JUDGMENT : SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND, J. 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of respondent No. 5 vide appointment order No. VET/EST-3/KMA/I/PT-I/2023-24 dated 12.08.2024 which was in violation of the Office Memorandum dated 16.08.2018 and the decision of this Court in W.A.11/2023 dated 27.03.2024, (Annexure-C1). 2. It is contended that the Clause 3(b) of OM No. LR/LAND-PLCY/5-26/2011 dated 16.08.2018 reads as:- “3. (b)It is also clarified that it is not the policy of the Government to provide employment or other facility to the landowner in perpetuity. The employment or other facility 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 descendant for further employment or other facility on his retirement from service vacates the post. After the appointed landowner retires or vacates the post, the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement in consonance with the existing government policy giving equal opportunity to all applicants.” 3. It is submitted that the plot of land where the present Veterinary Dispensary, Jakhama, is situated was sold to the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Sciences, Government of Nagaland in lieu of Grade-IV posts by 11 land owners vide deed of release dated 10.10.1975. Subsequently, the agreement deed dated 08.12.1975, was executed and as per the agreement deed, the land owners declared that they would part with their respective plot of land for establishment of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary outpost at Jakhama for consideration of Rs. 1500/- per acre under the condition that they would be accorded opportunity with first priority in case of vacancies being created. Annexure-A & A1 are the copies of the deed of release dated 10.10.1975 and copy of the agreement deed dated 08.12.1975. 4. The present petitioner Smt. Viseyieno Richais the wife of Shri Mhashekhol Richa who is a bonafide member of 'Richa Clan' and this clan is one of the land owners marked at Serial No. 6 of the agreement deed. It is contended that Shri Tepuseo Tase, Shri SweyievikutoTase (respondent No. 5), are the descendants of land owners of Shri Khuzon. Shri Tepuseo Tase has already availed the benefit of appointment of Grade-IV post being descendant of land owner of Shri Khuzon. It is contended that Shri Tepuseo Tase, Shri SweyievikutoTase (respondent No. 5), are the descendants of land owners of Shri Khuzon. Shri Tepuseo Tase has already availed the benefit of appointment of Grade-IV post being descendant of land owner of Shri Khuzon. At present, Tepuseo Tase’s nephew Shri Sweyievikuto Tase, (herein after referred to as respondent No. 5) has been appointed as descendant of land owner in clear violation of the order dated 27.03.2024, passed by this Court in W.A. 11/2023. 5. The petitioner's husband Shri Mhashekhol Richa challenging the appointment order dated 31.03.2023 of respondent No. 5 filed a writ petition No. 77/2023. Vide judgment and order dated 06.10.2023, this Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the appointment order dated 31.03.2023 as the same was not in consonance with the OM dated 16.08.2018. Thereafter, the respondent No. 5 preferred W.A.11/2023 and vide judgment and order dated 27.03.2024, the state respondents were directed to fill up the vacancy in the Grade-IV posts in the Veterinary Department at Jakhama by inviting applications from eligible applicants claiming appointment on the basis of land ownership by virtue of agreement deed dated 08.12.1975 with wide publicity. The respondents were also directed to strictly abide by the terms of the OM dated 16.08.1975. The respondent No. 3 published an advertisement in the local daily dated 17.07.2024, inviting applications from land owners who have donated their land to the Veterinary dispensary at Jakhama to apply for the Grade-IV posts which were lying vacant on superannuation of Shri Tepuseo Tase. 6. On the criteria being descendant of land owner, the present petitioner who is a bonafide member of 'Richa Clan' applied for the aforementioned vacant Grade-IV post in the Veterinary Department. However, the state respondent vide order No. VET/EST-3/KMA/I/PT- I/2023-24dated 12.08.2024 appointed the respondent No. 5 in clear violation of the order of this Court dated 27.03.2024 passed in W.A. 11/2023 and the OM dated 16.08.2018. However, the state respondent vide order No. VET/EST-3/KMA/I/PT- I/2023-24dated 12.08.2024 appointed the respondent No. 5 in clear violation of the order of this Court dated 27.03.2024 passed in W.A. 11/2023 and the OM dated 16.08.2018. On an application seeking information dated 23.01.2023, submitted to the PIO of the Veterinary Department, a reply was received by the petitioner on 27.03.2023 from the Office of the respondent No. 3, the petitioner was apprised that Grade-IV post at the Veterinary Dispensary (VD), the land owners of descendants were given to (appointed) :- (i) Shri KirikulKharutsu, who is the nephew of Shri Keneileshi, (ii) Shri Vilazol Richa, son of Shri Soleho, (iii) Shri Tepuseo Tase, son of Shri Khuzon, and (iv) Shri Kuvio Richa, son of Smt. Zushule. However, not a single member of the 'Richa Clan' availed the benefit of being appointed to Grade-IV posts on the basis of land ownership till date. 7. It is contended that the order dated 12.08.2024 appointing respondent No. 5 is malafide and discriminatory and in clear violation of the direction of the Court in W.A. 11/2023 and OM dated 16.08.2018 as Shri Tepuseo Tase, being a descendant of Shri Khuzon (land owner) has already availed the benefit of being appointed to Grade-IV post on the basis of land ownership and thus, the respondent No. 5, another descendant of Shri Khuzon is not entitled to be appointed in perpetuity. 8. The petitioner has prayed to issue a writ directing the state respondent to adhere to the agreement dated 08.12.1975, order dated 27.03.2024 passed by this Court in W.A. 11/2023 and the OM dated 16.08.2018 and to consider appointment of the petitioner to the Grade-IV post in the Veterinary Dispensary (VD) at Jakhama on the strength of land ownership. The petitioner has also prayed to set aside and quash the order No. VET/EST-3/KMA/I/PT-I/2023-24dated 12.08.2024 passed by the state respondent or any other such order or direction as the Court deems fit and appropriate. 9. The Commissioner Secretary has filed affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 contending interalia that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this present writ petition against the state respondents. The petitioner has participated in the selection/recruitment process conducted by the Department and as such at this stage the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the selection of respondent No. 5 and non-selection of her candidature. 1 to 4 contending interalia that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this present writ petition against the state respondents. The petitioner has participated in the selection/recruitment process conducted by the Department and as such at this stage the petitioner cannot turn around and challenge the selection of respondent No. 5 and non-selection of her candidature. The petitioner is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel, "which states that when one person has, by his declaration, act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing. " 10. The Department purchased land from the land owners @ Rs. 1500/- and the deed of release was executed on 10.10.1975, wherein the land owners declared that all their rights and interests of their own have been fully and satisfactorily compensated and affirmed, and as such, on the day of execution of the deed of release, they have renounced, relinquished and surrendered to the Government their rights over their land. 11. It is submitted that as per direction of this Court's judgment and order in W.A. 11/2023, the post of Animal Attendant in Veterinary Hospital at Jakhama was advertised and the petitioner along with 3 other applicants applied for the posts and vide advertisement No. VET/EST- 3/KMA-I/PT-I/2023-24/144 dated 15.07.2024, the candidature of 2 (two) applicants for the interview were rejected on account of over age and the interview was conducted for the remaining 2 (two) applicants i.e., the petitioner and the respondent No. 5. The recruitment/selection and interview was conducted as per established procedure by open advertisement. The procedure of appointment was conducted following the procedure of law by inviting eligible candidates limited to land owners as per direction of this Court in W.A. 11/2023. The respondent No. 5 secured highest marks and was thus appointed. 12. An affidavit-in-opposition was also filed by the respondent No. 5 reiterating the contentions of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In addition, it is further contended that it is well within the knowledge of the petitioner that his selection and appointment was not in violation to any procedure established by law. 12. An affidavit-in-opposition was also filed by the respondent No. 5 reiterating the contentions of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. In addition, it is further contended that it is well within the knowledge of the petitioner that his selection and appointment was not in violation to any procedure established by law. However, as she was unsuccessful on not being selected, the petitioner with malafide has preferred this petition and on being aggrieved by selection of respondent No. 5 into the Grade-IV post of Veterinary Department at Jakhama. 13. Heard learned counselfor the petitioner Mr. A. Sophie; learned Senior Government Advocate Mr. M. Imchen and learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, Mr. A. Kire. 14. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. 15. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had to enter into a 3rd round of litigation as she has been highly prejudiced by the discriminatory appointment of respondent No. 5. The petitioner's Clan donated land to the Veterinary dispensary but till date, not a single member of the 'Richa Clan' has been appointed as employee in the Veterinary dispensary who has taken over land from the 'Richa Clan' in lieu of employment in the Grade-IV category in the Veterinary Department. 16. It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that the petitioner has admitted that 2 (two) members of 'Richa Clan' have been appointed by the Veterinary Department but these 2 (two) members of the 'Richa Clan' has donated their share of land under their ownership and possession in their personal capacity. Thus, it is amply clear that not a single member of the 'Richa Clan' has been appointed or accorded employment by the Veterinary Department. Taking this fact into consideration, this Court vide order dated 06.10.2023 in WP(C) 77/2023 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondent state to consider the application dated 09.07.2021 and to take immediate and necessary steps for her appointment in the Grade-IV post of the Veterinary Dispensary (VD) at Jakhama, being covered by the OM dated 16.07.2021 and 22.02.2022 and by the agreement deed dated 08.12.1975, made by the land owners of Jakhama and also in consonance with the OM dated 16.08.2018. As appointment of respondent No. 5 was not in consonance with the OM dated 16.08.2018, it was held by this Court that the appointment order dated 31.03.2023 is liable to be set aside as the respondent No. 5 preferred an appeal against the aforementioned order, then vide order dated 27.03.2024 in W.A. 11/2023, this Court modified the order of the learned Single Bench and directed the state respondent to fill up the vacancy in the Grade-IV post at Veterinary Department, Jakhama by inviting applications from eligible candidates claiming appointment on land ownership basis by virtue of agreement deed dated 08.12.1975. Advertisement through wide publicity and the entire exercise was directed to be completed as expeditiously as possible within 4 months from the date of the judgment and order.The respondent authorities were directed to consider the cases of the applicants on the basis of authentic supporting documents and to select the candidate who emerges as the best candidate in the process of selection. 17. Drawing the attention of this Court in W.A. 11/2023, the learned Senior Government Advocate laid stress in his argument that the candidates were selected after an open advertisement and on the basis of eligibility test based on merit. As the petitioner has participated in the eligibility test, this petition is not maintainable. 18. Learned Senior Government Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 laid stress in their arguments that the petitioner has not challenged the selection procedure and has challenged only the appointment of respondent No. 5. Without challenging the selection procedure, the petitioner cannot skip over and pick and choose to assail the appointment order. The petitioner voluntarily sat for the interview and now the petitioner cannot turn back and challenge the appointment order after voluntarily taking part in the selection procedure. 19. The respondent No. 5 has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amina Marwa Sabreen (a minor) & Ors Vs. The State of Kerala & Ors reported in (2018) 14 SCC 193 , wherein it has been held and observed that:- “ Reverting to the preliminary objections raised by the respondent State, as already mentioned above, there is no reference to the G.O in the entire writ petition. This document is not even part of the writ petition. The State of Kerala & Ors reported in (2018) 14 SCC 193 , wherein it has been held and observed that:- “ Reverting to the preliminary objections raised by the respondent State, as already mentioned above, there is no reference to the G.O in the entire writ petition. This document is not even part of the writ petition. Therefore, there are no foundational facts and/or pleadings in the writ petition challenging this G.O as unconstitutional More importantly, there is no prayer in the writ petition seeking quashing of this GO. Even when the learned counsel for the State had pointed out fundamental infirmity in the writ petition, no attempt was made by the petitioners to amend the writ petition so as to incorporate challenge to the said G.O as well In the absence of any pleadings and the prayer seeking quashing of the said G.O, it is not permissible for the petitioners to seek a relief by making oral submissions in this behalf.’ Relying on the decision, it is further submitted that in the instant case too, without challenging the entire selection procedure, the petitioner cannot straight away challenge the appointment order of the respondent No. 5. 20. The respondent No. 5 has also relied on the decision of this Court in Besa vs. The State of Nagaland reported in 2024 (1) GLT 727, wherein it has been held and observed that:- “ It is a well settled law that if a person takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him/her, he or she cannot turn around and challenge the selection/appointment of the successful candidate and/or contend that the process of the interview or the methodology adopted was unfair. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.5 was appointed through unfair means or that the selection process was unfair It is also seen that the interview for the post was conducted on 13.11.2015 and the result of the interview was declared on the same date and the order appointing the respondent No.5 was issued by the department on 17.02.2016. However, it is only on 06.11.2017 that the present writ petition was filed. However, it is only on 06.11.2017 that the present writ petition was filed. It is therefore very obvious that the petitioner was taking a calculated chance and observing as to whether the action taken by the village against the appointment of the respondent No.5 would work out to her advantage and it is only when all such attempts failed, the present writ petition was filed. “ In the case of the Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubar-maniyan& Ors reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus; "13. Be that as it may, the respondent, without raising any objection to the alleged variations in the contents of the advertisement and the Rules, submitted his application and participated in the selection process by appearing before the Committee of experts. It was only after he was not selected for appointment that he turned around and challenged the very selection process. Curiously enough, in the writ petition the only relief sought for is to quash the order of appointment without seeking any relief as regards his candidature and entitlement to the said post. 16. In Madan Lal vs. State of J&K5, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that: (SCC p. 493, para 9) "9 Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the saidexamination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner. " 17. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: SCC p. 584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Courts that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning theselection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. ……” 21. The respondent has also relied on another decision of this Court in Smt. Vitoni Sumi vs. The State of Nagaland & Ors, where invide order dated 22.01.2024 in WP(C) 211/2022 ,it has been held and observed that:- “13. ……” 21. The respondent has also relied on another decision of this Court in Smt. Vitoni Sumi vs. The State of Nagaland & Ors, where invide order dated 22.01.2024 in WP(C) 211/2022 ,it has been held and observed that:- “13. It is to be mentioned here in this context that while dealing with the issue in the case of Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., reported in AIR 1986 SC 1043 , a three judge bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :- "When the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner." XXX XXXXXXXXX 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Zhimomi has vehemently submitted that the direction issued by the said O.M. has not been followed by the State respondents in the case in hand. This submission of Ms. Zhimomi has been controverted by the learned Govt. Counsel by submitting that in the case in hand transparent process has been followed by issuing notice dated 28.07.2022. However, the learned Govt. Counsel as well as the affidavit in opposition of respondent No.1 to 3, is silent in respect of obtaining approval of the Government. As such it cannot be said that the state respondent No.1 to 3 have followed the O.M. dated 03.03.2022, in itsletter and spirit. But, since the petitioner, without any challenge and protest to the Notice had taken part in the interview, now she cannot turn around having been unsuccessful in the interview. Thus, Issue No.[iii] has to be answered in negative, and accordingly, the same stands answered." 22. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent authorities have complied with only a part of the direction of this Court in connection with W.A. 11/2023. The state respondents had invited applications from eligible candidates through an open advertisement but the respondent No. 5 was not appointed strictly in terms of the OM dated 16.08.2018 as directed by this Court in the aforementioned appeal as well as in WP(C)/77/2023. The state respondents had invited applications from eligible candidates through an open advertisement but the respondent No. 5 was not appointed strictly in terms of the OM dated 16.08.2018 as directed by this Court in the aforementioned appeal as well as in WP(C)/77/2023. 2 (two) members of the same family have been appointed in perpetuity by the respondent authorities to fill up the vacancy in the Veterinary Dispensary at Jakhama. 24. It is pertinent to note in this case that the petitioner has straight away prayed for setting aside the order of appointment dated 12.08.2024 without challenging the selection procedure. Already 2 descendants of the ‘Richa Clan’ have also been selected. Although the explanation offered by the petitioner that the descendants of ‘Richa Clan’ have been selected as they are descendants of land owners who have acquired the land in their personal capacity and which was in their personal possession and which were handed over to the respondent authorities to establish the Veterinary Dispensary at Jakhama, this argument can only be considered if the selection procedure is challenged. Violation of extant policies governing selection on basis of land ownership has to be projected thereafter. Although this argument of the petitioner has not been disputed, this Court cannot be oblivious of the factum that 2 (two) descendants of the ‘Richa Clan’ have also been selected. 25. The terms of the extant policy governing selection of descendants of land owners clearly reflects that the Government cannot provide employment or other facilities to the land owners in perpetuity. This issue was already before this Court and vide order dated 06.10.2023, appointment of the respondent No. 5 was set aside and thereafter on an appeal, by the respondent No. 5, the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. 11/2023, vide order dated 27.03.2024 directed the state respondents to fill up a Grade-IV vacancy at the Veterinary Department, Jakhama, by inviting applications from eligible candidates claiming appointment on land ownership basis by virtue of agreement dated 08.12.1975 and through wide publicity. The state respondents were also directed to consider the case of the applicants on the basis of authentic supporting documents and to appoint the candidate emerging as the best candidate in the process of selection. They were also directed to strictly abide by the terms of the OM dated 16.08.2018. The state respondents were also directed to consider the case of the applicants on the basis of authentic supporting documents and to appoint the candidate emerging as the best candidate in the process of selection. They were also directed to strictly abide by the terms of the OM dated 16.08.2018. This selection procedure was indeed not challenged by the petitioner and when the decision was not found to be palatable, the aggrieved petitioner who took part in the selection procedure turned around and impugned the appointment of the respondent No. 5 by skirting around and skipping over the selection procedure. 26. It has already been mentioned in the foregoing discussions that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are descendants of land owners who have provided land to the Veterinary dispensary at Jakhama. The petitioner has without any protest sat for the interview when the interview was held. The petitioner has participated in the selection process. No objection was raised then, and when the respondent No. 5 was appointed, the selection procedure which was under the domain of the state respondents was not challenged. 27. In the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Madan Lal & Ors vs. The State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors reported in 1995 3 SCC 486 and relying on the decision of this Court in Besa vs. The State of Nagaland reported in 2024 (1) GLT 727, it is held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as the appeal is devoid of merits. 28. No order as to costs.