LISEPI SANGTAM Vs. STATE OF NAGALAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS the facts of the case and the questions arose for decision are almost the same, both the writ petitions are taken together for hearing and disposal.

(2.) HEARD Mr. C. T. Jamir, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B. N. Sarma, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Apok Pongener, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) THE State respondents by filing their counter-affidavit denied the whole allegations contending, inter alia, that the alleged appointment letters were issued by one Lilongse Sangtam, the then Superintendent of Police, Kiphire without following any procedure for recruitment of the constables laid down by the State Government and the alleged appointments were also beyond the sanctioned strength of constabulary in the District. It is also contended that Lilongse Sangtam, the then S. P. acted beyond his jurisdiction and issued appointment letters violating the Govt. Circular dated 23. 12. 1995 (Annexure-R 2 to the counter-affidavit) wherein it has been specifically mentioned that Unit Commander should form a Board of Officers of his unit to conduct such recruitments in which invariably the RMO of the Unit should be included. The District Ss. P. may requisition the service of the Battalion RMO whenever required and the recruitment of the constable should take place only once a year and at no other point of time piecemeal recruitments should be made even in the event of any vacancy arising through discharge/dismissal or death and the PHQ should be informed the date and time when such recruitments is to be carried out and accordingly the Unit Commander should make wide publicity for recruitment so that the Department can have best available material for such recruitments. In the instant case, the alleged appointing authority, Mr. Lilongse Sangtam did not take any step prescribed by the aforesaid circular dated 23. 12. 1995 (Annexure R-2) issued by the Director General of Police, Nagaland, Kohima. It has also been mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the appointment orders of the petitioners were made not for the public interest, but for the personal interest of Mr. Lilongse Sangtam, the then S. P. violating the public employment policy, for which, the Govt. initiated a disciplinary proceeding against him on the charge of making illegal and fraudulent appointment of constables like the petitioners in the District Executive Force, Kiphire in absence of sanctioned strength, but during the course of the said proceeding, Mr. Sangtam expired for which, the said proceeding could not be completed. In paragraph-6 of the counter-affidavit, it is specifically stated that it is false even to the knowledge of the petitioners that they or any of them had undergone the medical fitness test required for recruitment of constables which is a must for recruitment/appointment of constables to the Nagaland Police. As such, the appointment orders issued by Mr. Lilongse Sangtam were fraudulent as the same were issued surreptitiously behind the back of the Nagaland Police head quarters and the Government of Nagaland. Not only that, at that relevant time, there was also no vacancy. It is also contended in the counter-affidavit that the recruit constables are appointed only after advertisement and selection by a Recruitment Board and soon thereafter they are sent to the Police Training Centre at Chumukidema for basic training course. In the instant case, the present petitioners were not appointed following the prescribed procedure and were never sent to any training centre as required under law. It is also stated that the total sanctioned strength of the unit at all relevant times was, and has been, 108 and strength of the constabulary in the District Executive Force was, and has been, 77 only and that strength was exceeded to the extreme in the private interest of Mr. Lilongse Sangtam, the then Superintendent of Police, Kiphire. Long after on 14. 7. 2006, the new incumbent Shri K. Mero who joined as Superintendent of Police, Kiphire submitted a report dated 21. 8. 2006 in detail to the higher authority wherein it was stated that the appointments of the petitioners were illegal and in excess of the strength as prescribed for the District and without following the employment policies. Hence, these appointments were also illegal in the eye of law. Not only that, there was also no financial sanction for such appointment. Therefore, the petitioners have no right either legal or statutory or otherwise to get any benefit from the said fraudulent and illegal action of an officer who had issued the appointment letters of the petitioners without any authority or jurisdiction, but for his private interest.