JUDGMENT : YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Elivil Zao for the petitioner, Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate and Shri. Limawapang, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5. 1. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioner praying for appointment to a Grade-IV post, under the Department of Health and Family Welfare Government of Nagaland, on the basis of landownership. The contention of the petitioner is that the present Community Health Centre (CHC for short) Chiephobozou, Kohima, Nagaland, was donated without any compensation by four landowners namely, 1). Shri. Charu Rulho, 2). Shri. Tsorhielie Peziyie, 3). Shri. Riivese Chadi, and 4). Shri. Duolie Siere. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Shri. Elivil Zao has stated that the petitioner is the son of Shri. Duolie, who is one of the landowner and his name appears at Sl. No. 4 in the agreement dated 13.01.1988. He has made a submission that the family members of all the other three landowners had been given appointment in Grade-IV post by the State respondents. However, his family had not been given any appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application dated 17.09.2018 which is Annexure-C to the petition addressed to the respondent No. 3 to consider his appointment on the basis of landownership to the post of Medical Attendant on retirement of one Shri. Vizhulie Angami. However, the respondent No. 5 was appointed to the said vacant post by an order dated 13.12.2018, (Annexure-D) who is not a landowner and accordingly, the petitioner was denied the appointment in violation of the agreement dated 13.01.1998. 3. As per the agreement dated 13.01.1988 which is Annexure-A to the writ petition, it is stated that the first three landowners are already given Grade-IV post and the last Mr. Duolie Angami is yet to be given a Grade-IV post. It is stated in the said agreement that all agreements were finally settled, as per the original agreement and no further land dispute will arise provided the one Grade-IV post is given to one brother of Mr. Duolie of Nerhema Village. 4. Duolie Angami is yet to be given a Grade-IV post. It is stated in the said agreement that all agreements were finally settled, as per the original agreement and no further land dispute will arise provided the one Grade-IV post is given to one brother of Mr. Duolie of Nerhema Village. 4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to his pleadings, at paragraph 8 and 9 of the writ petition has stated that so far not a single member from his family has been appointed to any Grade-IV post in the said Community Health Centre (CHC) Chiephobozou, whereas, the other three landowners have been availing several chances of appointment. He has categorically stated that none of his family members has been appointed to any Grade-IV post on the basis of landownership. The petitioner further, states that non consideration of his appointment to a Grade-IV post by the State respondents is in violation of the agreement dated 13.01.1988 and he therefore, prays for a direction to appoint him to the post of Medical Attendant at Community Health Centre (CHC), Chiephobozou, on the strength of being one of the landowners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on an affidavit dated 05.09.2018 executed by one Shri. Neivotsolie Pezieyie, son of late Tsorhielie Pezieyie, which is Annexure-C 1 to the writ petition, wherein, Shri. Neivotsolie Pezieyie has sworn that the petitioner is the rightful candidate to be appointed in the vacant post of Medical Attendant at Community Health Centre (CHC) Chiephobozou. 6. Further, Mr. Elivil Zao, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to an order of this Court dated 15.10.2024 wherein this Court had directed the Government Advocate to place the necessary instructions from the Government Department as to whether Shri. Duolie Angami and Shri. Pfuzielie, are brothers/relatives of the same descendent, who have donated the land for construction of the Chiephobozou Civil hospital. In compliance of this order the Government respondents have filed an additional affidavit annexing a letter from the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 24th October, 2024, (Annexure III) to the additional affidavit of the State respondents). In compliance of this order the Government respondents have filed an additional affidavit annexing a letter from the respondent No. 4 to the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 24th October, 2024, (Annexure III) to the additional affidavit of the State respondents). In the said letter dated 24th October, 2024 the Chief Medical Officer/ respondent No. 4 has clarified that the land for the establishment of Community Health Centre (CHC) Chiephobozou, was donated by four clans; (i) Chadi clan (ii) Kezieo clan (iii) Rulho clan and (iv) Siere clan. It is stated that Mr. Duolie is the son of Mr. Kunuo Siere, however, Mr. Pfuzielie is the son of Mr. Sezolie Siere, i.e., they are from different fathers. However, they are distant brothers of the same clan i.e. Seire clan. A list of landowners appointed as Grade-IV employees at Community Health Centre (CHC), Chiephobozou, w.e.f 13.01.1988 till date has been annexed to the said letter. 7. Learned counsel has therefore prayed that this Court may issue a direction to appoint the petitioner to the vacant post of medical Attendant and has further prayed that the order dated 13.12.2018 appointing the respondent No. 5 may be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned Government Advocate, Ms. Livika has made her submissions basing on the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. She has contended that the petitioner has already been compensated by the State respondents and a list of the landowners who have received land compensation has been annexed at Annexure-C to the affidavit-in-opposition, where the petitioners’ father’s name appears at Sl. No. 48. However, the question of land compensation has not been raised in this petition. 9. Learned Government Advocate, Ms. Livika has also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-E of the writ petition which is a Judgment and Order of this Court dated 11.06.2003 passed in WP(C)/164(K) of 2001. The learned Government Advocate submits that in that writ petition the father of the petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 7. In the said writ petition, the petitioner Vinyuzo was from the family of one of the landowners namely, Charu Rulho, and he had filed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner’s family had not been paid land compensation, and also on the ground that he had not been given any appointment inspite of being the landowner. In the said writ petition, the petitioner Vinyuzo was from the family of one of the landowners namely, Charu Rulho, and he had filed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner’s family had not been paid land compensation, and also on the ground that he had not been given any appointment inspite of being the landowner. Learned State counsel refers to paragraph 6 of the Judgment and Order dated 11.06.2003 wherein, it is reflected by this Court that : “6. The State respondents in paragraph 15 of the affidavit-in-opposition has categorically stated that all the land owners of the said Civil Hospital have been treated equally and equal opportunities for grade IV appointment have been given as per the agreement without any discrimination. This position is also admitted by the respondents 5 to 7 in the affidavit-in- opposition when it was stated in paragraph 6 of the affidavit that equal appointments have been given to all the 4 land owners by the department.” 10. In view of this observation, it is clear that the father of the present petitioner, who was respondent No. 7, had also admitted that equal appointments had been given to all the four landowners by the Department. Learned Government counsel also refers to an agreement dated 09.08.2003, (Annexure B to the affidavit-in-opposition) which is signed by the father of the present writ petitioner along with two other landowners and in the said agreement, it was agreed that the Grade-IV post are to be filled up by the landowners on rotation basis, and no contract work should be allotted to outsiders. In the said agreement, it is stated that Mr. Duolie and Mr. Ruvese’s family have been appointed in the said hospital except Mr. Neivotsolie’s next of kinn. Therefore, learned Government Counsel, Ms. Livika states that the father of the writ petitioner has admitted in the said agreement dated 09.08.2003 that all the landowners have been employed and only Neivotsolie’s family has to be considered. 11. Learned Government Advocate also refers to the notification dated 5th March, 2018, at Annexure-D to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondents 1,2,3 and 4, which has notified the Government Policy with regard to appoint to Grade-IV post under the Government of Nagaland on landownership basis. 11. Learned Government Advocate also refers to the notification dated 5th March, 2018, at Annexure-D to the affidavit-in-opposition of the Respondents 1,2,3 and 4, which has notified the Government Policy with regard to appoint to Grade-IV post under the Government of Nagaland on landownership basis. In inviting a reference to paragraph 3(a) and 3(c) of the said notification dated 5 March, 2018, the learned Government Counsel has stated that as per the requirement at paragraph 3(a), since, the agreement with the petitioner’s family is on 13.01.1988, the Government has already appointed all the landowners as per the agreement. However, in paragraph 3(c) of the said Policy it is stated that, the Government cannot provide employment to the landowner in perpetuity. After the appointed landowner retires or vacated the post, the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement giving equal opportunity to all applicants. It is contended by the learned Government Counsel that respondent No. 5 was initially appointed vide appointment order dated 02.06.2014 on ad-hoc basis, which is at Annexure-E to the affidavit-in-opposition. The said appointment had been extended from time to time, and finally the respondent No. 5 was appointed against a vacancy which arose on 13.09.2018 due to the retirement of the incumbent since, the respondent No. 5 had been serving on ad-hoc basis since 02.06.2014. And it is pertinent that the petitioner has not challenged the initial appointment order of the respondent No. 5. 12. Learned Government counsel has also referred to the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondent, where at Annexure-III to the affidavit, a list of landowners appointed as Grade-IV at Community Health Centre (CHC) Chiephobozou, w.e.f., 13.01.1988 till date has been enclosed. According to this list the petitioner’s family which is the Seire clan has already been appointed and the incumbent has since retired. Since the policy of the State Government dated 5th March, 2018 categorically states that after the appointed landowner retires the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement, the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. 13. Since the policy of the State Government dated 5th March, 2018 categorically states that after the appointed landowner retires the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement, the petitioner cannot claim appointment as a matter of right. 13. Learned State counsel further stated that the affidavit dated 5th September, 2018 executed by one Shri. Neivotsolie Pezieyie is an affidavit which has been registered after the State Government framed the policy regarding appointment on landownership basis on 5th March, 2018, and therefore, such an affidavit cannot be relied upon as the affidavit is against the Government Policy. Ms. Livika, learned Government Advocate therefore, prays that the petition may be dismissed as the petitioner has not made out any grounds for the interference of this Court. 14. Shri. Limawapang, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 5 in the present writ petition and has raised the issue on maintainability of the present writ petition. He has submitted that respondent No. 5 was initially appointed by an order dated 02.06.2014, and thereafter, her service was extended from time to time till one post of Medical Attendant fell vacant on the retirement of the incumbent on 30.09.2018. The case of the respondent No. 5 was considered for appointment to the said post on temporary basis in view of her continuous service on ad-hoc basis from 02.06.2014. Moreover, the initial appointment of the respondent No. 5 dated 02.06.2014 is not assailed in the present writ petition. The order dated 02.06.2014 and order dated 13.12.2018 are Annexures I and VI in the affidavit-in-opposition of respondent No. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 also states that the contentions of the petitioner in paragraph 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition that so far not even a single member from his family has been appointed in Grade-IV post at Community Health Centre (CHC) Chiephobozou, is totally false and misleading. Learned counsel stated that the father of the present writ petitioner being impleaded as respondent No. 7 in WP(C)/164/2001 has clearly admitted that the family of respondent No. 7/present writ petitioner has been appointed to the Grade-IV post at Community Health Centre (CHC), Chiephobozou, on land ownership basis in terms of the agreement dated 13.01.1988. 15. Learned counsel also submits that vide order dated 06.02.1989 (Annexure VIII to the affidavit-in-opposition) Shri. Pfuzielie Seire, the cousin brother of Mr. 15. Learned counsel also submits that vide order dated 06.02.1989 (Annexure VIII to the affidavit-in-opposition) Shri. Pfuzielie Seire, the cousin brother of Mr. Duolie was already appointed as Medical Attendant at Community Health Centre (CHC), Chiephobozou, Civil Hospital against the vacant post due to the retirement of one Shri. Tsorhielie Pezieyie and therefore, the petitioner cannot turn around at this stage and state that, not even a single member from his family has been appointed in Grade-IV post. Even assuming but not admitting that Mr. Duolie and Mr. Pfuzielie are not from the same father, but it is not denied that they are from the same clan i.e. the Sere clan. 16. Shri. Limawapang has further submitted that when the father of the writ petitioner had already admitted in WP(C) 164(K) of 2001 that employment had been given to his family, the petitioner cannot state different facts now. On this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of making false and misleading statements. In order to support his argument on the question of maintainability, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has referred to the case of PRISTIGE LIGHTS LTD Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 33 and 35 held that: “33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. 35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible” Learned counsel therefore, prays that the petition may be dismissed as not maintainable. 17. The Court has considered the submission of the learned counsels for the parties, and examined the records available before the Court. The claim of the petitioner being a landowner is based on the agreement dated 13.01.1988. It is not disputed that the name of the petitioner’s father appears at Sl. No. 4, amongst the landowners. The policy of the State Government with regard to appointment on land ownership basis is set-out in the Notification No. LR/6-181/LIT/2015: Dated 5 March, 2018, at Annexure-D to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Paragraph 3(a) and 3(c) are relevant in the present case. At paragraph 3(a) of the notification, it is stated that in cases prior to 26.07.2005, where a specific written agreement exists in case of freely donated land providing for employment to the landowner, the claim of landowner for employment should be settled in terms of such agreement. However, it is also clarified in paragraph 3(c) of the Notification that the Government will not provide employment to the landowner in perpetuity, and after the appointed landowner retires or vacates the post, the vacancy will be filled up through open advertisement giving equal opportunity to all applicants. Paragraph 3(c) of the notification dated 5 March, 2018, has not been assailed by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition, nor has any landowner assailed this condition before any other court. This Court has also taken note of the agreement dated 09.08.2003 at Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. Paragraph 3(c) of the notification dated 5 March, 2018, has not been assailed by the writ petitioner in the present writ petition, nor has any landowner assailed this condition before any other court. This Court has also taken note of the agreement dated 09.08.2003 at Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit of respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, wherein, the father of the present petitioner is also a signatory at Sl. No. 1. In the said agreement, it is stated that all the aforesaid landowners have now been employed in the hospital except, Mr. Neivotsolie’s family. 18. In the letter dated 24th October, 2024, written by the Chief Medical Officer, Kohima, to the Principal Director which is Annexure-III to the additional affidavit of the State respondents, a statement has been made that Mr. Duolie and Mr. Pfuzielie are not from the same father, but that they are distant brothers of the same clan i.e. Sere clan. In the list of landowners annexed to this letter, it is seen that all the four(4) landowners clan members have been given appointment w.e.f. 13.01.1988 till date. The appointment order of Shri. Pfuzielie Sere is brought on record by the respondent No. 5 in her counter-affidavit at Annexure-VIII. 19. This Court has also taken note of the admission made by the father of the present petitioner in WP(C)/164K/2001, wherein, the respondent Nos. 5 to 7, the petitioners’ father being respondent No. 7, had stated in their affidavit-in-opposition that equal appointments had been given to all the landowners by the Department. The writ petitioner has not filed any reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Government respondents as well as the respondent No. 5. It is a settled position of law that when a party fails to refute a specific contention or allegation made by the opposing party, it can be interpreted as an admission of that contention. Therefore, the failure to refute the contentions of the respondents would persuade this Court to draw an inference of admission. 20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for the interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the petition is dismissed.