The Combined Technical Association of Nagaland (CTAN) and Nagaland NET Qualified Forum (NNQF) gathered outside the Directorate of Higher Education in Kohima, pressing for fair employment policies. (Morung File Photo)
Kohima, September 30 (MExN): The Nagaland Net Qualified Forum (NNQF) on Wednesday welcomed a Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, judgment that declared hundreds of contractual appointments of Assistant Professors and Librarians in the state’s Department of Higher Education unconstitutional, calling it a “landmark” ruling on accountability and equity in public employment.
A division bench of the High Court quashed two earlier single-judge rulings, delivered in 2022 and 2025, which had dismissed the Forum’s writ petitions on grounds of maintainability and locus standi without examining their merits.
“While this landmark judgment directly impacts the DHE, GoN as well as aspiring teachers and academics, it should be of general interest to anyone who has a stake in ensuring accountability, transparency, and, above all, equity in matters of public employment in Nagaland,” the Forum said in a press statement.
The NNQF has been filing petitions at the High Court since 2019, challenging the legality of the contractual appointments. “The layers of illegalities perpetrated by the government to make this happen are scandalous,” the Forum said.
The Forum said there were no open advertisements for most of these positions “i.e., the appointments were made through the backdoor,” which it termed “a shocking affront to the fundamental right to equality (Article 14) and right to equality of opportunity (Article 16).”
It also alleged that many appointees lacked the required qualifications, including a pass in the National Eligibility Test (NET), at the time of appointment. This, the Forum said, violates the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 (updated in 2018), which are also reflected in the Nagaland Higher Education Service Rules.
The NNQF further said the contracts were routinely extended at the end of every year, which “renders the contract employment virtually permanent.”
The Forum said the two earlier judgments “did not consider at all whether the arguments made against the appointments were important, correct or persuasive. Rather, they dismissed the petitions on technical grounds.”
In its ruling, the division bench found the approach of the single judge in the earlier cases “not in conformity with the well settled constitutional principles of law.” Since the petitions concerned high constitutional principles of equality, they could not be dismissed on technicalities, it held.
The bench also expressed concern over the neglect of such questions by the High Court itself. “We are sorry to say that every time these infractions are brought to the notice of this Court, such causes of actions are thwarted on the question of maintainability without going into the constitutional principles under Article 14 and Article 16,” it observed.
The court rejected the state government's contention that the appointments were permissible under Regulation 13 of the UGC Regulations. While the regulation allows contract teachers to be appointed when “absolutely necessary” and when the student-teacher ratio falls short of prescribed norms, it also lays down other conditions, the court noted.
“To give just one example among four, the same regulation lays down that the qualifications and selection procedure for such appointments should be the same as that of a regular teacher. Neither this condition, nor the three others, was fulfilled,” the Forum said.
Making a “sarcastic” observation, the bench had remarked, “It seems that the State of Nagaland had only taken cognizance of the first sentence of Regulation 13.”
Besides quashing the earlier judgments, the High Court declared the contractual appointments violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and of Regulation 13 of the UGC Regulations. It directed that no extension be granted to the contract employees.
The court further directed the Nagaland government either to create adequate posts and requisition them to the Nagaland Public Service Commission (NPSC), or to make contract appointments strictly in accordance with Regulation 13, after due advertisement.
The Forum thanked all organisations, groups and individuals who supported the case. “The achievement is a collective one and this judgement has reaffirmed people's faith in the Judiciary,” it said.
“It is our humble request that the people continue to walk with us in this journey of restoring faith in the system,” the NNQF added.
