Page No. 1/3 GAHC020008342025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/235/2025 SHRI TEMSUKUMZUK PONGEN AND ANR SON OF SHRI IMKONGRAMOKPONGEN R/O JAKHAMA KOHIMA NAGALAND MOBILE NUMBER 8119049897 VERSUS STATE OF NAGALAND AND 11 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF NAGALAND. Advocate for : Z. ZHIMOMI Advocate for : GOVT ADV NL appearing for STATE OF NAGALAND AND 11 ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER Date : 10.12.2025 [Manish Choudhury, J.] Heard Ms. Z. Zhimomi, learned counsel for the applicants-appellants; Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland for the opposite party-respondent nos. 1 - 4; Ms. Imlirenla, learned counsel for the opposite party-respondent nos. 5, 6 & 9; Ms. Menosenuo, learned counsel for the opposite party-respondent nos. 7, 8, 10 & 11; and Mr. I. Jamir, learned counsel Page No. 2/3 for the opposite party-respondent no. 12. 2. The instant interlocutory application is preferred by the applicants seeking stay of the operation of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2025 passed in a writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 188/2023, which is assailed in the accompanying writ appeal, Writ Appeal no. 45/2025. 3. The applicants as the writ petitioners, had preferred the writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 188/2023 stating that they are Master Degree holders and NET qualified candidates in their own subjects. In the writ petition, they challenged the appointments of the private respondent nos. 4 - 12, who have been impleaded herein as the opposite party-respondent nos. 4 - 12 in the accompanying writ appeal, as Assistant Professors allegedly appointed through backdoor without advertisement and in violation of various Office Memoranda laying down the essential qualifications for appointment as Assistant Professors. 4. The learned Single Judge has, however, dismissed the writ petition observing that the writ petition contained several and distinct causes of action and therefore, the writ petition cannot be held as maintainable. The learned Single Judge has further observed that several writ petitions ought to have been filed with an observation that if one or some of the writ petitioners in a writ petition filed together would lack locus, the petition would be liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition on the ground of maintainability and locus, has observed that the petitioners have the liberty to file appropriate and separate writ petitions in accordance with law, if so advised. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the contract/interim arrangements which are being continued till that day should not be continued indefinitely, meaning thereby, the interim arrangement should be stopped. The learned Single Judge has further observed that the said respondents should take a call in the matter with regard creation of posts of Assistant Professions and upon being created, the same should be filled up by Page No. 3/3 following due process of law. 6. The learned counsel for the applicants has pressed for a stay of the operation of the entire impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2025. If a stay order on the operation of the entire impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2025 is passed, the State respondents would be provided that the liberty to continue with the interim arrangements with the Assistant Professors, who are allegedly lacking the essential qualifications. An interim order of the stay would create a situation on the operation of the impugned Judgment and Order would prevent the State respondents from taking any decision to create the posts of Assistant Professors and to fill up the created posts by following due process of law. Having regard to the principles embedded in Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India vis-à-vis the prayer for stay of the operation of the impugned Judgment and Order, this Court is of the considered view that the stay of the entire impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is not called for. The issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition and lack of locus of any of the writ petitioners can only be considered at the stage of hearing of the accompanying writ appeal wherein the notice has already been issued by an order passed today. 7. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to pass any interim order stay of the impugned Judgment and Order dated 12.11.2025. Resultantly, the instant interlocutory application is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant