Court seeks details of overall appointment status; next hearing Sept 23
Morung Express News
Dimapur | September 17
The Gauhati High Court Kohima Bench (GHCKB) on September 16 admitted a batch of writ appeals challenging the dismissal of petitions concerning the continued appointment of Assistant Professors on contractual/fixed-pay basis in Nagaland’s government colleges.
A Division Bench of Justice Devashis Baruah and Justice Helen Daungliani said the appeals would have to be considered on their merits, including the legality of the Single Judge’s finding on the petitioners’ locus standi. The batch has been fixed for further hearing on September 23, 2026.
The appeals arise from a November 12, 2025 judgment (hpyperlink https://morungexpress.com/nagaland-hc-dismisses-pleas-challenging-assistant-professor-appointments-on-technicality) in which the Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the grounds of maintainability and locus standi, without entering into the merits of the challenge.
The petitioners were, however, given liberty to file appropriate and separate writ petitions.
The Single Judge had also taken note of the continuation of contractual or interim arrangements and observed that such arrangements should not continue indefinitely.
The State was expected to take a decision regarding creation of Assistant Professor posts and, once created, fill them through due process of law.
During Wednesday’s hearing, counsel for the appellants submitted that the core issue concerned the continuation of contractual appointments without following the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which respectively provide for ‘equality before law’ and ‘equality of opportunity in public employment.’
The appellants also disputed the finding that they lacked locus standi because extension orders had not been challenged, submitting that some extension orders had in fact been assailed.
The State, meanwhile, submitted that there were a total of 636 Assistant Professor posts, comprising 491 regular and 145 fixed-pay positions.
The Bench, however, noted that the document relied upon by the State was a summary sheet covering employees under several categories, including contract, ad hoc, fixed pay, work charged, casual, contingency, temporary and regular.
Accordingly, the Court fix the batch of Writ Appeals for hearing again on September 23 and directed the Additional Advocate General to obtain instructions on the total number of regular vacancies of Assistant Professors, the number of persons appointed on contractual basis, the number of regular posts filled and the number lying vacant.
Background
The dispute stems from longstanding challenges to contractual appointments in Nagaland. The issue first reached the GHCKB through PIL No. 11/2015, filed by ACAUT, challenging contractual appointments allegedly made through the “backdoor” without advertisement.
During the proceedings, the State produced an Office Memorandum dated June 6, 2016, banning contractual appointments and stated that future contractual appointments would be treated as null and void and vacancies would be requisitioned to the NPSC.
The PIL was closed on August 5, 2016, with liberty to approach the Court if the OM was violated.
A broader challenge followed in WPC No. 145/2017, filed by ACAUT and the Public Service Aspirants Nagaland (PSAN), concerning 706 contractual appointments across 32 departments. The petition was dismissed on maintainability grounds on August 3, 2018, with liberty to file separate petitions for the respective departments. The State was also directed not to regularise persons who had completed three years of continuous contract/ad hoc service under the relevant Office Memoranda. An appeal against the judgment, WA No. 16/2018, was dismissed on February 7, 2019.
Subsequently, the Nagaland NET Qualified Forum (NNQF) subsequently challenged the contractual appointment of 208 Assistant Professors through WPC Nos. 12/2019 and 65/2019. These petitions were dismissed on maintainability grounds on June 6, 2022, as the Court found that in some of the disciplines under challenge there were no qualified petitioners in the respective subjects. The petitioners were given liberty to file fresh petitions.
Against this backdrop, NNQF members filed WPC No. 340/2022, challenging the appointment of contractual/fixed-pay Assistant Professors.
The petitioners alleged that appointments had been made without advertisement and, in some cases, without the requisite qualifications. They relied, among other provisions, on the State’s recruitment-related Office Memoranda, the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules and constitutional requirements of equality and fair opportunity in public employment.
Meanwhile, further petitions added and tagged together, raising similar grievances concerning contractual Assistant Professor appointments in different disciplines.
As in WPC No. 340/2022, the challenges included the legality of appointments and their continued extensions, with the petitioners seeking regular recruitment against the posts.
The State, however, maintained that the contractual Assistant Professors were appointed as temporary, stop-gap arrangements to meet shortages in government colleges and were not appointed against sanctioned posts. It said vacant sanctioned posts had been requisitioned to the NPSC, while additional fixed-pay appointments were made to address academic exigencies, including requirements arising from Nagaland University regulations for postgraduate programmes.
In its November 12, 2025 judgment, Justice Yarenjungla Longkumer did not adjudicate the merit of the appointments but dismissed the pleas on grounds of maintainability and locus standi.
The Court, among other things, noted that most petitioners were not qualified for appointment when the private respondents were initially engaged, that subsequent extension orders had generally not been challenged, and that distinct causes of action had been combined in the petition.
The petitioners were permitted to file fresh, properly framed petitions if they wished to pursue the matter further.
The judgment nevertheless made observations on the continuing contractual arrangements. Justice Longkumer noted that “Contract or interim arrangements are being continued till date” and stated that such arrangements should not continue indefinitely. The State was expected to take a decision on creation of Assistant Professor posts and, once created, fill them through due process of law.
Against this longer litigation history, the September 16, 2026 hearing brings the challenge arising from the November 12 judgment before a Division Bench, with the issues of maintainability and locus standi now being considered further along with the substantive questions raised by the appellants.
.jpg)
