no specific written agreement between the State Government officials and the concerned Village Council/landowners at the time of establishment of the office of the erstwhile SDO, PWD [R&B], Tuli which had, later on, been upgraded to the present office of the respondent no. 5, to provide for employment on landownership basis, but it is a fact that no appointment has been made so far, since 1967 till date, on landownership basis despite the fact that area of land, measuring about 15 acres, was donated freely. It is his submission that there was an oral agreement to provide employment against the freely donated area of land and it is on that basis, the concerned jurisdictional Village Council [Merangkong Medemsanger Putu Menden] had issued the certificate dated 22.06.2019. As the case of the petitioner had been so recommended by the concerned jurisdictional Village Council and thereafter, was forwarded by the respondent no. 5, the respondent no. 3 while considering the matter of filling up the vacancy, was obligated to consider the case of the petitioner first in terms of the extant policy notified vide the Notification dated 05.03.2018. 4.1. Mr. Jamir has further contended that the respondent authorities had resorted to illegality in filling up the vacancy with the respondent no. 6. The impugned order of appointment was not preceded either by any advertisement or by any selection process. As such, the impugned order of appointment is liable to be set aside and quashed as the same is violative of the Constitutional mandate adumbrated in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Per contra, Mr. Zhimomi, learned State Counsel has submitted that the case of the petitioner could not be considered in terms of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 as the petitioner’s application was not accompanied by any written agreement providing for giving appointment on landownership basis. By referring to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the respondent nos. Per contra, Mr. Zhimomi, learned State Counsel has submitted that the case of the petitioner could not be considered in terms of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 as the petitioner’s application was not accompanied by any written agreement providing for giving appointment on landownership basis. By referring to the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition, filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 – 5, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the justification regarding the claim of the petitioner can be ascertained only upon a proper verification of all the facts relating to the taking over and handing over of the area of land in question which would require examination of all the concerned parties, in the absence of a specific written agreement to that effect. By referring to the contents of the certificate dated 22.06.2019, he has submitted that it was a mere recommendation ipse dixit of the Village Council and the said cannot be accepted without the process of verification envisaged by the Notification dated 05.03.2018. 5.1. In so far as the process undertaken to appoint the respondent no. 6 is concerned, learned State Counsel has, by referring to the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition, admitted fairly that no interview was conducted for making the appointment in question. The departmental authorities considered the applications received against the vacancy and out of the several applications so received, the respondent no. 6 was found to be the most eligible one for the post and he was accordingly, appointed. 6. Mr. Taka Kichu, learned counsel representing the respondent no. 6 has endorsed and adopted the submissions advanced by the learned State Counsel. He has iterated that the petitioner has not been able to produce any document to substantiate the fact that there was any kind of agreement at the time of handing over the area of land freely between the State Government officials and the landowners providing for any claim for appointment from the end of the landowners at a later point of time. 6.1. Like the State Counsel, he has submitted that the case of the petitioner is at best a case which for its veracity, will require verification by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner in terms of Clause 3[b] of the Notification dated 05.03.2018. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for his appointment in the post is concerned, Mr. 6.1. Like the State Counsel, he has submitted that the case of the petitioner is at best a case which for its veracity, will require verification by the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner in terms of Clause 3[b] of the Notification dated 05.03.2018. In so far as the claim of the petitioner for his appointment in the post is concerned, Mr. Taka Kichu has submitted that just because the petitioner has asserted that he belongs to the family of landowners, he cannot claim the said post as a matter of right. 7. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials brought on record by the parties through their pleadings. I have also gone through the policy framed by the State Government relating to appointments in Grade - IV posts on landownership basis and notified by the Notification dated 05.03.2018. 8. The assailment made by the petitioner in this writ petition is with regard to the validity and legality of the order of appointment dated 04.03.2020 issued in favour of the respondent no. 6 to a post in Grade - IV. Article 14 of the Constitution of India has the mandate that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India. While Article 14 ensures the right of equality, Article 16[1] of the Constitution of India has laid down that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Thus, Article 14 and Article 16 which are parts of Part III of the Constitution of India relating to fundamental rights, ensure that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State Government. The words ‘employment’ or ‘appointment’ include the initial appointment to a post under the State Government. The words ‘employment’ or ‘appointment’ include the initial appointment to a post under the State Government. It is settled that the appointment to any post including a Grade - IV post, like the one involved in the case on hand, under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and after holding a selection process duly in a fair and impartial manner through a written examination and/or interview and/or by following a rational criteria to find out the inter se merit of the candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made. 9. Reverting back to the facts of the case, the petitioner has asserted that there was no advertisement published and no selection process undertaken whatsoever prior to the appointment made by the impugned Office Order dated 04.03.2020. The respondent nos. 1 – 5 in its affidavit-in-opposition have in clear terms admitted that no interview was conducted for the impugned appointment. The State respondents have sought to contend that the said post is a Grade - IV post and the same is to be filled up by the area [local] people, in view of the nature of work involved with the post. The Department had, thus, made the appointment only from amongst the applications received against the said vacancy. The State respondents have further contended that several applications were received for the said vacancy and the respondent no. 6 was found to be the most eligible for the post and accordingly, he was appointed. Such contentions advanced on behalf of the State respondents are not acceptable as the process stated to have been followed by the State respondents in making the impugned appointment is found in apparent violation of the principles enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 10. It is a settled legal proposition that an appointment made without any advertisement and any selection process/interview does not meet the requirements of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as the same deprives all other eligible candidates from submitting their candidatures and from participating in the competition undertaken for fillingup such a post. In State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mahanty, reported in [2011] 3 SCC 436, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under : “Appointment/employment without advertisement 35. In State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mahanty, reported in [2011] 3 SCC 436, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed as under : “Appointment/employment without advertisement 35. At one time this Court had been of the view that calling the names from employment exchange would curb to certain extent the menace of nepotism and corruption in public employment. But, later on, came to the conclusion that some appropriate method consistent with the requirements of Article 16 should be followed. In other words there must be a notice published in the appropriate manner calling for applications and all those who apply in response thereto should be considered fairly. Even if the names of candidates are requisitioned from employment exchange, in addition thereto it is mandatory on the part of the employer to invite applications from all eligible candidates from the open market by advertising the vacancies in newspapers having wide circulation or by announcement in radio and television as merely calling the names from the employment exchange does not meet the requirement of the said article of the Constitution. [Vide Delhi Development Horticulture Employees' Union vs. Delhi Administration, Delhi and others, [1992] 4 SCC 99; State of Haryana and others vs. Piara Singh, [1992] 4 SCC 118; Excise Superintendent Malkapatnam, Krishna District, A.P. vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and others, [1996] 6 SCC 216; Arun Tewari and others vs. Zila Mansavi Shikshak Sangh and others, [1998] 2 SCC 332; Binod Kumar Gupta and others vs. Ram Ashray Mahoto and others, [2005] 4 SCC 209; National Fertilizers Limited and others vs. Somvir Singh, [2006] 5 SCC 493; Telecom District Manager and others vs. Keshab Deb, [2008] 8 SCC 402; State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayan Singh and others, [2009] 5 SCC 65; and State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Mohd. Abrahim, [2009] 15 SCC 214. 19. 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. 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 of 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.” 10.1. The same proposition of law was also expounded in State of Bihar vs. Upendra Narayarn Singh and others, reported in [2009] 5 SCC 565. In State of Bihar and others vs. Chandreshwar Pathak, reported in [2014] 313 SCC 232, the respondent was temporarily appointed to the post of Constable by the Inspector General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Patna, Bihar vide an impugned order dated 14.01.1988 with the stipulation that his service could be terminated without assigning any reason or show-cause. In the year 2000, the issue of backdoor appointments made in the Police Department in another case came to be considered by the Hon’ble High Court of Patna which led to a direction by the Department of Home [Police], Government of Bihar to the Police Headquarter, Bihar to review irregular appointments and to remove irregular appointees from service. After serving a show-cause notice and receipt of a reply from him, the appointment of the respondent stood terminated by an Order dated 26.09.2003. It had emerged that the respondent was temporarily appointed without issuing any advertisement or giving opportunity to all other eligible candidates to compete or undergo any selection process. It was in such emerging facts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that no person can be appointed even on temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates and, thus, the appointment of the respondent could not be protected and could be validly terminated. 10.2. In State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Sandhya Tomar and another, reported in [2013] 11 SCC 357, the respondent no. 10.2. In State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Sandhya Tomar and another, reported in [2013] 11 SCC 357, the respondent no. 1 was appointed temporarily in the concerned post by calling and scrutinizing names from employment exchange. It was found that the initial appointment of the respondent no. 1 was not made on the basis of any advertisement in any newspaper whatsoever and, thus, applications for the post were not invited. It has been held that the respondent no. 1 was not appointed following the procedure required by law and that such appointment was in violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It has been observed that whether a person has lien is dependent upon the fact whether he has been appointed in accordance with law in substantive capacity. It has, thus, been held that the respondent no. 1 therein did not have any lien over the post in which she was appointed in violation of the principles enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 10.3. In Binod Kumar Gupta and others vs. Ram Ashray Mahoto and others, reported in [2005] 4 SCC 209, the appellants were appointed in Class - IV posts. It was found that they were appointed in the Grade - IV posts without issuing any advertisement in any newspaper and without adequate notice and fair opportunity to others who might have applied. It did not appear from records that the appellants’ appointments were preceded by any selection procedure/interview at all. It has, therefore, been held that the appointments were not made in a bona fide manner despite a directive to advertise the vacancies in the newspapers. After setting aside the appointments of the appellants, a direction was made to issue fresh advertisement for filling up vacancies in Class - IV posts. In such scenario, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the continuance of the appellants in service cannot be allowed merely because they had been found working in the Grade - IV posts for the last 15 years as the same would amount to condoning a gross irregularity in their initial appointments. 11. In such scenario, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that the continuance of the appellants in service cannot be allowed merely because they had been found working in the Grade - IV posts for the last 15 years as the same would amount to condoning a gross irregularity in their initial appointments. 11. In the case in hand, there was admittedly no advertisement and no selection process undertaken to consider inter se merit of the applicants by some valid and rational criteria, as per the own version of the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition. As there was no advertisement, the same act had deprived all the eligible candidates to submit their candidatures for the vacancy in question, which is a vacancy in Grade - IV, Chowkidar in the establishment of the respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 6 has also failed to controvert the above position by bringing on record any tangible contra material. The aforesaid actions on the part of the State respondent authorities leading to the appointment of the respondent no. 6 in the Grade - IV post of Chowkidar are found in clear violation of the principles enshrined in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, the appointment of the respondent no. 6 so made in the Grade - IV post of Chowkidar in the establishment of the respondent no. 5 vide the impugned Office Order dated 04.03.2020 is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is accordingly set aside and quashed. 12. In view of such setting aside of the impugned Office Order dated 04.03.2020, the next issue that has arisen for consideration is about the manner to be followed in filling up the said vacancy. 13. As has been noted above, any employment or any appointment to any office under the State should, as a rule, be made strictly on the basis of an advertisement giving open invitation to all the eligible candidates to submit their applications and to select the most eligible candidates after assessing the inter se merit of all the eligible candidates who are found to have responded to such advertisement. To this general rule which is to be followed strictly, some exceptions are, however, carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. 14. To this general rule which is to be followed strictly, some exceptions are, however, carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. 14. In the case of V. Sivamurthy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in [2008] 13 SCC 730, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after making a survey of a number of decisions including Gazula Dasaratha rama Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1961 SC 564 ; Yogender Pal Singh vs. Union of India, [1987] 1 SCC 631; Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, [1987] 1 SCC 631; Haryana SEB vs. Hakim Singh, [1997] 8 SCC 85; Director of Education [Secondary] vs. Pushpendra Kumar, [1998] 5 SCC 192; State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, [2003] 7 SCC 704; and Food Corporation of India vs. Ram Kesh Yadav, [2007] 9 SCC 531, has summarized the principle relating to companionate appointment in the following manner : “18. The principles relating to compassionate appointments may be summarized thus : [a] Compassionate appointment based only on descent is impermissible. Appointments in public service should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and comparative merit, having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Though no other mode of appointment is permissible, appointments on compassionate grounds are well-recognised exception to the said general rule, carved out in the interest of justice to meet certain contingencies. [b] Two well-recognized contingencies which are carved out as exceptions to the general rule are : [i] appointment on compassionate grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring in a family on account of the death of the breadwinner while in service. [ii] appointment on compassionate ground to meet the crisis in a family on account of medical invalidation of the breadwinner. Another contingency, though less recognised, is where landholders lose their entire land for a public project, the scheme provides for compassionate appointment to members of the families of project-affected persons. [Particularly where the law under which the acquisition is made does not provide for market value and solatium, as compensation].” 15. The policy framed by the Government of Nagaland for providing appointments in Grade - IV post on landownership basis and notified by the Notification dated 05.03.2022 appears purportedly in relation to the second contingency indicated in the decision of V. Sivamurthy [supra]. The policy framed by the Government of Nagaland for providing appointments in Grade - IV post on landownership basis and notified by the Notification dated 05.03.2022 appears purportedly in relation to the second contingency indicated in the decision of V. Sivamurthy [supra]. The rule of law casts an obligation on the State authorities to adhere to such a policy strictly in a fair and transparent manner sans any kind of arbitrariness and favouritism. 16. As per the policy formulated by the Government of Nagaland with regard to appointments in Grade - IV posts under the Government of Nagaland on landownership basis and notified by the Notification dated 05.03.2018, no land shall be acquired free of cost after 26.07.2005 and all lands, after 26.07.2005, shall be acquired on payment of full consideration as determined by law. After 26.07.2005, no further condition for employment in service or contractual works is to be entertained and in case any department has entered into any agreement with the landowners in deviation of the laid down policy on or after 26.07.2005, such agreement shall be treated as null and void. The policy further states that in so far as old cases are concerned, where the Administrative Headquarters and Block Headquarters were set up in various parts of the State on lands donated freely by individuals, villages or people of that area, such cases should not be re-opened for compensation or for employment. Clause 3[a] of the policy has provided that in other cases prior to 26.07.2005 and subsequent to setting up of Administrative Headquarters and Block Headquarters on freely donated land, where a specific written agreement exists providing for employment to the landowner, the claim of landowner for employment should be settled in terms of such agreement. 16.1. Clause 3[b] of the said policy, embodied in the Notification dated 05.03.2018, is of relevance in the context of the case in hand and for ready reference, the same is extracted hereinbelow :- “3[b] If there is any claim for providing employment as a result of oral agreement, the Department concerned shall refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned who shall examine such claim carefully including whether any employment or any other facility including contract or supply order has been given in the past. Written statements from the witnesses, that is, Government officials of the concerned department and the District Administration and village functionaries present at the time of such oral agreement should be taken by the Deputy Commissioner. The recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner should be referred with relevant documents to the Department of Land Revenue for advice in such cases by the Department concerned.” 16.2. From Clause 3[b] of the policy, it is clear that if a person stakes a claim on the premise that he belongs to a family of landowners who had donated land for setting up either Administrative Headquarters or Block Headquarters at a date anterior to 26.07.2005 and there was an oral agreement to the effect with no specific written agreement, then in such a case, the concerned department has to refer the matter to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to examine such claim carefully including the fact as to whether any employment or any other facility like contract or supply order had been given in the past. To examine such claim, the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner is required to take written statements from the witnesses, that is, Government Officials of the concerned Department, the District Administration and the village functionaries present at the time of such oral agreement so claimed. After carrying out such examination, the Deputy Commissioner is obligated to refer the matter to the Department of Land Revenue with his recommendation along with the relevant documents for advice in such cases by the Department concerned. 17. From the fact situation obtaining in the case in hand, it is noticed from the case laid by the petitioner that there was no specific written agreement executed by the landowners with the concerned State functionaries providing for any employment to the landowners against the land purportedly donated freely for setting up the office of the respondent no. 5. The petitioner herein has staked his claim for employment on the ground that there existed an oral agreement between the landowners and the State functionaries at the time of donation of the land freely with the assurance of providing employment to the families of the landowners. To substantiate such claim, the petitioner has relied on a certificate issued by the concerned jurisdictional Village Council [Merangkong Medemsanger Putu Menden] on 22.06.2019 which had mentioned that after donating the land for construction of the office of the respondent no. To substantiate such claim, the petitioner has relied on a certificate issued by the concerned jurisdictional Village Council [Merangkong Medemsanger Putu Menden] on 22.06.2019 which had mentioned that after donating the land for construction of the office of the respondent no. 5 by the landowners free of cost, no appointment had been availed by the landowners till that date and therefore, the petitioner was recommended for appointment against the post under reference. The certificate has not, however, specifically mentioned that there was an oral agreement at the time of handing over the land to provide for any employment but the petitioner has asserted that there was existence of such kind of oral agreement. The State respondents have, in their affidavit-in-opposition, mentioned that such a certificate containing a recommendation from the concerned Village Council cannot be taken into consideration in terms of the policy and hence, this Court may direct the competent authority to verify the claim of the petitioner. Thus, in the absence of a specific written agreement and in view of the claim of existence of an oral agreement of a date prior to 26.07.2005, the case of the petitioner appears to have fallen within the ambit and purview of Clause 3[b] of the policy framed with regard to appointments to Grade - IV posts under the Government of Nagaland on landownership basis, notified by the Notification dated 05.03.2018. 18. In the light of the above discussion and in view of the findings recorded hereinabove resulting in setting aside of the appointment of the respondent no. 6 as a result of which, there would arise a vacancy in the Grade - IV post of Chowkidar in the office of the respondent no. 5, this Court is of the considered view that before proceeding to fill up the post by way of an open advertisement in consonance with Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India, as have been indicated above, the respondent authorities shall examine whether there was any oral agreement and if the answer is in the affirmative, then the claim of the petitioner is to be considered in terms of Clause 3[b] of the policy, notified vide the Notification dated 05.03.2018, by undertaking the exercise laid down therein in respect of the petitioner or any other candidate[s] who is/are found to have made similar claim[s]. This Court is also of the considered view that before undertaking such an exercise, there should be a prior and adequate notice in the locality as well as in the notice board of the concerned offices and the local Village Council inviting applications from the families of the landowners who have claims regarding donation of land freely for setting up the office of the respondent no. 6 at Tuli. If the outcome of the exercise results in a valid claim either from the petitioner or from any other candidate with similar claim, the respondent authorities shall proceed to fill up the Grade - IV post of Chowkidar in terms of the policy under reference by following a rational criteria. Such exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 3 [three] months from today. Else, the respondent authorities are at liberty to proceed to fill up the said post by inviting applications with the publication of an advertisement and by undertaking a selection process to make appointment of a candidate of on the basis of inter se merit of all the eligible candidates who may apply in response to such an advertisement, in the manner indicated above, so that the appointment so made is in conformity with Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 19. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.