JUDGMENT : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. 1. The facts pertaining to the present writ petition is that under the establishment of the Assistant Director Food and Civil Supply, Mokokchung, Nagaland, a vacant post of Scale man arose due to the retirement of one Shri. Sentitemsu w.e.f., 31.01.2020. The petitioner being eligible to be appointed against the said post applied for the same as the sole land owner candidate. The State Authorities vide impugned approval letter dated 23.03.2020 conveyed its approval for appointment of the private respondent No. 4 against the said vacant post. The Director, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Nagaland, vide letter dated 16.09.2020 requested the respondent No. 1/Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Department of Food and Civil Supply, Nagaland to review the said approval letter on the ground that the post is claimed by the land owner and as per relevant records the respondent No. 4 was over age. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered and by the impugned order dated 13.01.2023 the respondent No. 4 was appointed against the said vacant post of scale man on extraneous consideration and in violation of the constitutional scheme of public employment. Being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Limawapang. Learned Government Counsel, Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi and learned counsel Mr. Tongpok Pongener for the respondent No. 4. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Government of Nagaland vide Notification No. LR/6- 181/LIT/2015/493 dated 05.03.2018 has notified a policy with regard to appointment to Grade IV Posts under the Government of Nagaland, on the basis of land ownership. Clause 3 (b) of the said Notification prescribes that, 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 concerned district who shall examine such claim. Thereafter, 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. 4. It is stated that the Office of the Assistant Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Mokokchung was constructed on the land donated by three families from Atsongchangar Clan of Mokokchung Village. The Atsongchangar Clan consists of descendants from three grandfathers, namely; i) Tongpangnok ii) Moasangba iii) Jongpongsemba. 4. It is stated that the Office of the Assistant Director, Food and Civil Supplies, Mokokchung was constructed on the land donated by three families from Atsongchangar Clan of Mokokchung Village. The Atsongchangar Clan consists of descendants from three grandfathers, namely; i) Tongpangnok ii) Moasangba iii) Jongpongsemba. Though they belong to the same clan it is a practice from the forefathers that the three family members own their respective lands within the clan land. The present writ petitioner belongs to the descendants of Tongpangnok. The aforesaid plot of land was donated to the State Government without any compensation with an oral agreement that the land owner candidate will be considered for appointment to Grade IV post as and when vacancy arises. 5. It is further submitted that due to the retirement of one Shri. Sentitemsu, Scale man w.e.f., 31.01.2020, one vacant post of Scale man arose under the establishment of the Assistant Director, Food and Civil Supply, Mokokchung. The petitioner applied for the said post praying for consideration as the land owner candidate. His application was supported by the land owner certificate dated 20.08.2019 and the respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 06.01.2020 forwarded the said application to the respondent No. 2. 6. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 2, by a letter dated 22.01.2020 forwarded his application to the Commissioner and Secretary, Department of Food and Civil Supply, Nagaland, for further necessary action. However, the State respondents without considering his case conveyed its approval for appointment of respondent No. 4 vide impugned letter dated 23.03.2020, against the vacancy of Scale man, against which the petitioner had also submitted his application. 7. Petitioner further submits that the respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 16.09.2020 had requested the State Government to review the Government approval letter on the ground that the post is claimed by the land owners. Further, the respondent No. 2 also stated in the said letter that the respondent No. 4 was over aged for appointment in Government service. 8. The petitioner further submits that the Atsongchangar Clan of Mokokchung Village after coming to know that respondent No. 4 was appointed against the vacant post of scale man submitted a Notice dated 21.09.2020 to the respondent authorities informing that the clan has resolved to take legal action if their grievances are not redressed by the authorities. 9. 8. The petitioner further submits that the Atsongchangar Clan of Mokokchung Village after coming to know that respondent No. 4 was appointed against the vacant post of scale man submitted a Notice dated 21.09.2020 to the respondent authorities informing that the clan has resolved to take legal action if their grievances are not redressed by the authorities. 9. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner’s family had donated the plot of land for the office of the respondent No. 3 and it was never purchased nor compensated by the State respondents. It is submitted that he is the rightful land owner of the land where the office of the respondent No. 3 was established. The said plot of land was donated free of cost with an oral agreement that land owners candidate will be considered for appointment in Grade IV post. Therefore as per the policy framed by the State Government vide Notification dated 05.03.2018, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed on the basis of land ownership against the said vacant post of Scale man under the establishment of the Assistant Director, Food and Civil Supply, Mokokchung. 10. The Counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per clause 3(b) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018, if there is a claim for providing employment as a result of oral agreement, the concerned department has to refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned, who shall examine such claim. However, in the instant case the respondent department has failed to carry out such an exercise as prescribed in the Notification dated 05.03.2018 which has deprived the petitioner’s case for appointment on the basis of land ownership. It is submitted that till date the respondents have not appointed any member from his family under the establishment of respondent No. 3 and as such the impugned approval letter dated 23.03.2020 and appointment order dated 13.01.2023 are liable to be quashed and set aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to appoint the petitioner against the said post in terms of the policy framed by the State Government vide Notification dated 05.03.2018. 11. 11. It is also the case of the petitioner that the impugned approval letter dated 23.03.2020 and appointment order dated 13.01.2023 was issued in favour of respondent No. 4 without giving any opportunity to other eligible candidates to compete for the said post, which amounts to violation of the constitutional scheme of public employment. It is also submitted that the impugned approval letter dated 23.03.2020 and the appointment order dated 13.02.2023 are issued on extraneous considerations and as such the Impugned letter dated 23.03.2020 and the appointment order dated 13.01.2023 are liable to be set aside and quashed. 12. In view of the above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the impugned letter dated 23.03.2020 and appointment order dated 13.01.2023 may be quashed and set aside, and a direction may be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the said post. 13. Learned Government Advocate, Mr. Veto V. Zhimomi appearing for the State respondent Nos. 2 and 3 has relied on the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Learned Government Advocate has made a preliminary objection that the petition suffers from non-joinder of parties as the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District and the Department of Land Revenue has not been impleaded as parties. It is stated that under clause 3(b) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018, the department concerned has to refer the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the district concerned when there is an oral agreement with the land owner for providing employment. 14. Learned Government Counsel also submits that one Shri. Ponusangba has been already appointed as Scale man cum chowkidar on land ownership basis in the Office of the respondent No. 3/Assistant Director Food and Civil Supply, Mokokchung. It is stated that the application of the said Shri. Ponusangba dated 02.09.2017 was recommended by the land owners of the Atsongchangar Clan by a letter dated 16.09.2017 and subsequently, by an appointment order dated 26.10.2018, Shri. Ponusangba was appointed to the post of Scale man. It is stated that the application of the said Shri. Ponusangba dated 02.09.2017 was recommended by the land owners of the Atsongchangar Clan by a letter dated 16.09.2017 and subsequently, by an appointment order dated 26.10.2018, Shri. Ponusangba was appointed to the post of Scale man. It is therefore, submitted that the land owner of the establishment of respondent No. 3 has already been appointed and the respondents cannot appoint the th petitioner in violation of clause 3(c) of the Notification dated 5 March, 2018; which reads as under:- "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.” 15. In view of the condition at clause 3(c) of the Notification dated 5th March, 2018, the State respondents cannot appoint more than one land owner. It is therefore, stated that the petitioner has not made out a case for the interference of this Court and the petition may be dismissed. 16. Learned Counsel, Shri. Tongpok Pongener appearing for the respondent No. 4 has adopted the submission made by the learned Government Counsel and has submitted that as per clause 3(c) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018, it is not the policy of the government to provide employment to the land owners in perpetuity and that the employment of land owners is limited to the person first appointed in government service on the basis of land ownership. In other words, the land owner is entitled to a one time employment only. It is submitted that the petitioner’s clan has already availed employment on the basis of land ownership. It is also stated that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 4, who has been appointed against a vacancy meant for non land owners. 17. This Court has examined the pleadings of the parties and considered the submissions of the opposing counsels. It is also stated that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the appointment of the respondent No. 4, who has been appointed against a vacancy meant for non land owners. 17. This Court has examined the pleadings of the parties and considered the submissions of the opposing counsels. The conditions for appointment to government service on the basis of land ownership has been laid to rest by the policy brought out by the State Government of Nagaland vide Notification No. LR-6-181/LIT/2015 dated 5th March, 2018. The clause 3(b) and clause 3(c) of the said Notification dated 5th March, 2018 has been referred to by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 4. 18. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner belongs to the clan of the land owners. Hence, in the present case there is no requirement of referring the matter to the Deputy Commissioner of the District as the Department concerned i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have th nd already admitted from their letters dated 6 January, 2020 and 22 January, 2020 that the petitioner is a land owner. However, at clause 3(c) of the Notification dated 5th March, 2018, it is categorically provided that it is not the policy of the government to provide employment to the land owners in perpetuity. The employment of land owners, if permitted by a valid agreement, is limited to the present first appointment as land owners in government services and does not entitle his descendents for further employment on his retirement from service. It is also provided that after the appointed land owners retires or vacates the post, the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement in consonance with the existing policy th giving equal opportunity to all applicants. The Notification dated 5 March, 2018 does not provide for appointment to all the descendants of different forefathers of land owners. The notification speaks only of one person to be appointed as land owner. 19. In the present case, it is not disputed that one Shri. Ponusangba has already been appointed as a land owner in the post of Scale man in the Office of the respondent No. 3. Therefore, the right of the present petitioner if any has been extinguished by the appointment of Shri. Ponusangba on the basis of land ownership. 20. 19. In the present case, it is not disputed that one Shri. Ponusangba has already been appointed as a land owner in the post of Scale man in the Office of the respondent No. 3. Therefore, the right of the present petitioner if any has been extinguished by the appointment of Shri. Ponusangba on the basis of land ownership. 20. As the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that he should be appointed against the vacant post of Scale man in the Office of the respondent No. 3, he has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of respondent No. 4. In view of the discussion made above, the petitioner has not been able to make out a case to warrant the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. No Order as to cost.