VETHITA MEDOE Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have filed the present writ petition with the following prayer: -

(2.) HEARD Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents.

(3.) MR . S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were appointed to the post of LDA -cum -Computer Assistant (Directorate) Class -III NonGazetted by an order dated 05 -07 -2011. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed to the post of LDA -cum -Computer Assistant (Directorate) Class -III Non -Gazetted by an order dated 07 -06 - 2012 and the petitioner No. 4 was also appointed to the post of LDA -cum -Computer Assistant (Directorate) Class -III NonGazetted by an order dated 04 -01 -2013. By the aforesaid orders, the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were appointed on contract basis for a period of one year and the petitioner No. 4 was also appointed on contract basis for a period of six months. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the respondent No. 4 i.e the Director, Directorate of Women Resources Development, Nagaland, Kohima had issued an advertisement dated 05 -07 -2014, inviting applications for recruitment to the post of LDA -cum -Computer Assistant under the Directorate of Women Resource Development. As the advertisement was vague, more particularly, with regard to reservation, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of a Writ Petition which was registered as W.P (C) No. 138 (K) of 2014. Thereafter, the said writ petition was disposed by a judgment and order dated 05 -02 -2015 by which the respondents in the said writ petition were permitted to publish a readvertisement/corrigendum indicating all relevant information such as qualification, age and reservation etc. He also submits that the respondents had issued an O.M dated 04 -08 -2008 providing for regularization of contract/adhoc appointment against sanctioned posts. By the said O.M, the contract employees having completed three years of continuous service of contract/adhoc would be eligible for regularization against sanctioned posts. He submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have completed three years of service, however, the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are yet to complete three years of continuous service on contract/adhoc basis. He, therefore, submits that despite the direction given by this Court permitting the State respondents for issuing a readvertisement/corrigendum, the State respondents are yet to conduct screening test as stipulated under the O.M dated 04 - 08 -2008 more particularly when the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have completed three years of continuous contract service. He further submits that as the State respondents has already formulated a policy under the O.M dated 04 -08 -2008, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 should be considered for regularization in tune with the said O.M before proceeding with the readvertisement/corrigendum as permitted by this Court by judgment and order dated 05 -02 -2015. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the Nagaland Directorate Ministerial Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2006' ) more particularly to Rule 7 which provides for direct recruitment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stressed on Rule 7 (i) (3), which provides that principles underlying direct recruitment to various categories of posts shall be in accordance with the executive instructions/policy decision issued in this behalf by the Government from time to time including reservation for Backward Tribe/Person with disabilities.