JUDGMENT AND ORDER : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Ms. V. Theyo, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate, Nagaland who appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. This Court on 27.08.2025 heard this matter on length, on which date, Ms. S. Mere, the learned Government Advocate, Nagaland had made elaborate submissions. This Court only for the purpose of providing an opportunity to obtain instruction(s) had fixed the matter today for final disposal. 3. The facts of the instant case as would appear from the pleadings is that the petitioner who is the daughter of one Nietahu Venuh belonging to the descendants of Venuh Clan of Phek District claims to have given land to the Government for establishment of Deputy Commissioner’s Office and its peripheral areas of the other Government establishment. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government had taken over the said land from the aforesaid land owner with oral commitments and conditions that the appointment of Grade-IV post shall be given to the land owner. 4. The petitioner lays emphasis on her claim on the basis of the certificates dated 31.08.2021 and 13.05.2022 issued by the Village Council Chairman, Phek Village, Nagaland. The petitioner on coming to learn that a post of Peon was lying vacant in the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Phek on the retirement of one Mukhayi, the petitioner applied for appointment to the said post on land ownership basis. In addition to that, the petitioner also submitted recommendation letters dated 25.07.2019 and 28.09.2016. However, to the shock and surprise of the petitioner, the Respondent Authorities have regularized the respondent No. 3 against the retirement vacancy and it is under such circumstances, the petitioner had submitted the representation before the Respondent Authorities which being not considered, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. The record reveals that vide an order dated 15.01.2024, this Court had issued notice making it returnable by 4 (four) weeks. 6. The respondent State has filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 20.02.2024 wherein it was categorically mentioned that there was no official record to prove that there was an oral commitments and conditions for appointment to the post of Grade-IV shall be given to the land owners by the Government while establishing the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Phek. 6. The respondent State has filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 20.02.2024 wherein it was categorically mentioned that there was no official record to prove that there was an oral commitments and conditions for appointment to the post of Grade-IV shall be given to the land owners by the Government while establishing the Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Phek. It was also mentioned that the certificate so given by the Village Council has no relevance taking into account that the Village Councils were formed after the Nagaland Village and Area Councils Act, 1978 and as such, the Village Council had no authority to give conditions for appointments as mentioned in the certificates enclosed to the writ petition. It was further stated that presently, there are 5 (five) regular MTS from Phek village alone employed at Deputy Commissioner Office, Phek, out of which 3 (three) are from Venuh clan of the Phek village namely (i) Smti. Chosapalu Venuh, (ii) Shri Vizopa Venuh, and (iii) Shri Hupanieyi Venuh. It was further mentioned that Smti. Chosapalu Venuh, MTS is the aunt of the petitioner and as such, the question of appointment of Grade IV staff not given to land owners as claimed by the petitioner is untrue and baseless. 7. The respondents further to their affidavit-in-opposition also enclosed the Addendum dated 18.10.2022 wherein it was stated that the appointment on land ownership will not be for perpetuity and recommendation/appointment will be one time consideration only. It was further mentioned in the affidavit-in- opposition that the appointment to the post of Grade-IV is not a political appointment, rather, it was appointed in accordance with the laid down guidelines and rules of the Government. It was further stated that the private respondent has been regularized according to the guidelines laid down by the government that “all vacancies arising in the District shall be filled up on 67:33 basis between the in-service and fresh candidates. 8. Pursuant to the said affidavit-in-opposition being filed, the petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-reply wherein it was mentioned that the land which was taken for establishment of Deputy Commissioner’s Office, Phek belonged to three persons namely (i) Niepachi Venuh, (ii) Vezose Venuh and (iii) Nietahu Venuh (father of the petitioner). It was stated that Smti. Chosapalu Venuh and the petitioner are not related in any manner whatsoever. It was also stated that Smti. It was stated that Smti. Chosapalu Venuh and the petitioner are not related in any manner whatsoever. It was also stated that Smti. Chosapalu Venuh was neither the land owner nor donor and the appointment of Smti. Chosapalu Venuh was based on political appointment. 9. A rejoinder was filed by the respondent State pursuant to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner. In the said rejoinder so filed by the State on 19.08.2025, the statements made by the petitioner at paragraph No.5 of the affidavit-in-reply were denied. It was categorically stated that Smti. Chosapalu Venuh is the wife of Shri Lhuevozo Venuh who is the elder brother of Shri Nietahu Venuh, the petitioner’s father. It was further mentioned that the appointment of Smti. Chosapalu Venuh was on land ownership basis and not a political appointment as stated by the petitioner. Annexure-A to the said rejoinder affidavit is the land owner certificate given by the Chairman Village Council, Phek wherein it was stated that Smti. Chosapalu Venuh wife of Shri Luvezo Venuh of Phek village is the land owner. The application filed by Smti. Chosapalu Venuh was enclosed as Annexure-B. A perusal of the said Annexure-B reveals that the Smti. Chosapalu Venuh claimed appointment on land ownership basis against vacant post caused by Mr. Theyekhayi who retired on 05.01.2001 and there were endorsements made both by the Minister, Rural Development, Nagaland, Kohima as well as the Chairman of the Village Council, Phek recommending Smti. Chosapalu Venuh is a bona fide land owner of Deputy Commissioner’s Office compound. 10. It was further mentioned in the said rejoinder affidavit that pursuant to the certificate placed by the petitioner dated 04.09.2024 whereby it was certified that Shri Nietahu Venuh of Phek village was one of the traditional land owner of the area presently occupied by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Phek, a verification report was submitted by the Head DB (Sadar), District Customary Court, Phek wherefrom it can be ascertained that the land on which the Deputy Commissioner Office, Phek exist was jointly donated by 5 (five) descendents as mentioned. They were: 1. Lt. Soi Venuh F/O Lt. Luvezo Venuh and Nietahu Venuh. 2. Lt. Vezose Venuh F/O Vizopa Venuh, Shetazo Venuh, Vekuchiyi Venuh, Thupukusa Venuh and Chito Venuh. 3. Lt. Vedutso Venuh F/O Niepachi Venuh, Vekhoto Venuh and Zhohuve Venuh. 4. Lt. Humore Lohe F/O Chosatsu Lohe. 5. Lt. They were: 1. Lt. Soi Venuh F/O Lt. Luvezo Venuh and Nietahu Venuh. 2. Lt. Vezose Venuh F/O Vizopa Venuh, Shetazo Venuh, Vekuchiyi Venuh, Thupukusa Venuh and Chito Venuh. 3. Lt. Vedutso Venuh F/O Niepachi Venuh, Vekhoto Venuh and Zhohuve Venuh. 4. Lt. Humore Lohe F/O Chosatsu Lohe. 5. Lt. Moisa Lohe F/O Thitsure Lohe, Thupuse Lohe and Kusuhu Lohe. 11. It was also mentioned in the re-verification report that the descendants of Lt. Soi Venuh, Lt. Vezose Venuh and Lt. Moisa Lohe have already availed MTS (Grade-IV) post under Deputy Commissioner Office, Phek. 12. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, this Court has also heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 13. It is relevant to take note of that for appointment to Government Post, the mandate of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India has to be duly complied with. However, the Government in tune with the mandate of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India can provide exception by making reasonable classification. On the basis of the reasonable classification, the Government of Nagaland had adopted criteria for granting appointments on the basis of land ownership subject to compliance with certain terms and conditions. The Notification which holds the field presently is the Notification dated 16.08.2018 read with the addendum dated 18.10.2022. One of the conditions stipulated therein is the appointment on land ownership will not be for perpetuity and the recommendation or appointment will be a onetime consideration only. 14. In the backdrop of the above, if this Court duly takes note of the facts involved as would appear from the pleadings that out of the 5 (five) land owners who had donated the land, one of them was Lt. Soi Venuh who was the father of Lt. Luvezo Venuh and Nietahu Venuh. The wife of Lt. Luvezo Venuh has already taken the benefit of appointment on land ownership basis. Under such circumstances, taking into account Clause 3(c) of the Notification dated 16.08.2018 as well as the addendum dated 18.10.2022, it is the opinion of this Court that the petitioner herein cannot be permitted to claim consideration on the basis of land ownership. 15. Luvezo Venuh has already taken the benefit of appointment on land ownership basis. Under such circumstances, taking into account Clause 3(c) of the Notification dated 16.08.2018 as well as the addendum dated 18.10.2022, it is the opinion of this Court that the petitioner herein cannot be permitted to claim consideration on the basis of land ownership. 15. This Court has also duly taken note of that the State of Nagaland in order to regularize its employees have adopted a policy vide an Office Memorandum dated 14.09.2018 which permits regularization in the ratio of 67:33. The respondent No. 3 has been regularized against the vacant post by applying the parameters of the Office Memorandum dated 14.09.2018. 16. Consequently, this Court, therefore, do not find the instant writ petition to be a fit case for exercising of jurisdiction, for which, the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 17. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.