JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Taka Kichu, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents and Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 4. 2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the appointment made in favour of the respondent No. 4 vide the impugned appointment order bearing No.VET/EST-3/WKA/VI/2019-20 dated 18.12.2019 at VHC Lotsu as well as further seeking a direction upon the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in terms with the land ownership scheme against the Grade-IV post. 3. To adjudicate the dispute involved in the instant proceedings, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant writ petition. 4. The petitioner herein claims to be the son of Shri H. Benjemen Ovung. For the establishment of the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services at Lotsu village, the petitioner claims that the family of the petitioner and one Shri Kilumo Lotha’s family who were the original land owners, had parted with a plot of land on the basis of a verbal agreement made on 17.07.1981. To support the said aspect, the petitioner had enclosed the communication issued by the Lotsu Village Council dated 22.03.1983 to the Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services Nagaland, Kohima to give Grade-IV appointment to the two land owners as and when vacancy arose in the Department as they were not given land compensation. 5. It is the further case of the petitioner that in terms with the verbal agreement entered into on 17.07.1981, one Shri Renthungo Lapon from Shri Kilumo Lotha’s family was given appointment against the post Medicine Care (Grade-IV post) in the same office by the Director of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services in the year 1984. However, no person from the petitioner’s family was given any appointment against any Grade-IV post even after a lapse of 39 (thirty nine) years. 6. However, no person from the petitioner’s family was given any appointment against any Grade-IV post even after a lapse of 39 (thirty nine) years. 6. It is the further case of the petitioner that between the years from 1981 to 2020, few Grade-IV vacancies arose in the same office and the petitioner submitted an application on 23.04.2019 for the post of Chowkidar at VHC Lotsu under the establishment of Chief Veterinary Officer, Wokha against the vacancy which arose on account of the retirement of Shri Tseuthungo Lotha. However, the Respondent Authorities instead of considering the case of the petitioner had appointed the respondent No. 4 to the post of the Chowkidar at the VHC Lotsu. It is under such circumstances, the petitioner has challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 4 primarily on two grounds. First, the appointment of the respondent No. 4 was made in complete disregard to the claims of the petitioner’s family as well as the notification No. LR/6-181/LIT/2015 dated 05.03.2018 whereby the Government of Nagaland had made a scheme for appointment to the Grade-IV post on land ownership basis. The second ground upon which the petitioner assails the appointment of the respondent No. 4 is that the said appointment was made without following the due process inasmuch as the respondent No. 4 was picked and chosen by the Respondent Authorities surreptitiously without any advertisement thereby calling all eligible persons to apply. In other words, the challenge to the appointment of respondent No.4 was on the ground that it was in violation to the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. Before further proceeding, this Court finds it very relevant to take note of the Annexures enclosed to the writ petition more particularly, Annexure-A, Annexure-B, Annexure-C and Annexure-E inasmuch as, it was categorically mentioned that the petitioner was the grandson of Late Chumdamo Ovung of Lotsu village. 8. Upon the instant writ petition being filed, this Court vide order dated 15.09.2020 issued notice. The record reveals that the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 had filed an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it was mentioned that an area of 4.24 acres of land was acquired from Shri Abamo Labon and Shri Asao Ovung for establishment of Veterinary Outpost, presently known as Veterinary Health Centre (VHC), Lotsu. It was mentioned that the claims so made by the petitioner as land owners are not available in any official record. It was mentioned that the claims so made by the petitioner as land owners are not available in any official record. It was also mentioned that the No Objection Certificates dated 29.09.2018 and 12.02.2019 so issued by the Lotsu Village Council was only manufactured recently. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was mentioned that there was no agreement executed between the land donor’s and the Department and the Department had acquired the land through the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha. To the said aspect, certain communications have been enclosed as Annexures B, C and D evidencing that vide a letter dated 24.11.1981, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner had directed the Circle Officer, Lotsu to submit a detailed report and survey of the land for establishment of the Veterinary Outpost, Lotsu. Subsequent thereto, the detailed report and survey of the land was submitted to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha. Thereupon, a notice dated 06.08.1982 was issued for claims and objection within 30 (thirty) days time from the date of issuance of the said notice. However, there were no such claims and objection from any individuals or land owners and accordingly, the Office of the Veterinary Out Post was established at Lotsu. Additionally, it was also mentioned that there was no verbal written agreement between the Department and the two land owners as alleged in the writ petition that any employment opportunity would be offered to the land owners for the fact that the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Wokha had intimated vide letter dated 08.03.1982 that the rate of land compensation had been fixed at Rs. 900/- (Rupees Nine Hundred) per acre for the establishment of Veterinary Out Post at Lotsu and Sungro. It was also categorically mentioned that the petitioner was making false claim that there was any verbal agreement. In paragraph No. 9 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, the official respondents have duly admitted that there is a policy for granting employment on land ownership basis. However, the petitioner’s family is not the land owner as claimed inasmuch as the real land owners were Shri Abamo Labon and Shri Asao Ovung. 9. The respondent No. 4 had also filed an affidavit-in-opposition making similar averments as has been made by the official respondents. However, the petitioner’s family is not the land owner as claimed inasmuch as the real land owners were Shri Abamo Labon and Shri Asao Ovung. 9. The respondent No. 4 had also filed an affidavit-in-opposition making similar averments as has been made by the official respondents. It is however very apposite herein to mention that there is no reply in both the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the official respondents as well as the private respondent to the allegations made in the writ petition that the appointment made to the respondent No.4 was without following the due process i.e. there was no advertisement issued prior to giving appointment to the respondent No.4. 10. Be that as it may, the record further reveals that there are replies filed by the petitioner to the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 as well as the respondent No. 4. In the said reply, an interesting aspect has been brought to the notice of this Court on the basis of a certificate issued by the Chairman, Lotsu Village Council. The Certificate so issued shows the petitioner to be the grandson of Late Asao Ovung. This aspect of the matter assumes importance taking into account that a perusal of the documents enclosed to the writ petition i.e. Annexures A, B, C and E clearly mentioned that the petitioner was the grandson of Late Chungdamun Ovum whereas after the filing of the affidavit-in-opposition by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the petitioner has changed his stand to the effect that his grandfather is Late Asao Ovung. 11. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, let this Court take note of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents. 12. Mr. Taka Kichu, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Respondent Authorities committed great illegality in not considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on the basis of the policy of the State of Nagaland on land ownership basis. He further submitted that the petitioner’s family had donated the land for the establishment of Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Services at Lotsu Village and as such, by virtue of the notification dated 05.03.2018, the petitioner’s case ought to have been considered for the purpose of appointment on land ownership basis against the retirement vacancy which has arisen. 13. Mr. He further submitted that the petitioner’s family had donated the land for the establishment of Veterinary & Animal Husbandry Services at Lotsu Village and as such, by virtue of the notification dated 05.03.2018, the petitioner’s case ought to have been considered for the purpose of appointment on land ownership basis against the retirement vacancy which has arisen. 13. Mr. Taka Kichu, the learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Respondent Authorities did not only consider the application so submitted by the petitioner but on the contrary in violation of the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India had appointed the respondent No.4 by a pick and choose method without any basis whatsoever. He submitted that when any appointment is required to be made to a public post, the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has to be followed and else such action would be illegal, arbitrary and in violation to the mandate of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State of Nagaland submitted that the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had not come up before this Court with clean hands. The learned Government Advocate submitted that in the writ petition, the case of the petitioner was that the petitioner was the grandson of Late Chumdamo Ovung and his basic case therefore was that his family had parted with a plot of land on the basis of an agreement that some job would be provided to the members of the family. On the other hand, after filing of the affidavit-in-opposition by the official respondents wherein it was categorically mentioned that the owners of the land wherein the VHC, Lotsu is set up were Shri Abamo Labon and Shri Asao Ovung, the name of the petitioner’s grandfather changed in the stand taken in the affidavit-in-reply and now the petitioner is claiming that he is the grandson of Late Asao Ovung. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioner therefore cannot be considered in terms with the Government policy dated 05.03.2018 and therefore the non-consideration of the petitioner’s application so submitted in 2019 cannot be said to be bad in law. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the petitioner therefore cannot be considered in terms with the Government policy dated 05.03.2018 and therefore the non-consideration of the petitioner’s application so submitted in 2019 cannot be said to be bad in law. The learned Government Advocate however submitted that as per her instruction(s), there was no advertisement carried out calling for eligible candidates to the post for which the respondent No.4 was appointed. She therefore fairly submitted that this Court may pass appropriate order insofar as the respondent No.4’s appointment was concerned taking into account that the respondent No.4 was not appointed in accordance with the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. Mr. L. Likhase Sangtam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.4 made similar submissions to what the learned Government Advocate has submitted insofar as the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the land ownership. He however submitted that the respondent No.4 was appointed by following a due procedure and as such, the respondent No.4’s appointment should not be interfered with. He further submitted that when the Petitioner has approached this Court with unclean hands, this Court shall not in the present proceedings interfere with the appointment of the respondent No.4. 16. From the perusal of the pleadings as well as the submission so made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, the following points for determination arise for consideration: (i) Whether the petitioner was entitled to consider in terms with the notification dated 05.03.2018 i.e. for consideration on the basis of land ownership basis in the present facts of the case? (ii) Whether the appointment made in the favour of respondent No. 4 vide impugned order dated 18.12.2019 is required to be interfered with in the present facts and circumstances? (iii) What relief or reliefs the parties are entitled to? 17. Let this Court first take up the first point for determination as to whether the petitioner herein was entitled to be considered in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018. The Notification dated 05.03.2018 is a Policy of the Government of Nagaland whereby the Government of Nagaland had regulated appointments to be made on land ownership basis in Grade-IV post. 18. Let this Court first take up the first point for determination as to whether the petitioner herein was entitled to be considered in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018. The Notification dated 05.03.2018 is a Policy of the Government of Nagaland whereby the Government of Nagaland had regulated appointments to be made on land ownership basis in Grade-IV post. 18. The materials in record show that the petitioner herein had claimed that he belonged to a family which had donated a plot of land for setting up of the Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services, Nagaland, Kohima at Lotsu. The claim of the petitioner is based upon a verbal agreement dated 17.07.1981 and subsequently a communication was issued by the Lotsu Village Council in the year 1983. It is also seen from the Annexures A, B, C and E enclosed to the writ petition that the petitioner had claimed that he is the grandson of Late Chumdamo Ovung. Further to that, it is also seen from a perusal of the writ petition itself that the petitioner claimed that in the year 1984, the family members of another land owner was granted appointment on account of donation of land. No materials however had been placed to substantiate the said averment. Be that as it may, it is also seen from the pleadings in the writ petition that for the last 39 (thirty nine) years, the family of the petitioner was not granted any appointment though vacancies arose during the period from 1981 to 2020 on various occasions to Grade-IV post. It is very surprising to take note of that except making a bald statement that the members of the petitioner’s family were not granted any appointment, no materials have been produced to show that the Petitioner’s family applied during this period except in the year 2019. 19. In the opinion of this Court, there is an unexplained delay and laches as to why the petitioner’s family never applied till 2019. On this count only, the Petitioner’s case for consideration on the basis of land owners fails. 20. It is also seen from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that the land for setting up of the VHC at Lotsu village was acquired in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. 20. It is also seen from the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 that the land for setting up of the VHC at Lotsu village was acquired in exercise of the powers under the provisions of the Nagaland Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1965. It has also been mentioned that the land owners from whom the land was acquired for setting up the VHC, Lotsu belonged to Mr. Abamo Labon and Mr. Asao Ovung. It was categorically denied that the petitioner’s family had anything to do with the land in question. To these averments, the petitioner did not counter by producing necessary materials that the land upon which the VHC, Lotsu was set up originally belonged to the family of the petitioner i.e. the family of Late Chumdamo Ovung. On the other hand, the petitioner in the affidavit-in-reply had changed his stand by claiming that he is the grandson of Late Asao Ovung. 21. From the above materials, it therefore show that not only the claim of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case suffers from delay and laches but also gives rise to doubts as regards the truthfulness and veracity of the case of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had failed to make out a case for issuance of directions to the effect that the petitioner should be considered for appointment in Grade-IV post on land ownership basis in terms with the notification dated 05.03.2018. 22. Let this Court now take up the second point for determination as to whether the appointment order dated 18.12.2019 in favour of the respondent No.4 calls for interference. There is no doubt that the appointment made to the respondent No. 4 is to a public post. Under such circumstances, it is a settled position of law that when there is any appointment being made to a public post, there is a requirement that the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India is required to be adhered to. One of the facets of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is that equal opportunity has to be given to all eligible candidates. This can only be possible if there are steps taken informing all eligible candidates by way of an advertisement as otherwise that such a post is to be filled up. One of the facets of Article 16 of the Constitution of India is that equal opportunity has to be given to all eligible candidates. This can only be possible if there are steps taken informing all eligible candidates by way of an advertisement as otherwise that such a post is to be filled up. Admittedly, in the instant case there was no advertisement or notice informing the eligible candidates. The appointment made to the respondent No. 4 therefore appears to be a case of pick and choose, which is not permissible under law. At this stage this Court, further finds it relevant to observe that when such a transgression is observed, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot shut it eyes and allow such illegalities to perpetuate irrespective of the fact that the petitioner may not on his own been able to make out a case for his own consideration. 23. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court the appointment so made in favour of the respondent No. 4 was in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the appointment order dated 18.12.2019 in favour of the respondent No. 4 is required to be interfered with. 24. In the backdrop of the above determination, let this Court take up the third point for determination i.e. what relief or reliefs the parties herein are entitled to. 25. This Court on the basis of the above adjudication observes and directs as follows: (i) This Court is not inclined to issue any directions in favour of the petitioner to be considered for appointment on land ownership basis in terms with the notification dated 05.03.2018. (ii) The appointment order dated bearing No. VET/EST-3/WKA/VI/2019-20 dated 18.12.2019 -made in favour of respondent No. 4 is interfered with and the accordingly set aside and quashed. (iii) The Respondent Authorities are directed to fill up the post of Chowkidar at VHC situated at Lotsu by following due procedure of law i.e. by calling for an advertisement and selecting the most eligible candidate as per law. (iv) This Court directs that the Respondent Authorities while filling up of the said post shall relax the age of the petitioner as well as the age of respondent No.4, if so necessary, so that they can participate in the selection proceedings. 26. (iv) This Court directs that the Respondent Authorities while filling up of the said post shall relax the age of the petitioner as well as the age of respondent No.4, if so necessary, so that they can participate in the selection proceedings. 26. With the above observations and directions the instant writ petition stands disposed of.