Morung Express News
Dimapur | August 10
The Kohima Bench of the Gauhati High Court has dismissed a petition filed by 84 Postgraduate Teachers (PGTs) challenging the seniority and promotions of contractual teachers in Nagaland, holding that the challenge was barred by delay and laches.
Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer, on August 10, dismissed WP(C)/230/2025 filed by 84 PGTs noting among others the petitioners had failed to satisfactorily explain the inordinate delay in approaching the Court and that entertaining the matter would unsettle a seniority position that had attained finality.
The Court, however, did not express any opinion on the merits of their claims.
The petitioners, appointed as PGTs through the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) in 2011, had challenged the regularisation of 23 teachers who were initially appointed on contract between 2000 and 2003. They contended that the regularisation was contrary to the Nagaland School Education Service Revised Rules, 2002, which did not provide for contractual appointment or regularisation through the Cabinet.
The petitioners also challenged their placement below the private respondents in successive seniority lists and sought to set aside the promotion of 12 of the private respondents to the post of Vice-Principal in June 2026.
The State, however, submitted that the private respondents had been appointed on contract owing to an acute shortage of subject teachers following the upgradation of Government High Schools to Higher Secondary Schools. It said their regularisation followed a suitability test conducted under a 2007 Government office memorandum applicable to contract and ad-hoc employees who had completed more than three years of continuous service. The State said the Cabinet subsequently approved their regularisation with effect from January 18, 2011.
The Court noted that the private respondents had been appointed much before the petitioners and that their appointments were against sanctioned posts.
It also referred to an earlier judgment of the High Court in 2014, which directed that the regularisation of the private respondents be counted from January 18, 2011.
A key consideration was the seniority lists issued in 2011, 2016 and 2018, which placed the petitioners below the private respondents. The Court noted that the memorandum accompanying the May 11, 2018 tentative seniority list had provided one month for objections.
However, the petitioners had failed to show that they had submitted any representation against the list.
The Court held that the seniority list had attained finality and could not be unsettled through a belated challenge, observing that the petitioners had approached the Court only after the private respondents became eligible for promotion ahead of them.
The Court further held that the challenge to appointments dating back to 2000–2003 was also brought after an excessive lapse of time. Referring to Supreme Court precedents, it reiterated that settled seniority should not ordinarily be reopened after a reasonable period.
"Entertaining the claim at this belated stage would unsettle matters which have attained finality with the passage of time," the Bench observed, dismissing the writ petition on grounds of delay and laches with no order as to costs.
Three contractors discharged in HC complex case
In a separate judgment pronounced on July 31, the Kohima Bench discharged Thepfusatuo Rio and two partners of M/s Hexad Syndicate from a CBI case over alleged excess payment in the construction of the High Court Road at Kohima.
The firm had received a Rs 5.82-crore work order in 2008 for a 2-km road and footpath. The CBI alleged excess payment arising from incorrect measurements, initially pegged at Rs 1.30 crore in the FIR and later at Rs 29.68 lakh in the chargesheet.
The High Court found no prima facie material that the contractors had manipulated the Measurement Book, knowingly submitted false claims or acted dishonestly. While prosecution sanction had been refused for the government engineers allegedly involved, the Court said this did not by itself rule out conspiracy, but found no independent evidence of any agreement or “meeting of minds” between the contractors and engineers.
The Court held that the delay in completing the work could amount to a contractual breach but did not attract criminal liability in the circumstances. It consequently quashed the trial court’s discharge and charge orders and discharged all three petitioners.
