Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2024 DAILYLAW 2195 (GAU)

MISS HOKANI CHOPHY v. STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS

WP(C)/259/2024 · 2026-06-01

Devashis Baruah

Writ Petition (Civil)body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/5 GAHC020006922024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/259/2024 MISS HOKANI CHOPHY D/IO SHRI VIKHESHE CHOPHY R/O NEW NEPALI GAON, SUGHUNA BAPTIST CHURCH SUB-POST OFFICE BOX NO. 7 P.O. DIMAPUR, P.S. WEST DIMAPUR NAGALAND VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND KOHIMA NAGALAND 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SCERT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT. NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER KIPHIRE NAGALAND 5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER KIPHIRE NAGALAND 6:THE CHAIRMAN SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CHANGCHOR VILLAGE KIPHIRE NAGALAN Page No.# 2/5 For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Surien, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Angami, Sr. Govt. Advocate BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 02.06.2026 Heard Mr. P. Surien, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Angami, the learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State respondents. 2. The petitioner herein who is working as a Substitute Graduate Teacher in the Government Middle School at Changchor Village, Kiphire, has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay the petitioner the regular scale of pay which a Graduate Teacher is entitled to on the ground that the petitioner has rendered, as on the date of filing of the writ petition, 12 years of service without any break. 3. This Court duly takes note of that the qualification for appointment as a Graduate Teacher is stipulated under the Nagaland School Education Page No.# 3/5 Service Rules, 2017 (for short, “the Rules of 2017”), more particularly under Rule 7(B)(II). The said Rule, being relevant, is reproduced herein under: “II. The required educational qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of Graduate Teacher in various subjects shall be as follows:- (a) Graduate/Post Graduate with at least 50% marks (or an equivalent degree) relaxable by 5% for Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste/differently abled candidates, in either Graduation or Post Graduation at the Bachelor's degree level in the relevant subject from a recognized university; (b) Bachelor of Education (B.Ed), B.A.Ed/ B.Sc.Ed from any National Council of Teacher Education recognized institution; and (c) Besides fulfilling the above qualification, the candidate must have cleared the State Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the SCERT.” 4. This Court inquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner presently has the qualifications required in terms with Rule 7(B)(II) of the Rules of 2017, which has been quoted hereinabove. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner is a graduate, but does not possess a B.Ed. or B.A.Ed. or B.Sc.Ed. degree Page No.# 4/5 from an institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, nor has the petitioner qualified in the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the SCERT. The learned counsel, however, submitted that in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust & Ors reported in 2026 INSC 597, the petitioner still has time to qualify in the TET examination up to 31.08.2028. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the objections raised by the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner would not like to further pursue with the present writ petition with a liberty that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition should not prejudice the petitioner’s right to approach this Court again after obtaining the necessary qualifications as is required for appointment of a Graduate Teacher. 6. Considering the submissions made, this Court closes the instant writ petition on withdrawal. 7. This Court, however, observes that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall neither prejudice nor preclude the petitioner from approaching this Court, subject to the petitioner obtaining the qualifications as is mandated under Rule 7(B)(II) of the Rules of Page No.# 5/5 2017, if so advised. Sd/- JUDGE Comparing Assistant