Gauhati High Court dismisses 84 PGTs’ seniority plea, citing inordinate delay in challenging regularisation and settled seniority lists
KOHIMA — The Kohima Bench of Gauhati High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by 84 post-graduate teachers (PGTs) challenging the regularisation and seniority of 23 contractual teachers, holding that the claim was brought after an inordinate delay.
The court, in its judgement and order dated August 10, ruled that the petitioners had failed to satisfactorily explain why they did not challenge the seniority lists issued in 2011, 2016 and 2018, or make representations against them within the stipulated period.
The 84 petitioners, serving as PGTs under the Department of School Education, had been recommended for appointment by the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC) and appointed on a regular basis through a notification dated March 21, 2011.
They had challenged government notifications concerning the regularisation of 23 private respondents, as well as the seniority lists, and sought deletion of the names of the 23 teachers from the tentative seniority lists issued in 2016 and 2018.
Also read: Nagaland: High Court sets August 19 hearing on Indigenous status PIL
Nagaland NET Qualified Forum opposes regularisation of contract teachers
The 23 private respondents had initially been appointed on contract between 2000 and 2003 and were subsequently regularised following a Cabinet decision.
The court noted that an earlier group of PGTs from the 2008 NPSC batch had filed WP(C)/163(K)/2012 challenging the date of regularisation of the private respondents. That petition was disposed of on April 22, 2014, with the state directed to fix their date of regularisation as January 18, 2011.
The Coordinate Bench hearing that matter had found no illegality in the regularisation of the private respondents, the court pointed out.
It further observed that the petitioners in the present case were already in service when the earlier judgement was delivered. Since both groups were colleagues in the same department, the court said it was difficult to accept that the present petitioners were unaware of the earlier proceedings.
The court also pointed out that the tentative seniority lists had been circulated among officers concerned, inviting objections and representations within specified periods.
However, the petitioners failed to produce any representation or objection against the seniority list issued on May 11, 2018. The court noted that seven years had elapsed since that memorandum before the petitioners approached the court in 2025.
It observed that the petitioners had “been sleeping over their rights” and appeared to have approached it only after realising that the private respondents were likely to be promoted ahead of them.
It held that the 2018 seniority list had attained finality and should not be unsettled through a belated challenge.
“Delay defeats equity,” the court observed, adding that a person who sleeps over their rights cannot be permitted to disturb a long-settled seniority position.
The court also held that the petitioners could not claim a violation of their fundamental right to seniority under Article 16 based on an administrative action that took place before they entered service.
It stated that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 could not be invoked to revive a stale claim, particularly when the petitioners had remained indolent for a considerable period without demonstrating sufficient cause for the delay.
“Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioners’ claim, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches,” the order read.