Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Page No.# 1/4 GAHC040020762025
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/594/2025 Nabam Reekam and 5 Ors Son of Late Nabam Runchi, Nargang Village, PO and PS Doimukh, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as Headmaster, Govt Secondary School, mini, Doimukh. 2: Phassang Sama Age: Occupation : Son of Late Phassang Tania Village Banderdewa Dapo Colony PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as Vice Principal Govt Higher Secondary School Doimukh. 3: Toko Tubi Age: Occupation : Son of Late Toko Reka Talo Village PO and PS Yachuli Keyi Panyor District Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as Vice Principal Govt Higher Secondary School Talo. 4: Dakme Abo Age: Occupation : Son of Late Dakme Taya Guchi Village PO and PS Tali Kra Daadi District
Page No.# 2/4 Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as Vice Principal Govt Higher Secondary School Boasimla Kamle District Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Tadar Tai Age: Occupation : Son of Late Tai Tabak Pagba Village PO and PS Doimukh Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as DDSE in Charge Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh 6: Likha Togur Age: Occupation : Son of Likha Tacho PO and PS Yazali Keyi Panyor District Arunachal Pradesh and presently serving as DAEO in the Office of the Director of Secondary Education Itanagar VERSUS The State of AP and Anr represented by the Commissioner (Education), Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director of Secondary Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Advocate for the Petitioner : T T Tara, Pondit Ronya,Y Mugli,Kirmani Lollen,Khoda Apa,Terji Kamchi,Taba Tokur,Gamken Bam Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum, SC (Education)
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG
Page No.# 3/4 ORDER Date : 18-12-2025 Heard Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department. 2.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, 6(six) in numbers, who are presently serving as Headmaster, Vice Principals and District Adult Education Officer (DAEO) in the Department of Education of Arunachal Pradesh seeking inter alia direction to the respondent authorities to correct the seniority list in accordance with the Recruitment Rules; consideration of their case for promotion to the post of DDSE/Principal against the existing vacancies in the department based on seniority and eligibility; and regularisation of the service of petitioner No.6 to the post of DAEO with retrospective effect. 3. Mr. T. T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that petitioners have filed representation before the respondent authorities raising the above grievance. 4. However, at the motion stage itself; the learned counsel for the petitioners has fairly submitted that the petitioners are confining their prayer to a limited extent and seek a direction to the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 11.09.2025 and the reminder on 08.12.2025. 5. Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department has no objection to the said prayer and has agreed to the extent that the
Page No.# 4/4 representation submitted by the petitioners may be considered in accordance with the applicable rule. 6. In view of the above submissions made and as agreed by the parties, without going into the merit of the claims raised in the writ petition, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation dated 11.09.2025 and reminder dated 08.12.2025 submitted by the petitioners strictly in accordance with law and the relevant recruitment/promotion rules by passing a reasoned and speaking orders, within a period of 60(Sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 7. With the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant