Dimapur, June 22 (MExN): In a judgment, which is expected to have an impact on similar cases, the Guwahati High Court has passed a judgment on June 9, 2011 quashing the appointment of one person at the Primary Health Center at Tening, Peren. A note made available to media by the petitioner of the writ, Bialakbo Zeliang stated that the concerned person was temporarily appointed to the post on May 24, 2006 and his appointment was challenged in W.P (C) 164 (K)/06 by the former who is a land donor candidate.
The grievance of the petitioner Bialakbo Zeliang is that he is one of the landowners of Tening Village who donated his land for extension of Tening Village where the present PHC is located.
Moreover, as the government has decided to pursue special preference to land donors while recruiting Grade III and Grade IV staff in various departments of the state, the petitioner was expecting that he would be provided the special preference. The writ petition was filed by Bialakbo Zeliang and the respondents included the State government of Nagaland. The note has stated that Justice U. B Saha made the judgment and order after observing that the appointment was made at the instance of ‘the then Minster of Health and Family Welfare.’ Their appointee having been appointed by flouting the employment policy as prescribed under the constitution and without following the constitutional schemes, which it stated “is a product of favoritism and nepotism.”
The grievance of the petitioner Bialakbo Zeliang is that he is one of the landowners of Tening Village who donated his land for extension of Tening Village where the present PHC is located.
Moreover, as the government has decided to pursue special preference to land donors while recruiting Grade III and Grade IV staff in various departments of the state, the petitioner was expecting that he would be provided the special preference. The writ petition was filed by Bialakbo Zeliang and the respondents included the State government of Nagaland. The note has stated that Justice U. B Saha made the judgment and order after observing that the appointment was made at the instance of ‘the then Minster of Health and Family Welfare.’ Their appointee having been appointed by flouting the employment policy as prescribed under the constitution and without following the constitutional schemes, which it stated “is a product of favoritism and nepotism.”
