Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040018652025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/534/2025 Miss Sonali Heyo Daughter of Shri Tabo Heyo, resident of Tato, PO and SP Tato, Shi Yomi District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Commissioner (Education), Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar. 2:The Under Secretary (Education-II) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar. 3:The Under Secretary (Education) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Civil Secretariat Itanagar. 4:The Director of Elementary Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 5:The Deputy Director of School Education Age: 0 Page No.# 2/5 Occupation : Anjaw District Anjaw Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, Liya Keche,Tony Meto,Yasmin Gao,Mepe Ete,Nyali Sora Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum, SC (Education) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS ORDER Date : 13-11-2025 Heard Mr. M. Kato, learned counsel for the petitioner who has invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 seeking writ/direction with regard to the grievance of being terminated from service without complying with the principles of natural justice and seeking interference with the same by way of re-instatement, as well, in service. 2. The writ petitioner has impleaded 5 (five) respondents, who are represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, Mr. T. Tagum. 3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has a limited prayer at this stage – that, without going deep into the merits of the matter, perhaps the matter can be remanded back to the respondent authorities for verification and reconsideration of the case of the petitioner - as is stated to have been done in the case of some similarly situated persons. 4. Before proceeding further, it may be mentioned herein that the petitioner was working as Primary Teacher (PRT) under the Directorate of Elementary Page No.# 3/5 Education, Department of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioner was appointed in the year 2018. 5. It is contended that however, vide Order No.EED-12015/5/2023, dated 16.11.2023 issued by the respondent no.2 being the Under Secretary (Education-II), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, the petitioner was terminated from service. 6. Highly aggrieved by such termination, the petitioner along with similarly situated persons, submitted representation on 28.11.2023 and 29.11.2023 before the respondent authority for review and reconsideration of the termination order and for re-instatement but it is contended that the same remains unattended by the respondent authorities till date. In this backdrop, the writ petition has been filed. 7. All the respondents have filed the common affidavit-in-opposition. The learned counsel for the petitioner side has filed an additional affidavit and the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to an order dated 17.12.2024, passed by the Commissioner of Education to the Government of Arunachal, Itanagar, which is annexed as Annexure-2 of the additional affidavit. 8. In this context, the learned counsel submits that vide the said order, the case of termination of 4(four) similarly situated persons was reconsidered and they were directed to be reinstated. The relevant portion may be reproduced herein below:- “WHEREAS, after thorough verification of all the records, it is found that the appointment of these MTS were made on the basis of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) conducted at district level. However, approval from the competent authority was not taken which is a Page No.# 4/5 procedural lapse. NOW THEREFORE, considering the genuineness of the cases and the recommendation of verification committee for illegal appointment, the authority has decided to revoke the termination order of the following Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) and reinstate their service.” 9. The learned counsel submits that, as already mentioned at the outset, his limited prayer is that the matter be remanded back to the respondent authority, more specially the Commissioner of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh for considering the case of the petitioner on similar lines and pass necessary orders upon verification. 10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department fairly submits that such a course of action can be adopted and without going into the merits of the matter - the writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on similar lines and if upon verification, his case is found to be meritorious on the lines of the other persons indicated, he will be entitled to the benefits as per law. 11. Upon perusing the materials and given my consideration of the matter, this Court is also agreeable to dispose of the writ petition on suggested lines by both the learned counsels. 12. Accordingly, the respondent no.1, being the learned Commissioner & Secretary, Education to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, shall take up for consideration, the case of the petitioner herein and conduct the necessary verification regarding the nature of his appointment and based on the outcome of such a process - pass necessary speaking orders, as per law and also considering the aspect of parity with similarly situated persons. 13. For this purpose, the writ petitioner shall submit a copy of this order Page No.# 5/5 before the respondent authority. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms. 14. Needless to say, that upon such consideration and order if the petitioner have any further grievances, he will be at liberty to invoke the options provided by law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant