Gauhati High Court
IA(C)/175/2026 of The State of AP and 3 Ors Vs Smti Tam Yaro on 21 September 2026
GAHC040013112026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : IA(C)/175/2026 The State of AP and 3 Ors represented by the Commissioner, Department of Education, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2: The Commissioner Age:
GAHC040013112026
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
(ITANAGAR BENCH)
Case No. : IA(C)/175/2026
The State of AP and 3 Ors
represented by the Commissioner, Department of Education, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar.
2: The Commissioner
Age:
Occupation :
Department of Education
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar.
3: The Director of Elementary Education
Age:
Occupation :
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
Itanagar.
4: The Deputy Director of School Education Age:
Occupation :
Kurung Kumey District
PO and PS Koloriang
Govt of Arunachal Pradesh
VERSUS
Smti Tam Yaro
Daughter of Tam Kame, permanent resident of D Sector, PO and PS Naharlagun, Papum Pare District, Arunachal Pradesh.
Advocate for the Petitioner : Taba Tagum, SC (Education)
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Date : 22-09-2026 (K. Ete, J) Heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, appearing for the applicants. None appears for the sole respondent/writ petitioner, despite service of notice.
2. This is an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, seeking condonation of delay of 401 days in preferring the connected writ appeal being WA No. 54/2026 against the order dated 05.06.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 622/2023.
3. Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, submits that the order dated 05.06.2025 was received by the Department on 17.06.2025. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the competent authorities for examination, particularly with regard to the reinstatement of the writ petitioner under the SAMAGRA SHIKSHA/ISSE Scheme, availability of sanctioned posts and vacancies, and the financial and administrative implications of implementing the said order. The matter was accordingly processed through the prescribed departmental hierarchy before a decision was taken to prefer an appeal.
4. It is further submitted that, while the matter was under examination, another batch of writ petitions involving identical issues came to be disposed of by judgment and order dated 20.11.2025, relying upon the judgment and order dated 05.06.2025. In view of the similarity of the issues involved, the Department undertook a comprehensive examination and called for factual status reports from the concerned District authorities regarding the availability of vacancies, sanctioned strength, Project Approval Board approvals, release of salary and funds, and the existing status of contractual posts under the Scheme.
5. It is submitted that the reports received from the District authorities were thereafter scrutinised at the State level. The matter was also examined in consultation with the Government of India with regard to the funding and continuation of the SAMAGRA SHIKSHA/ISSE Scheme. Upon detailed verification, the Department found that no vacancy of PRT/TGT was available under the Scheme to accommodate the writ petitioner. Thereafter, the competent authority took a decision to prefer the connected writ appeal and the relevant records were endorsed to the Standing Counsel for preparation of the appeal, followed by consultation and legal vetting.
6. It is submitted that the aforesaid process of examination, obtaining of reports, verification of the factual position and decision-making at different administrative levels consumed considerable time, resulting in the delay in preferring the connected writ appeal. It is contended that the delay was bona fide and neither deliberate nor intentional.
7. We have perused the grounds stated in the application and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicants.
8. Having regard to the explanation furnished and the sequence of events stated above, we are satisfied that the applicants have sufficiently explained the delay in preferring the connected writ appeal. The delay, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be attributed to deliberate or wilful inaction on the part of the applicants.
9. Accordingly, the interlocutory application is allowed and disposed of. The delay of 401 days in preferring the connected Writ Appeal No. 54/2026 is condoned.
JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant