Gauhati High Court - Kohima
Shri Kiyelho Aye vs State Of Nagaland And 4 Ors on 23 March, 2026
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC020003232025 2026:GAU-NL:147
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : WP(C)/103/2025
SHRI KIYELHO AYE
S/O SHRI LATE PUKIYE AYE, VEKUHO NEW VILLAGE, BPO ATOIZU,
DISTRICT- ZUNHEBOTO, NAGALAND
VERSUS
STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
NAGALAND
2:THE COMMISIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPT. OF PERSONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
NAGALAND KOHIMA
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPT. OF HORTICULTURE
NAGALAND KOHIMA
4:THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT HORTICULTURE
NAGALAND KOHIMA
5:SMTI. GHONILI SEMA
MULTI-TASKING STAFF (MTS)
DISTRICT HORTICULTURE OFFFICE
ZUNHEBOTO
NAGALAND
Advocate for the Petitioner : Z. ZHIMOMI, NEWTON ZHIMOMI,KUPULI SWU,T.
SHANGCHIU,S K ACHUMI
Page No.# 2/7
Advocate for the Respondent : BICHANO KITHAN, GOVT ADV NL,
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
ORDER
23.03.2026 Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Ms. Bichano Kithan, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 5.
3. The Petitioner herein has approached this Court being aggrieved by the non-consideration of the case of the Petitioner for being appointed as a Multi Tasking Staff (MTS) in the establishment of the Respondent No. 4 in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018. It is also the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 5 was regularized to the said post and thereby depriving the Petitioner's right to be appointed in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018.
4. The brief facts of the case as it appears from the materials on record are that in the year 1975, in pursuance to the Oral Agreement, the Chophimi clan, Yepthomi clan and Ayemi clan, from Vekuho (Old) and Vekuho (New) Villages donated their plots of land for the establishment of Atoizu Horticulture Farm. It was agreed at that point of time that appointments will be given to the families of those clans who have donated the land.
5. It is the case of the Petitioner that amongst the three clans who have Page No.# 3/7 donated, the Chophimi and the Yepthomi clans have already availed appointments, however, Ayemi clan, to which the Petitioner belongs, did not avail any appointment.
6. In that regard, the counsel for the Petitioner have referred to minutes of the meeting of the three clans, wherein it was resolved that the Ayemi clan should be given an opportunity for the post of Mali vacated by the death of Late Hekhuvi Yepthomi who expired on 17.06.2021. The Petitioner also submitted an application claiming the said appointment in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018 and the said application so filed was also recommended by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Atoizu, Nagaland, to the Director of Department of Horticulture. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the application of the Petitioner was not considered whereas the vacancy was filled up by regularizing the Respondent No. 5. It is under such circumstance the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the present writ petition on 18.06.2025.
7. The record reveals that the Respondent Authorities have filed their Affidavit-in-Opposition. In the said Affidavit-in-Opposition it is mentioned that the Respondent No. 5 have been working as an MTS (Casual) for nearly 31 (thirty one) years and as such, she was entitled to be regularized against the vacant post in terms with the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 22.09.2004. It is also mentioned that the Respondent No. 5 having already served nearly 31 (thirty one) years as of 21.01.2023 she was regularized in terms with the OMs dated 22.09.2004 and 17.03.2015. In addition to that, it is also mentioned that at paragraph No. 6 of the said Affidavit-in-Opposition that the Petitioner herein is not entitled to the claim Page No.# 4/7 for appointment on land ownership inasmuch as it is the very case of the Petitioner at paragraph No. 3 that employments have been availed by the Yepthomi and Chophimi clans and in terms with Clause 3(c) of the Notification dated 05.03.2018 employment to landowners in perpetuity is not a policy of the State.
8. In pursuance to the said Affidavit-in-Opposition, an Affidavit-in-Reply was filed by the Petitioner wherein it is mentioned that there were three clans who had donated the land. The clan of the Petitioner had donated almost 61/2 acres of land. It is further the case of the Petitioner in the said Affidavit-in-Reply that the Atoizhu Horticulture Farm is established in a plot of land which is around 191/2 acres which were donated by the three clans, namely Yepthomi, Chophimi and Ayemi Clans and the Petitioner's clan have not till date availed any appointment. It is also stated in the said Affidavit-in-Reply that as the Respondent No. 5 would be retiring on 30.11.2027 in terms with the Nagaland Retirement From Public Employment (Second Amendment) Act, 2009 and as such the case of the Petitioner should be considered for appointment on land ownership basis against the vacancy which would arise then.
9. This Court have heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.
10. The grievance of the Petitioner herein is two-fold:-
i) First, non-consideration of the Petitioner's claim in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018 in respect to the post which fell vacant upon the death of Late Hekhuvi Yepthomi.
Page No.# 5/7
ii) Second, the regularization of the Respondent No. 5 against the vacancy which arose out of the death of Late Hekhuvi Yepthomi.
11. It is relevant to take note of that in the State of Nagaland, the Government of Nagaland have formulated various policies for granting appointment as well as for regularization. The Notification dated 22.09.2004 is a Notification for regularization of Work-charged and Casual Employees against vacancy when it arises. The OM dated 17.03.2015 is for regularization of Work-charged and Casual Employees who have completed 30 (thirty) years of service and was on scale of pay. In the case of regularization in terms with the OM dated 17.03.2015, the employee is regularized by creating a supernumerary post personal to the employee and upon his/her retirement, the said supernumerary post ceases to exist.
12. The Government of Nagaland also has a policy for granting appointment on land ownership basis in respect to those Written or Oral Agreements which existed prior to 26.07.2005 wherein lands were donated and promises were made by the State or its representatives to grant employment to the family members of the donor.
13. In the backdrop of the above, this Court, now takes note of the facts in the present case that the Respondent No. 5 who had rendered service as an MTS (Casual) for nearly 31 (thirty one) years was regularized against the vacancy which arose on account of the death of Late Hekhuvi Yepthomi. The same having been done in terms with the OM dated 22.09.2004 the question of interference with such regularization of Respondent No. 5 does not arise.
Page No.# 6/7
14. Be that as it may, the claim of the Petitioner is on the basis of the Notification dated 05.03.2018. From the materials on record and more particularly the recommendation made by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Atoizu it appears that there was a recommendation made that the Petitioner should be considered for appointment as the Petitioner belongs to one of the clans who have not availed any appointment.
15. The Respondents, however, in the Affidavit stated that out of the three clans who have donated the land, two of the clans have already availed appointment. The Petitioner also do not deny the same inasmuch as the same aspect is apparent from Annexure-A to the writ petition itself.
16. The question, however, arises as to whether the Petitioner's clan would be entitled to avail an opportunity of employment having donated some portion of the land for the establishment of Atoizu Horticulture Farm. This aspect would require a consideration on a factual aspect as to whether the Petitioner's clan had earlier availed appointment on land ownership basis.
17. Accordingly, this writ petition, therefore, stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
i) The challenge to the regularization of the Respondent No. 5 vide the Order dated 17.01.2023 is rejected.
ii) From the materials on record, it appears that the Respondent No. 5 is to retire on 30.11.2027 and a resultant vacancy would be created.
This Court directs the Respondent No. 4 to consider the case of the Page No.# 7/7 Petitioner for appointment in terms with the Notification dated 05.03.2018 upon such resultant vacancy created.
iii) It is observed that the Respondent No. 4 be at liberty to obtain necessary inputs from the Deputy Commissioner, Zunheboto, Nagaland while considering the case of the Petitioner.
iv) This Court further observes that while considering the case of the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 4 shall also give due regard to the Communication dated 30.06.2021, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Atoizu, Nagaland, to the Director, Department of Horticulture, Nagaland.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant