JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. Also heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned Sr. counsel for the private respondents No. 4, assisted by Mr. Arenlong, learned counsel. 2. The present writ petition has been filed impugning the letter No. HFW(A)Appt-8/28/2015/298, dated 13/11/2018, issued by the Government of Nagaland, Health & Family Welfare Department, Nagaland, Kohima approving the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as sweeper at Community Health Centre (CHC), Bhandari, Wokha and the consequent order No. DHFW-3/GR-4/WOKHA-APPTT/2017-18/8163-68, dated 15/11/2018, issued by the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima appointing the respondent No.4 to the post of sweeper at CHC, Bhandari under the establishment of the Chief Medical Officer against the retirement vacancy of Smti. Nzanmoni Lotha. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that late Yisao Odyuo is the landowner where the present Community Health Centre (CHC), Bhandari is located. The land was donated free of cost to the Medical department for the construction of the Health Centre but with an understanding that the landowner and his family will be awarded with contract works and with appointment in service as and when the department was approached. The petitioner’s father is the legitimate son of late Yisao Odyuo and by dint of which the petitioner belongs to the family of landowners. 4. That a vacancy occurred in the post of sweeper at CHC, Bhandari on the retirement of the incumbent Smti. Nzamoni Lotha. Against the resultant vacancy, the respondent No. 2 appointed Shri. Meribemo N. Jami by issuing the order dated 13/08/2014. The petitioner therefore, submitted the application dated 15/10/2015 to the respondent No. 2, through the respondent No.3 objecting to the appointment of Shri. Meribemo N. Jami on the ground that the said person is not a landowner nor hails from Bhandari village and to appoint the petitioner who is the landowner. 5. Consequent to the application submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 wrote the letter dated 04/03/2016 to the respondent No.3 to verify the landownership against CHC, Bhandari in consultation with the Village Council and the landowners of the Bhandari village and to constitute a committee for authentication of landownership and to submit the report to the respondent No.2. 5. Consequent to the application submitted by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 wrote the letter dated 04/03/2016 to the respondent No.3 to verify the landownership against CHC, Bhandari in consultation with the Village Council and the landowners of the Bhandari village and to constitute a committee for authentication of landownership and to submit the report to the respondent No.2. The respondent No. 3 accordingly conducted the verification and by the letter dated 09/03/2016 submitted the report to the respondent No.2 recommending the appointment of the petitioner to the post of sweeper on the ground that the petitioner was the sole landowner of CHC, Bhandari Town. Along with the report the respondent No.3 also forwarded the certificates issued in favour of the petitioner by the Senior Medical Officer Bhandari dated 07/03/2016, the Addl. Deputy Commissioner Bhandari dated 07/03/2016, the Head G.B Bhandari Town dated 05/03/2016 and the Head G.B Bhandari village dated 08/03/2016. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequent to the receipt of the report dated 09/03/2016 from the respondent No.3, the service of Shri. Meribemo N. Jami was terminated after due notice. 6. Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2 thereafter, wrote the letter No. DHFW-3/Vacancy/2016/12783, dated 25/03/2017, directing the Chief Medical Officer of the Districts in the State and the Senior Medical Officer of Tseminyu and Pfutesero to constitute the Screening Committee/Selection Board for appointment of Grade-IV post under their respective establishments by adopting the laid down criteria. In compliance to the letter dated 25/03/2017, the respondent No.3 conducted the selection for appointment to Grade-IV in regard to the establishment of the Office of the Chief Medical Officer, Wokha and thereafter, submitted the final selection list to the respondent No.2 vide the letter dated 02/05/2017. In the said report, the name of the petitioner figures at Sl. No. 7 wherein it is stated that for CHC Bhandari the petitioner is applying against the landownership 7. Mr. Limawapang submits that since the respondent authorities did not appoint the petitioner despite the final selection list brought out by the letter dated 02/05/2017, the petitioner submitted the application dated 03/08/2018 to the respondent No.2 for appointment to the vacant post of sweeper at CHC Bhandari. Mr. Limawapang submits that since the respondent authorities did not appoint the petitioner despite the final selection list brought out by the letter dated 02/05/2017, the petitioner submitted the application dated 03/08/2018 to the respondent No.2 for appointment to the vacant post of sweeper at CHC Bhandari. The State respondents however, instead of appointing the petitioner issued the impugned letter dated 13/11/2018 conveying the approval of the Government for appointment of the respondent No.4 as sweeper at CHC Bhandari and consequent to which the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland, Kohima has issued the order dated 15/11/2018 appointing the respondent No.4 to the post of sweeper at CHC Bhandari under the establishment of the Chief Medical Officer, Wokha against the retirement vacancy of Smti. Nzamoni Lotha. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the respondent No.3 has conducted the necessary verification and submitted the final selection report to the respondent No.2 on 02/05/2017 for appointment of the petitioner to the post of sweeper against CHC Bhandari, the State respondent is bound to act on the final selection report of the respondent No.3 and appoint the petitioner by setting aside and quashing the impugned approval letter dated 13/11/2018 and the consequent order dated 15/11/2018 appointing the respondent No.4 to the post of sweeper at CHC Bhandari. 9. Mr. Taka Masa, learned Sr. counsel for the private respondent No. 4 while strongly rebutting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 7(seven) landowner namely, 1. Idmomo, 2. Chichamo, 3. Motsuo, 4. Nphyo, 5. B. Elan, 6. Yisao & 7. Wapansao and their family from Bhandari village had donated their land for the establishment of Bhandari Administrative Headquarter and for its development. The petitioner’s family is one of the land donor but not the sole landowner who had donated the land to the Government. On 25/04/1982, an affidavit/agreement was signed between the landowners and the District Administration stipulating the following conditions; “1. If compensation is paid in other parts of Nagaland for Administration Headquarters, we should also be paid the land compensation as in case of others at Govt. prescribed rate. 2. 75% of the contract work should be given to Bhandari villager and the rest 25% contract should be reserved for lower range people. 3. If compensation is paid in other parts of Nagaland for Administration Headquarters, we should also be paid the land compensation as in case of others at Govt. prescribed rate. 2. 75% of the contract work should be given to Bhandari villager and the rest 25% contract should be reserved for lower range people. 3. 60% of Grade-IV post to be given to landowner and 40% be given to the people of lower range till compensation is paid to the landowners. The land shown in Annexure-A is therefore transferred to Govt. from today.” 10. The learned Sr. counsel submits that with the exception of the affidavit/agreement dated 25/04/1982, no other agreement exists with any individual landowner for appointment to Grade-IV post for donating the land where the Community Health Centre Bhandari is located. Therefore, for the purpose of appointing the landowners within the Bhandari Administrative Headquarter, it is the declaration made in the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 which governs the landowners. Surprisingly, the petitioner’s for reasons unknown has suppressed the affidavit/agreement dated 25/04/1982 which is material for adjudication of the present dispute. The learned Sr. counsel also submits that the certificates issued by the authorities at Bhandari to the effect that the petitioner is the sole landowner of CHC Bhandari is false and is contrary to the meeting minutes dated 15/02/2019 held between the landowners and the Medical department where in the meeting the landowners themselves had declared that the land demarcation of CHC Bhandari cannot be furnished since the land was donated in general to the Government but not to a particular department and the allocation of the land was done through the Administrative Department. The learned Sr. counsel submits that all the landowners, except Mr. Wapansao who was indisposed, were present in the meeting. 11. Mr. Taka Masa, learned Sr. counsel submits that Shri. Chichamo, Shri. Chonthungo and Shri. Rhanlamo are biological brothers who had also jointly donated the land for establishment of the Administrative Headquarter Bhandari. The agreement dated 25/04/1982 was however signed by Shri. Chichamo being the eldest of three brothers. The respondent No. 4 is the wife of Mhonyamo Odyuo who is the son of Rhanlamo one of the land donors. The agreement dated 25/04/1982 was however signed by Shri. Chichamo being the eldest of three brothers. The respondent No. 4 is the wife of Mhonyamo Odyuo who is the son of Rhanlamo one of the land donors. Therefore, the respondent No. 4 belongs to the family of the landowners and has a right to be considered for appointment to Grade-IV post and there is no illegality in the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as sweeper at CHC Bhandari. 12. The learned Sr. counsel submits that the petitioner claim for appointment flows from the fact that her father Limathung Odyuo is the legitimate son of late Yisao one of the original land donors. It is however submitted that 3(three) family members of late Yisao Odyuo has been appointed to Grade-IV post at CHC Bhandari. By the order No. CS-1/5/91-92/3085-95, dated 17/02/1992 Smti. Wolumi Lotha daughter of late Yisao was appointed as AYAH at PHC Bhandari. Smti. Wolumi, it is submitted is the aunty of the petitioner. By the order No. DHFW-3/520/WOKHA/2014/7851-55, dated 05/11/2015, Shri Abemo Tungoe was appointed as Medical Attendant at CHC Bhandari. While by the order No. DHFW-3/520/WOKHA/2015/112146-00, dated 01/03/2016 Smti. T. Yipeni Murry was appointed as a Cook at CHC Bhandari. Smti. T. Yipeni Murry, it is submitted is the wife of the present petitioner’s uncle. The learned counsel submits that while the petitioner’s family members have availed the benefits of Grade-IV appointment as landowners none from the family of the respondent No.4 has ever availed any appointment to Grade-IV post as legitimate landowners. 13. The learned Sr. counsel has then referred to the Notification No. LR/6-181/LIT/2015, dated 05/03/2018, issued by the Government of Nagaland, Land Revenue Department, notifying the policy with regard to appointment of Grade-IV post under the Government of Nagaland on landownership basis and submits that a bare perusal of the said notification will show that the respondent No. 4 is entitled to be considered for appointment in terms of the Clause-3(a) whereas, the petitioner is not entitled to be considered for appointment to Grade-IV post in terms of the Clause-3(c) as the family members of late Yisao has already availed Grade-IV appointments. 14. Mr. 14. Mr. Taka Masa further submits that pursuant to the letter dated 25/03/2017 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) written by the respondent No. 2 to all the Chief Medical Officer of the Districts to conduct the screening test for appointment to Grade-IV post, the CMO Wokha without inviting the genuine landowners simply forward the case of the petitioner at the back of the other landowners without any proper selection process. The learned Sr. counsel by referring to the letter dated 02/05/2017 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) written by respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 submits that the letter dated 02/05/2017 at Sl. No. 7 only conveys that with regard to Bhandari CHC, the petitioner is applying against landownership and nothing more. The letter dated 02/05/2017 therefore cannot be accepted as the final selection for appointment to Grade-IV post under CHC Bhandari. It is submitted that it was only after the discovery of the misdeeds of the petitioner and the respondent No.3, that the respondent No.4 being one of the genuine landowners submitted her application for consideration of appointment against the vacant post through proper channel along with the landownership certificate dated 30/05/2018, issued by the Office of the Bhandari Town Landowners Union. It is further submitted that the certificate issued by various authorities stating that the petitioner is the sole owner of the land where CHC Bhandari is located was issued without any proper verification from the landowners and in violation of the agreement dated 25/04/1982. The learned Sr. counsel has also submitted that the certificate issued to the petitioner by some authorities at Bhandari is also contrary to the meeting minutes dated 15/02/2019 held between the Medical department and the landowners. 15. Mrs. Livika, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents while adopting the line of submissions made by the learned Sr. counsel submits that Smti. Wolumi Lotha daughter of late Yisao who is one of the landowners has been appointed as AYAH at Bhandari PHC by the Civil Surgeon, Wokha, Nagaland by order dated 17/02/1992 and therefore, the right of the petitioner to be considered for appointment in the vacant post on the basis of landownership stood exhausted. It is submitted that in terms of the notification dated 05/03/2018, issued by the Government of Nagaland, it is not the intention of the Government to provide employment to landowner in perpetuity. It is submitted that in terms of the notification dated 05/03/2018, issued by the Government of Nagaland, it is not the intention of the Government to provide employment to landowner in perpetuity. The learned Government Advocate submits that the petitioner by not disclosing about the appointment of Smti. Wolumi Lotha daughter of late Yisao has suppressed material facts and has approached the court with unclean hands. The learned Government Advocate also submits that the letter dated 02/05/2017 written by the Chief Medical Officer Wokha to the Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare, Nagaland conveying the final selection for appointment of Grade-IV under CMO Wokha particularly with regard to the case of the petitioner could not be considered as other family members of the petitioner had already been appointed to Grade-IV post at CHC Bhandari. 16. In the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner has reiterated that the petitioner’s family is the landowner who has donated the land where the present CHC Bhandari is located. The petitioner has also denied that Smti. Wolumi Lotha was appointed as AYAH at PHC Bhandari on the basis of landownership by contending that Smti. Wolumi Lotha married Benrithung Lotha of Yimpang village in the year 1979 and it was only after her marriage that she was appointed as AYAH at PHC Bhandari in the year 1992. It is further submitted that Shri Abemo Tungoe is a native of Riphyim Old Village under Wokha district while Smti. T. Yipeni Murry is a native of Yikhum village and therefore, their appointment to Grade-IV post at CHC Bhandari cannot be said to be on the basis of landownership. 17. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the pleadings exchange between the parties. The admitted position is that both the petitioner and the respondent No.4 are from the family of the landowners who had together, along with others, donated the land for the establishment of the Bhandari Administrative Headquarter and for its development. The certificate dated 27/07/1981 signed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Bhandari and the declaration made by the landowners in the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 in the presence of the Administrative Officials clearly conveys that the 7(seven) landowners from Bhandari village have together donated their land for the establishment of the Administrative Headquarter. The certificate dated 27/07/1981 signed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil) Bhandari and the declaration made by the landowners in the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 in the presence of the Administrative Officials clearly conveys that the 7(seven) landowners from Bhandari village have together donated their land for the establishment of the Administrative Headquarter. Further, the declaration in the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 inter-alia states that 60% of Grade-IV post will be given to the landowners and 40% will be given to the people of the lower range till the compensation is paid to the landowners. Neither in the certificate dated 27/07/1981 nor in the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 any mention has been made as to which of the individual landowner donated which portion of the land for the establishment of the Administrative Headquarter, nor does it convey that the individual landowner will be considered for appointment only against the portion of the land donated by him. It was only after the submission of the application dated 15/10/2015 by the petitioner for appointment to the post of sweeper and the respondent No.2 by the letter dated 04/03/2016 directed the respondent No. 3 to verify the landownership against CHC Bhandari did the petitioner obtain the certificate dated 05/03/2016 from the Head G.B Bhandari Town, the certificate dated 07/03/2016 from the Addl. Deputy Commissioner Bhandari, the certificate dated 07/03/2016 from the Senior Medical Officer Bhandari and the certificate dated 08/03/2016 from the Head G.B Bhandari village certifying that the petitioner is the sole owner of the land over which the CHC Bhandari is located and this certificates were accordingly forwarded to the respondent No.2 for considering the appointment of the petitioner. This Court has however notice that the certificates were issued without any enquiry/verification from the landowners of Bhandari village. Moreover, the manner and the timing in which the landowner certificate was issued to the petitioner shows that the certificates were issued by the said authorities without any proper verification. Furthermore, the contents of the certificate is also contrary to the meeting minutes dated 15/02/2019 were the President, LRPO in the presence of the landowners had firmly declared that the land demarcation of CHC Bhandari cannot be ascertained as the land was donated in general to the Government but not to a particular department and it was the administrative department which had allocated the land to various department. This by itself reveals that although the land was donated by the 7(seven) landowners there is no clarity on the demarcation of the land donated by each of the landowners as the land was jointly donated in bulk to the Government. In view of the above findings, this Court is inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned Sr. counsel for the private respondent No.4 that the certificate produced by the petitioner from the authorities at Bhandari by itself does not established the exclusive ownership of the land of the petitioner’s at CHC Bhandari. 18. This Court has also considered the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 that 3(three) relatives of late Yisao namely, Smti. Wolumi Lotha, Shri. Abemo Tungoe and Smti. T. Yipeni Murry has been appointed to Grade-IV post at CHC Bhandari on the basis of landownership. The State respondents has also submitted that Smti. Wolumi Lotha has been appointed as AYAH at PHC Bhandari by the Civil Surgeon Wokha, Nagaland by issuing the order dated 17/02/1992. The learned State counsel has also annexed the service particulars of Smti. Wolumi Lotha to show that she is the daughter of late Yisao. The learned counsel for the respondents therefore submits that the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the Grade-IV post on the basis of the landownership is hit by Clause-3(c) of the Notification dated 05/03/2018 which is the scheme formulated by the Government for appointment of landowner to Grade-IV post. Clause-3(c) of the Notification dated 05/03/2018 provides as follows; “It is also clarified that it is not the policy of the Government to provide employment to the landowner in perpetuity. The employment of landowner, if permitted by a verifiable and valid agreement is limited to the person first appointed as landowner in Government service and does not entitle his descendants for further employment on his retirement from service. After the appointed landowner retires or vacates the post, the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement in consonance with the existing policy giving equal opportunity to all applicants.” It is an admitted fact that Smti. Wolumi is the daughter of late Yisao and has been appointed as AYAH at PHC Bhandari. Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a faint attempt to justify that Smti. Wolumi is the daughter of late Yisao and has been appointed as AYAH at PHC Bhandari. Mr. Limawapang, learned counsel for the petitioner makes a faint attempt to justify that Smti. Wolumi Lotha was not appointed on the basis of the landownership as she was married to a person from a different village (Yampang) and her appointment was effected only after her marriage. The learned counsel however could not satisfy the Court as to why Smti. Wolumi Lotha was appointed to the Grade-IV post other than being the daughter of the original land donor. Moreover, all the learned counsels for the parties are also in agreement that appointment to Grade-IV post is normally made on the basis of the land donated by the landowners. This Court is therefore, inclined to accept the submission that Smti. Wolumi Lotha was appointed as AYAH at PHC Bhandari by virtue of being the daughter of late Yisao one of the original land donors and therefore, the petitioner who is also claiming her right to be considered for appointment through late Yisao is barred under Clause-3(c) of the Notification dated 05/03/2018. 19. A matter of concern for this Court is the manner in which the petitioner had conducted herself in filing the present writ petition. It is seen that by the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 a declaration was made by the landowners stating as to how the landowners would be compensated with appointments and with contract works for donating the land to the Government. The petitioner being fully aware about the existence of such a declaration however, choose not to make a disclosure of the same in the writ petition but relied her claim solely on the certificates issued by the authorities at Bhandari which were issued without any proper verification. The petitioner for obvious reasons suppressed the declaration made by the landowners in the affidavit dated 25/04/1982, as it would have clouded the exclusive claim of the petitioner to the post. In the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner had only made a statement to the effect that since both the certificate dated 27/07/1981 and the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 related to the undertaking made by the then SDO (Civil) Bhandari in regard to the donation of land by the 7(seven) landowners it was not necessary to annex both the documents in the writ petition. In the affidavit-in-reply, the petitioner had only made a statement to the effect that since both the certificate dated 27/07/1981 and the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 related to the undertaking made by the then SDO (Civil) Bhandari in regard to the donation of land by the 7(seven) landowners it was not necessary to annex both the documents in the writ petition. This Court finds the contents of the certificate dated 27/07/1981 and the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 to be altogether different. From the statement made by the petitioner, it also proves that the affidavit dated 25/04/1982, which was the first declaration made by the landowners, stipulating as to how the appointments were to be extended to the land donors was in the possession and custody of the petitioner, however for reasons unknown the petitioner choose not to disclose the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 in the writ petition. Secondly, it was also incumbent on the petitioner to have disclosed the appointment of Smti. Wolumi Lotha, a close relative of the petitioner, since such a disclosure would have enabled this Court to know as to whether the petitioner would have been eligible to be appointed to a Grade-IV post on landownership basis in view of the limitation imposed by the Clause-3(c) of the Notification dated 05/03/2018. By concealing and not revealing the appointment of Smti. Wolumi Lotha to the Grade-IV post, the petitioner had only attempted to derive the benefit of appointment to which she was not legally entitled. It is therefore clear that by non-disclosure of the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 and by suppressing the appointment of Smti. Wolumi Lotha as AYAH at PHC Bhandari, the petitioner concealed material facts which otherwise was relevant for proper adjudication of the dispute at hand. The petitioner in the considered opinion of this Court is therefore guilty of suppressing material facts which otherwise was relevant for proper and effective adjudication of the case. The petitioner is accordingly not entitled to any relief either in law or in equity. 20. In the case of A.V Papayya Sastry & Others -versus-Govt. of A.P & Others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221 , the Supreme Court has held that; “28. The petitioner is accordingly not entitled to any relief either in law or in equity. 20. In the case of A.V Papayya Sastry & Others -versus-Govt. of A.P & Others, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 221 , the Supreme Court has held that; “28. Allowing the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court and describing the observations of the High Court as '’wholly perverse'’, Kuldip Singh, J. stated: (SCC p.5, para 5) "The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation". (emphasis supplied) 29. The Court proceeded to state: (SCC p.5, para 6) "A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would he guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.” 21. In the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. -versus-State Bank of India, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 , the Supreme Court has held that; “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a Court of Law is also a Court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs., in the following words: "[I]t has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should made a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts---facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it---the Court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the Court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the Court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement". (emphasis supplied) 35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” 22. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” 22. In the case of Raj Kumar Soni & Another -versus-State of U.P & Another, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 635 , the Supreme Court has held that; “11 …………………….It is a fundamental principle of law that a person invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India must come with clean hands and make a full and complete disclosure of facts to the Court. Parties are not entitled to choose their own facts to put forward before the Court. The foundational facts are required to be pleaded enabling the Court to scrutinize the nature and content of the right alleged to have been violated by the authority.” 23. The case of the petitioner further is that since on the basis of the direction issued by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.3 has made the final selection of Grade-IV post under the Chief Medical Officer, Wokha, Nagaland and has selected the petitioner for appointment at CHC Bhandari against landownership basis, the Government is bound to give effect to the final selection made by the respondent No. 3 and appoint the petitioner as sweeper at CHC Bhandari. This Court however finds that no proper selection process was conducted by the respondent No.3 to recommend the petitioner for appointment to the post of sweeper at CHC Bhandari. It is seen that the other eligible landowners were completely kept in the dark and it was only on the basis of the unverified landowner certificates produced by the petitioner, that the respondent No. 3 forwarded the case of the petitioner to the respondent No.2. This Court has already given a finding that the landownership certificate issued by the authorities at Bhandari to the petitioner was made without any proper verification. Moreover, the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition has categorically stated that though the Chief Medical Officer Wokha by the letter dated 02/05/2007 had submitted the final selection report for appointment of Grade-IV post under the CMO Wokha mentioning the petitioner’s name at Sl. No. 7 but as Smti. Moreover, the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition has categorically stated that though the Chief Medical Officer Wokha by the letter dated 02/05/2007 had submitted the final selection report for appointment of Grade-IV post under the CMO Wokha mentioning the petitioner’s name at Sl. No. 7 but as Smti. Wolumi Lotha daughter of late Yisao, the landowner, had already avail the benefit of appointment, the case of the petitioner for appointment could not be considered by the Government. It is also seen that the letter dated 02/05/2017 written by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 although titled “Final selection of appointment for appointment of Grade-IV vide P&AR Memo No. AR-3/Gen-174/2007(Pt) dated 07/12/2016” does not give the slightest indication for selection of the petitioner to the post. The letter dated 02/05/2017 at Sl. No. 7 which relates to the petitioner only states as follows; “7. Bhandari CHC 1(one) applicant against the termination of Shri. Meribemo N. Jami. a) Applicant Smti. Zuchobeni L. Odyuo is applying against landownership member.” The remark given by the respondent No. 3 in the letter dated 02/05/2017 cannot therefore be taken by this Court as a recommendation for selection of the petitioner to the post of sweeper at CHC Bhandari. No legal right therefore, accrues to the petitioner for a direction to appoint the petitioner as sweeper at CHC Bhandari on the basis of the letter dated 02/05/2017. 24. Insofar as the appointment of the respondent No.4 to the post of sweeper at CHC Bhandari is concerned, there is no dispute that the respondent No.4 hails from the family of one of the landowners who had donated the land for the establishment of the Administrative Headquarter Bhandari. It is also not disputed by the petitioner as well as by the Government respondents that no family members of the respondent No.4 has at any point of time been appointed to any Grade-IV post for donating the land to the Government. It is also not disputed by the petitioner as well as by the Government respondents that no family members of the respondent No.4 has at any point of time been appointed to any Grade-IV post for donating the land to the Government. Therefore, in the light of the declaration made by the landowners in the affidavit dated 25/04/1982 in the presence of the administrative officials and in terms of Clause-3(a) of the Notification dated 05/03/2018 issued by the Government of Nagaland formulating policy with regard to appointment of landowners to Grade-IV post, this Court is of the view that the respondent No.4 has the right to be considered for appointment to the post of sweeper at CHC Bhandari and therefore, there is no infirmity in the Government issuing the letter No. HFW(A)Appt-8/28/2015/298, dated 13/11/2018 approving the appointment of the respondent No.4 as sweeper at CHC Bhandari and the consequent order No. DHFW-3/GRADE-IV/WOKHA-APPTT/2017-18/8163-68, dated 15/11/2018, issued by the Directorate of Health & Family Welfare, Kohima, Nagaland appointing the respondent No. 4 to the post of sweeper at CHC Bhandari under the establishment of the Chief Medical Officer Wokha against the retirement vacancy of Smti. Nzanmoni Lotha. 25. In view of the discussions and observations made above, this Court is of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition. 26. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.