Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
Tangmong S/o Pachi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Nagaland and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 340 of 2022
Decided On : 12-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. basis of the petitioners' qualifications and appointments (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. previous legal precedents regarding contract appointments (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. argued violations of recruitment procedures and fundamental rights (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. state's justification for contract appointments amid staffing shortages (Para 16 , 18 , 20) |
| 5. court's reasoning on maintainability and locus standi of the petitioners (Para 34 , 35 , 40) |
JUDGMENT :
YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER, J.
1. The brief facts of the petitioners case is that the petitioners 1 to 14 are all qualified unemployed youth of Nagaland with Masters degree and NET qualified in their own subjects:
The petitioner 1: MA Economics/NET
Petitioner 2: MA Economics/NET
Petitioner 3: MA Political science/NET
Petitioner 4: MA Political Science/NET
Petitioner 5: M.Sc Environmental Science/NET
Petitioner 6: M.Sc Environmental Science/NET
Petitioner 7: MA History/NET
Petitioner 8: MA History/NET
Petitioner 9: M.Ed/NET
Petitioner 10: M.Ed/NET
Petitioner 11: M.Ed/NET
Petitioner 12: M.A English/NET
Petitioner 13: M.A Sociology/NET
Petitioner 14: M.A Sociology/NET.
2. It is stated that the petitioners have come before this Court challenging the appointments of the private respondent Nos. 4 to 34as Assistant Professors allegedly through the backdoor without advertisement in violation of Office Memorandums dated 07.07.1976, 26.02.2001, 18.02.2004 and 06.06.2016. These Office Memos prohibit direct recruitment without publicly inviting applications for the post and have also banned appointment on contract basis.
3. The petitioners have also alleged that the private respondents did not have the requisite qualification of NET for appointment as Assistant Professor at the time of their appointment. Only respondent 23 had NET qualification but she also did not have M.Ed with at least 55% marks or MA Education with 55% marks with B.Ed The petitioners have therefore, come before this Court praying for a direction to quash and set aside the impugned appointment orders of respondents 4 to 34 and the extension order dated 4th July 2022 extending the services of the respondents 4 to 34. And also for a direction to requisition any sanctioned posts of Assistant Professors held by the respondent Nos. 4 to 34 to the NPSC for advertisement and also to advertise non sanctioned post of Assistant Professors held by the respondents4 to 34 in accordance with law. Subsequently, by an order dated 08.05.2023 the respondent no.22 has been struck off from the array of respondents.
4. I have learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Z. Zhimomi and also the learned government advocate, Mr. V. Zhimomi for the state respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Mr. L. Iralu for the respondent 9; Mr. A. Zho for respondents Nos. 4 to 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 32; and Mr. James Newmai for the respondents Nos. 7, 14, 19, 24, 26 and 31.
5. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an Association known as ACAUT had filed PIL No. 11/2015 before a Division Bench of this Court challenging the contract appointments made through the backdoor in violation of Service Rules and without advertisement. It is stated that during the pendency of the PIL No. 11/2015, the State Government produced before the Court the Office Memorandum No. AR- 5/ASSO/98 dated 06.06.2016 which has banned appointment on contract basis. And the State respondents had also submitted that henceforth any appointment on contract basis shall be null and void and timely vacancies shall be requisitioned to the NPSC. In view of such submission, the Court closed the PIL by an Order dated 05.08.2016 granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Court if the O.M dated 06.06.2016 was violated by the State respondents.
6. It is the submission of the learned counsel that even after the order dated 05.06.2016 passed by this Court in PIL No. 11/2016, the State Government continued the contract appointments and therefore,
Public appointments must adhere to transparency and fairness principles under Articles 14 and 16, and petitioners lacking qualifying status cannot challenge others' appointments legally.
Public appointments must follow transparent processes and respect established regulations; the court dismissed petitions due to lack of maintainability and proper standing.
Employers must clearly specify the nature of appointments in job advertisements; failure to do so leads to regularization of initially contractual positions when recruitment processes are followed.
Appointments to public posts must be made through a transparent process involving public advertisement to ensure equality of opportunity as mandated by the Constitution.
Appointments in public service must adhere to the order of merit as recommended by the relevant authority, and back-door entries are impermissible.
Point of law; It is clearly clarified in this judgment also in line with the earlier judgments also that unless and until the original appointment is a “regular recruitment” in accordance with “the r....
Appointments to public posts must follow a transparent recruitment process, including advertisement, to uphold constitutional rights to equality and fair opportunity.
Appointments in public service must adhere to constitutional mandates and established procedures; failure to do so renders such appointments void.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
