JUDGMENT : Devashis Baruah, J. Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondents. I have also heard Ms. Apila Sangtam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondent No.5. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the administrative approval so granted to the post of Bull Attendant in favour of the respondent No.5 vide the communication dated 06.03.2023 against the vacancy caused upon the retirement of one Lt. Thritingba Sangtam. 3. The case of the petitioner herein is that the Respondent Authorities failed to take into consideration that the land wherein the Dispensary, Veterinary & Animal Husbandry, Chare, Tuensang is situated belonged to the father of the petitioner and as such, on account of a verbal agreement, the petitioner ought to have been considered for appointment on land ownership basis rather without carrying out any verification as is required to be done in terms with the Notification No.LR/6-181/LIT/2015 dated 05.03.2018 and more particularly, in terms with Clause 3(b), the Respondent Authorities have processed the appointment of the respondent No.5 against the vacancy which has arisen out of the retirement of Lt. Thritingba Sangtam. 4. Mr. Tongpok Pongener, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had also submitted that even assuming for argument sake, the petitioner is not entitled to the appointment on land ownership basis but then also, the Respondent Authorities could not have picked up and chosen the respondent No.5 against the vacancy inasmuch as the same amounts to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He therefore submitted that this Court ought to interfere with the administrative approval so granted vide the communication dated 06.03.2023 insofar as the respondent No.5 is concerned against the retirement vacancy of Lt. Thritingba Sangtam and direct that the said post be filled up by due process. 5. Mr. Tongpok Pongener, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner further submitted that the respondent No.5 had availed another appointment under the Office of the Chief Engineer PHED, Nagaland whereby he has been appointed as the Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Staffs and upon verifications, it would be learnt that the respondent No.5 has been assigned the PIMS Employment Code No. OMS PHE 00614. 6. Ms. 6. Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent State has drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 wherein it has been mentioned that there are no records to show that there was any written or verbal agreement between the Department and the land owners that the employment opportunity would be offered to the land owners however vide a letter dated 03.05.2023, addressed to the Director, AH & Veterinary Service Nagaland, Kohima from the Chief Veterinary Officer, Tuensang, it was stated that the appointment on the basis of land ownership to Grade-IV post was given to two land owners namely: (i) Lt. Imtichuba Sangtam from 1973 to 1998 as Bull Attendant. (ii) Lt. Thritingba from 01.02.1998 to 31.03.2021 as Bull Attendant. It was further mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the said land was jointly owned by the family members namely: (a) Lt. Imtichuba Sangtam (father) (b) Lt. Thringba Sangtam (s/o Lt. Imtichuba Sangtam) (c) Thsachomong Sangtam (s/o Lt. Imtichuba Sangtam) (d) T. Chaobi Thonger (s/o Thsachomong Sangtam) It was also mentioned that the petitioner’s family had already availed appointment on land ownership basis on two occasions and as such, there was no policy of the Government of Nagaland to provide employment opportunity to the land owners in perpetuity. It was further mentioned in the said affidavit-in-opposition that the respondent No.5 being an indigenous inhabitant of Tuensang District had equal rights and is eligible for consideration to the appointment of vacant post irrespective of land donor or otherwise. 7. Upon perusal of the pleadings, this Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and given anxious consideration to their submissions. 8. From the materials on record, it transpires that though the petitioner’s family may have been the land owner, but there is no dispute that the members of the petitioner’s family had already availed the benefit of getting appointment on land ownership basis on two occasions. It is also seen that there is no policy of the Government of Nagaland that employment would be provided on land ownership basis in perpetuity. Under such circumstances, the question of the petitioner being considered on the basis of land ownership basis does not arise. 9. It is also seen that there is no policy of the Government of Nagaland that employment would be provided on land ownership basis in perpetuity. Under such circumstances, the question of the petitioner being considered on the basis of land ownership basis does not arise. 9. Be that as it may, it is also equally important to take note of that the post in question which arose out of the retirement vacancy arising out of Lt. Thritingba Sangtam is a public post and as such, the same has to be filled up by following the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. One of the facets of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India is that the filling up of such post has to be done by providing due advertisement. 10. Ms. A. Ayemi, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State Respondents on being enquired into with all her fairness had submitted that there was no advertisement carried out prior to the administrative approval being granted against the retirement vacancy of Lt. Thritingba Sangtam for the post of Bull Attendant. 11. Taking into account the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the administrative approval so granted in favour of the respondent No.5 to the post of Bull Attendant against the retirement vacancy of Lt. Thritingba Sangtam is contrary to the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as such, the said administrative approval dated 06.03.2023 insofar as the retirement vacancy of Lt. Thritingba Sangtam to the post of Bull Attendant in favour of the respondent No.5 is set aside an quashed. 12. This Court however observes and directs that the State Respondent shall fill up the said post in accordance with the mandate of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. With the above observations and directions the instant writ petition stands disposed.