Page No.# 1/5 GAHC040001282026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/32/2026 Tarung Gao Son of Late Tapok Gao, resident of Rayang Village, PO and PS Ruksin, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 4 Ors represented by the Commissioner (Education) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Civil Secretariat, Itanagar, Arunachala Pradesh. 2:The Under Secretary (Education - II) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Under Secretary (Education) Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Civil Secretariat Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 4:The Director of Elementary Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Deputy Director of School Education Page No.# 2/5 Age: 0 Occupation : Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Advocate for the Petitioner : Marto Kato, OLI JERANG,Tony Meto,Kamin Teri,Yasmin Gao,Mepe Ete,Nyali Sora Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum, SC (Education) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BUDI HABUNG ORDER 30.01.2026 Heard Ms. Yasmin Gao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Longwangnong Tikhak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. Taba Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the termination order dated 13.09.2024 issued by the Commissioner (Education) Government of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar (respondent No.1, by which the appointment of the petitioner have been cancelled and consequently, his services has been terminated. 3. The case in brief is that initially the petitioner was appointed as peon on temporary basis by order dated 18.07.2017, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar (respondent No.4) and he was posted at Government Upper Primary School, Bilat, East Siang District. Subsequently, upon completion of the probation period of 2 (two) years, his service was regularized as Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) by order dated Page No.# 3/5 06.09.2019. 4. While the petitioner was in service, by show-cause notice dated 22.05.2024, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why his service should not be terminated on the ground that his initial appointment was made without following any lawful selection process. Thereafter, by an order dated 13.09.2024, the service of the petitioner was terminated. 5. It is submitted that being aggrieved by his termination, the petitioner has submitted a representation before the Director of Elementary Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar (respondent No.4), which is still pending consideration. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the case of similarly situated persons, the respondent authorities have considered their cases and granted relief by reinstating them in the services. It is further contended that this Court, in analogous matters has disposed of the writ filed by the similarly situated persons with and directed to the authorities to consider the representations of the petitioners therein, keeping in view the parity with similarly situated persons. In this regard, to support his submission, a reference is made to writ petitions numbered WP(C)/534/2025 and WP(C)/538/2025. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in yet another case, the termination of 4 (four) similarly situated persons was considered by the respondent authorities, and directed their reinstatement with an observation- After thorough verification of records, it was found that the appointments of those MTS were made on the basis of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) conducted at the district level. However, approval of the competent authority had not been obtained, which was treated as a procedural lapse. Considering the genuineness of the cases and the Page No.# 4/5 recommendation of the verification committee, the respondent authorities revoked the termination orders and reinstated their services. 7. It is further submitted that the case of the present petitioner stands on the same footing as that of the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions. Therefore, at the motion stage itself, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for disposal of the writ petition on similar terms, without entering into the merit of the case and remand the matter to respondent No.1 [Commissioner (Education) Government of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar], for consideration of the petitioner’s case on the similar lines and for passing an appropriate order after verification of the petitioner’s case, while also considering the principle of parity with similarly situated persons. 8. The learned counsel for the respondents, fairly submits that such a course can be adopted and that, without going into the merits of the dispute, the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner on similar lines. He further submits that if, upon verification, the petitioner’s case is found to be on similar lines as the other similarly situated persons, his case shall be considered as per his entitlement and in accordance with law. 9. Upon hearing the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that since the parties are agreeable to such this writ petition can be disposed of. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the petitioner against the termination order dated 13.09.2024, by conducting necessary verification regarding the nature of his appointment and, based on the outcome of such Page No.# 5/5 verification, pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law while keeping in view the treatment accorded to the similarly situated persons if the petitioner is found to be similarly placed. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the legality or validity of the appointment or termination of the petitioner and all contention of the parties are kept open. 11. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant