The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed that state policies granting employment on land ownership grounds are exceptional and must comply with constitutional equality norms. Where such benefits have already been availed by a clan, repeated claims violate the principle of equal opportunity and cannot be sustained.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shri Aochuba s/o Shri Akangtemjen, a resident of Longsa Village, Mokokchung, Nagaland, challenged the Government of Nagaland’s approval dated 20.05.2025 for the appointment of Smti. Imtisungla Longkumer as a Grade-IV (Sweeper) at the Longsa Primary Health Centre (PHC). The appointment was made under a state policy allowing employment on the basis of land ownership. The petitioner, who also belonged to the same clan and had previously applied for the same post, contended that the appointment violated the state’s own policy and constitutional guarantees.
Key Facts
- The Longsa PHC was constructed on land donated by three clans: Mongosangdang Clan, Sempo Clan, and Kumbor Clan.
- Annexures 1 to 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition reveal that members of these three clans had previously availed appointments on land ownership basis - not once, but twice.
- The Government of Nagaland issued Notification dated 05.03.2018, which explicitly stated that appointments on land ownership basis cannot be claimed in perpetuity.
- The Notification further mandated that upon retirement or vacation of the post, vacancies must be filled through open advertisement to ensure equal opportunity.
- The petitioner applied for the same post before the appointment of Respondent No.7 and was rejected without reason.
- Respondent No.7, Smti. Imtisungla Longkumer, is a member of one of the three clans that had already benefited twice under the policy.
Procedural History
- 20.05.2025: Government of Nagaland approved appointment of Respondent No.7 to Grade-IV (Sweeper) post at Longsa PHC on land ownership basis.
- 27.05.2025: Writ Petition (WP(C)/91/2025) filed before the Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, challenging the appointment.
- 27.05.2026: Judgment pronounced by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Ashis Barua.
The Parties' Positions
Petitioner’s Position: The appointment of Respondent No.7 violates the 05.03.2018 Notification and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The three clans have already exhausted their entitlement under the policy. Granting another appointment to a member of the same clan amounts to arbitrary and discriminatory favoritism.
Respondents’ Position: The Government argued that the appointment was made in accordance with the land ownership policy and that the petitioner’s application was considered alongside Respondent No.7’s. However, the affidavit-in-opposition admitted that the three clans were not entitled to perpetual benefits under the 2018 Notification.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the appointment order dated 20.05.2025, direction for filling the post through open advertisement, and consideration of his application with age relaxation due to delay in adjudication.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the State can grant a second appointment on land ownership basis to a member of a clan that has already availed such benefits twice, in violation of its own Notification dated 05.03.2018, and whether such action violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the 05.03.2018 Notification clearly prohibited perpetual claims and required vacancies to be filled through open advertisement after the previous appointee vacated the post. Granting another appointment to a member of the same clan, after two prior benefits, amounted to arbitrariness and discrimination. Reliance was placed on Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to emphasize that even state policies must conform to constitutional equality. The petitioner’s application was ignored despite being filed earlier, and the selection process lacked transparency.
For the Respondent
The Government Advocate conceded that the three clans had already availed benefits twice under the policy and that the 2018 Notification barred perpetual claims. However, the State defended the appointment by claiming that the petitioner and Respondent No.7 were both considered, implying a fair process. This argument was internally contradictory, as the State had already admitted the clans were ineligible for further appointments.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that employment on land ownership basis is an exception to the constitutional mandate of equal opportunity under Articles 14 and 16. Such exceptions must be strictly construed and cannot be extended beyond their stated limits. The 05.03.2018 Notification was clear: appointments on land ownership basis are not perpetual, and once a post is vacated, it must be filled through open advertisement.
"The policy of the Government to grant employment on land ownership basis is an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Under such circumstances, when the very policy of the Government categorically mandates that the claim for appointment on land ownership basis cannot be made in perpetuity and after the land owner retires or vacates the post, the vacancy has to be filled up through open advertisement in consonance with the existing Government Policy giving equal opportunities to all the applicants..."
The Court found the Respondents’ conduct to be inconsistent and arbitrary. While the affidavit-in-opposition correctly stated that the three clans were ineligible for further appointments, the authorities proceeded to consider and approve a claim from the same clan. This contradiction rendered the decision legally unsustainable. The Court held that the appointment of Respondent No.7 was not merely procedurally flawed but substantively violative of the State’s own policy and constitutional norms.
The Verdict
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned communication dated 20.05.2025 approving the appointment of Respondent No.7 as Grade-IV (Sweeper) is set aside and quashed. The post shall be filled through open advertisement as per the Government’s policy. The petitioner, who was 34 years old at the time of filing and is now over 35, shall be considered for age relaxation if permissible under extant rules. The earlier interim order is vacated.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Land Ownership Appointments Are Not Entitlements
- Practitioners must challenge any repeat appointments under land ownership policies where the clan has already availed benefits twice or more.
- The burden shifts to the State to prove that the policy’s non-perpetuity clause was not violated.
- Any appointment made in contravention of a clear policy notification is voidable under Article 14.
Open Advertisement Is Mandatory After Vacancy
- Once a land ownership appointee retires or leaves, the post cannot be filled by nomination or internal recommendation.
- All such vacancies must be advertised publicly, with equal opportunity extended to all eligible candidates.
- Failure to advertise renders the appointment illegal, regardless of the candidate’s merit or background.
Age Relaxation May Be Granted Due to Judicial Delay
- Courts may direct relaxation of age limits for petitioners who were within the permissible age at the time of filing but have aged out due to prolonged litigation.
- This is an equitable remedy to prevent injustice caused by systemic delays in judicial redressal.
