JUDGMENT : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Heard Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. A Ayemi, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, learned counsel for respondent No. 6. 2. By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order of Appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Medical Attendant at Unger Sub-Centre under the establishment of Chief Medical Officer, Mokokchung dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure-E) and also the administrative approval granted for the appointment of the respondent No. 6 vide Communication dated 18.01.2023 (Annexure-D) insofar as, the respondent No. 6 is concerned. The petitioner has further challenged the challenge Clause-2 of the O.M dated 03.03.2022 (Annexure-J) by which, floating of advertisement in case of certain contingency has been permitted to be dispensed with as per the decision of the Cabinet in its meeting held on 09.02.2022 & 22.02.2022. The contingency being difficulties faced by the Department for floating advertisement to fill up Group-D posts. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that three landowners including her father had donated a certain plot of land for establishment of Medical Sub-Center, in Unger Village, in the district of Mokokchung, Nagaland. According to the petitioner, there was a tacit understanding with the Health Department that the family members of the landowners will be considered for appointment to any Grade-IV post as and when a vacancy arise. Subsequently, against a vacancy in the post of Medical Attendant under the said Sub-Center of Unger village, one of the landowner Sh. Alemsosang was appointed and later when he took voluntary retirement, his son Sh. Imtilepzuk was appointed in his place. As for the petitioner and the other landowner, they have since been waiting for their turn to be appointment to any of the Grade-IV post. Subsequently, to the great surprise of the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 vide the impugned administrative approval dated 18.01.2023 was recommended for appointment as Medical Attendant against the vacancy caused by one Smt. Temsulila who retired from service. Thereafter, an appointment order was issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 through the impugned order dated 18.01.2023. The appointment of respondent No. 6, however, was kept in abeyance by the respondent authority concerned vide Order dated 18.01.2023. Thereafter, an appointment order was issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 through the impugned order dated 18.01.2023. The appointment of respondent No. 6, however, was kept in abeyance by the respondent authority concerned vide Order dated 18.01.2023. The petitioner being aggrieved with the approval given for appointment of the respondent No. 6 to the post of Medical Attendant, vide the Communication dated 18.01.2023 and the resultant appointment order dated 18.08.2023 is before this Court. 4. Mr. Tongpok Pongener, learned counsel submits that three families had donated the land for setting up the Sub-Center concerned and the father of the petitioner was one of the landowners who had donated the land. The learned counsel submits that the State Government in the Land Revenue Department has come up with a Notification dated 05.03.2018 (Annexure-B) by which, the State Government has laid down the guidelines for considering appointment on the basis of landownership. The same is a policy decision of the State Government in view of various claims made by landowners for appointment to Grade-IV posts. Referring to Clause-3(b)&(c) of the said notification, the learned counsel submits that if there is any such claim for providing employment as a result of some sort of an agreement including oral agreement, the Department concerned is required to report the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned who shall then examine the claim carefully by taking all relevant factors into consideration including the written statements from the witnesses who may be Government officials of the concerned Department, the District Administration and the village functionaries. 5. The learned counsel submits that there is also a condition provided that as it is not the intention of the Government to provide employment to landowner in perpetuating, upon the retirement of the employee concerned appointed on landownership basis, the vacancy is to be filled through open advertisement in consonance with the existing policy of the State Government by giving equal opportunities to all eligible persons. He submits that in the instant case, upon the vacancy caused by the retirement of the incumbent concerned in the post of Medical Attendant, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be considered for appointment despite being one of the families which donated the land for establishing the Sub-Center. The respondent authorities also did not go for open advertisement as it required under paragraph No. 3(c) of the said notification. The respondent authorities also did not go for open advertisement as it required under paragraph No. 3(c) of the said notification. He submits that the O.M dated 03.03.2022 may provide dispensation of advertisement but the same is subject to there being some difficulties that may be faced by the Department concerned in adopting the procedure of an open advertisement. However, in the instant case, there is no mention about any difficulties faced by the Department and therefore, the administrative approval and the appointment order issued in favour of the respondent No. 6 is only selective and arbitrary and therefore should be set aside. 6. Ms. A Ayemi, learned State counsel, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents, submits that two landowners have already been appointed and therefore, there is no question of appointing a third person from amongst the landowners. In this connection, the learned State counsel refers to the appointment of one Sh. Imtilepzuk S/o Sh. Alemsosang. She submits that his father was initially appointed to the post of Medical Attendant but he sought for voluntary retirement which was granted to him and in his place, his son was appointed. Therefore, no further appointment from landowners is called for as claimed by the petitioner. 7. Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submits that since a vacancy arose due to the retirement of one Smt. Temsulila from the post of Medical Attendant under the Unger Sub-Center and accordingly, the respondent No. 6 applied for the post with the recommendation of the village council of Unger Village Council. The respondent Government upon considering the recommendation made in favour of the respondent No. 6 granted approval for her appointment and therefore, there is nothing wrong with the order of appointment issued in favour of the respondent No. 6. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 9. Facts not disputed is that the petitioner is belongs the one of the family which donated land for establishment of Unger Sub-Center. There were three landowners including the father of the petitioner. Insofar as one of the landowner Sh. Alemsosang is concerned, his son has been appointed as Medical Attendant under the said Sub-Center vide Order dated 14.11.2019. 9. Facts not disputed is that the petitioner is belongs the one of the family which donated land for establishment of Unger Sub-Center. There were three landowners including the father of the petitioner. Insofar as one of the landowner Sh. Alemsosang is concerned, his son has been appointed as Medical Attendant under the said Sub-Center vide Order dated 14.11.2019. A perusal of the same would go to show that the initial appointment was in favour of Sh. Alemsosang himself, but as he applied for voluntary retirement, his son Sh. Imtilepzuk has been appointed to the said post. Although the learned State counsel has submitted that two appointments have been made in favour of the landowners but it appears from the Order dated 14.11.2019 that it is basically one appointment since the son has been appointed in place of his father who retired on voluntary basis. The Notification dated 05.03.2018 at Clause-3(b)&(c) provides as under:- “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. 3(c) 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 descendents 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.” 10. 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.” 10. From the above abstract, it may be seen that in case of a claim for employment on the basis of landownership, the Deputy Commissioner of the District is required to examine the claim by considering all the materials that may be available including the statements of witnesses of officials of the Department, the District Administration and the village functionaries present at the time of such an agreement claimed to have been made. The further condition provided under Clause-3(c) is that the appointment on the basis of landownership will be limited only to the person first appointed and on his/her retirement, the post shall be filled up through open advertisement. In the present case, it appears that such consideration was not done prior to filling up of the vacancy caused by one Smt. Temsulila in the post of Medical Attendant by taking it to consideration the case of the landowners. Although, one appointment is permissible to be made from the landowners but the claim of the petitioner herein is that there were three landowners who had donated the land for setting up of the Sub-Center concerned and therefore, the petitioner being the daughter of the landowner has the right to be considered under the provisions of Clause-3(b) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018. 11. It is further noticed that as per the O.M dated 03.03.2022, advertisement can be dispensed with on account of such difficulties that may be faced by the Department. However, from the materials available on record, no such difficulties, faced by the Department, is discernable. Therefore, the administrative approval granted in favour of the respondent No. 6 in the absence of any such explanation about the difficulties faced by the Department appears to be contrary to the intent expressed through O.M dated 03.03.2022. It is also noticed that the appointment of respondent No. 6 itself has been kept in abeyance vide the Order dated 18.01.2023. Therefore, the respondent No. 6 admittedly has not joined the post till date. 12. It is also noticed that the appointment of respondent No. 6 itself has been kept in abeyance vide the Order dated 18.01.2023. Therefore, the respondent No. 6 admittedly has not joined the post till date. 12. Upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, Court is of the considered view that the vacancy caused by Smt. Temsulila in the post of Medical Attendant should be considered for being filled up in terms of the guidelines formulated by the State Government in the Land Revenue Department vide Notification dated 05.03.2018, particularly in terms of paragraph No. 3(b)&(c) as already abstracted herein above. In carrying out such an exercise, the respondent authorities importantly, the Deputy Commissioner of the District, Mokokchung, shall made all necessary verifications as may be required and the petitioner on her part would be at liberty to produce any material or documents within her power and possession to establish that she indeed belongs to one of the family of the landowners and that there was some sort of understanding at the time of handing over the land to the Department. The verification, examination and consideration should be done by the Deputy Commissioner, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and conclude the same by passing a reasoned speaking order recommending the petitioner or if not, by giving reasons and justification. If the petitioner is recommended, consequential steps be initiated and completed within a period of 2 (two) months. In the event, if the Deputy Commissioner finds that the petitioner cannot be considered for appointment on landownership basis for reasons assigned, then the post of Medical Attendant which is said to be vacant on account of retirement of Smt. Temsulila shall be filled up by way of an open advertisement and in which, both the respondent No. 6 as well as the petitioner should be given fair opportunity to participate. 13. Considering the fact that there is public interest involved to fill up the vacancy, therefore the same should be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within an outer limit of 2 (two) months from the date of the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner. 14. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Considering the fact that there is public interest involved to fill up the vacancy, therefore the same should be done as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within an outer limit of 2 (two) months from the date of the decision taken by the Deputy Commissioner. 14. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. It is needless to state herein that the impugned Order dated 18.01.2023 and the Communication dated 18.01.2023, insofar as the respondent No. 6 is concerned, are hereby set aside.