JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. Moa Jamir, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. I have also heard Mr. Pfosekho Pfotte, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.3. 2. This Court had passed an order on 29.08.2025 whereby instructions were sought from Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate as to how many candidates applied for the vacant post in the establishment of the Chief Medical Officer, Wokha and was there any selection proceedings in that regard and further what was the basis on which the Respondent No.3 has been given the appointment. 3. Today, Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent State has placed before this Court a set of instruction which are collectively kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 4. In the backdrop of the above, this Court now would deal with the facts which led to the filing of the instant petition. 5. The case of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner’s family had donated certain lands and claimed appointment on land ownership basis in view of the notifications issued by the Government dated 05.03.2018 and 16.08.2018. The Petitioner further was aggrieved by the appointment of the Respondent No.3. 6. From the affidavit-in-opposition which was filed by the Respondent State, it was apparent that the Petitioner herein was not entitled to claim on the basis of land ownership. It is under such circumstances, when the matter was taken up on 29.08.2025, Mr. Moa Jamir, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has contested the appointment of the Respondent No.3 on the ground of violation of Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution. 7. In the above perspective, now this Court would like to take note of the instructions so placed by Ms. S. Chang, the learned Government Advocate which are kept on record and marked with the letter “X”. 8. From the said instructions, it would be seen that there were only two applicants who have participated. Amongst the two applicants, the Petitioner claimed appointment on land ownership basis however the Petitioner’s claim for land ownership basis was not in terms with the extant law. 8. From the said instructions, it would be seen that there were only two applicants who have participated. Amongst the two applicants, the Petitioner claimed appointment on land ownership basis however the Petitioner’s claim for land ownership basis was not in terms with the extant law. It was further mentioned in those instructions that the Respondents have carried out a selection proceedings amongst both the candidates who have submitted the applications and it was found that the Respondent No.3 had better educational qualifications and accordingly, the Respondent No.3 was selected and accordingly proposal was sent to the Government for approval and thereupon, the Government granted the approval. 9. This Court having perused the materials on record and more particularly the documents which are kept on record and marked with the letter “X” does not find that there has been any violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution and accordingly, it is the opinion of this Court that the present writ petition lacks merit for which the instant writ petition stands dismissed.