Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/259/2024 of MISS HOKANI CHOPHY Vs STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS on 1 June 2026
GAHC020006922024 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Case No. : WP(C)/259/2024 MISS HOKANI CHOPHY D/IO SHRI VIKHESHE CHOPHY R/O NEW NEPALI GAON, SUGHUNA BAPTIST CHURCH SUB-POST OFFICE BOX NO. 7 P.O. DIMAPUR, P.S. WEST DIMAPUR
GAHC020006922024
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL
PRADESH)
KOHIMA BENCH
Case No. : WP(C)/259/2024
MISS HOKANI CHOPHY
D/IO SHRI VIKHESHE CHOPHY
R/O NEW NEPALI GAON, SUGHUNA BAPTIST CHURCH
SUB-POST OFFICE BOX NO. 7
P.O. DIMAPUR, P.S. WEST
DIMAPUR NAGALAND
VERSUS
STATE OF NAGALAND AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND
KOHIMA NAGALAND
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY
DEPT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND SCERT
NAGALAND KOHIMA
3:THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR
SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPT.
NAGALAND KOHIMA
4:THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER
KIPHIRE NAGALAND
5:THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATIONAL OFFICER
KIPHIRE NAGALAND
6:THE CHAIRMAN
SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
CHANGCHOR VILLAGE
KIPHIRE NAGALAN
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Surien, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. K. Angami, Sr. Govt. Advocate BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
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 : 02.06.2026
Heard Mr. P. Surien, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. K. Angami, the learned Senior Government Advocate appears on behalf of the State respondents.
2. The petitioner herein who is working as a Substitute Graduate Teacher in the Government Middle School at Changchor Village, Kiphire, has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents to pay the petitioner the regular scale of pay which a Graduate Teacher is entitled to on the ground that the petitioner has rendered, as on the date of filing of the writ petition, 12 years of service without any break.
3. This Court duly takes note of that the qualification for appointment as a Graduate Teacher is stipulated under the Nagaland School Education
Service
Rules,
2017
(for
short,
“the Rules of 2017”), more particularly under Rule 7(B)(II). The said Rule, being relevant, is reproduced herein under: “II. The required educational qualifications for direct recruitment to the post of Graduate Teacher in various subjects shall be as follows:- (a) Graduate/Post Graduate with at least 50% marks (or an equivalent degree) relaxable by 5% for Scheduled Tribe/Scheduled Caste/differently abled candidates, in either Graduation or Post Graduation at the Bachelor's degree level in the relevant subject from a recognized university; (b) Bachelor of Education (B.Ed), B.A.Ed/ B.Sc.Ed from any National Council of Teacher Education recognized institution; and
(c) Besides fulfilling the above qualification, the candidate must have cleared the State Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted by the SCERT.”
4. This Court inquired with the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as to whether the petitioner presently has the qualifications required in terms with Rule 7(B)(II) of the Rules of 2017, which has been quoted hereinabove.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the petitioner is a graduate, but does not possess a B.Ed. or B.A.Ed. or B.Sc.Ed. degree from an institution recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education, nor has the petitioner qualified in the Teacher Eligibility Test conducted by the SCERT. The learned counsel, however, submitted that in view of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust & Ors reported in 2026 INSC 597, the petitioner still has time to qualify in the TET examination up to 31.08.2028. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the objections raised by the respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioner would not like to further pursue with the present writ petition with a liberty that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition should not prejudice the petitioner’s right to approach this Court again after obtaining the necessary qualifications as is required for appointment of a Graduate Teacher.
6. Considering the submissions made, this Court closes the instant writ petition on withdrawal.
7. This Court, however, observes that the withdrawal of the instant writ petition shall neither prejudice nor preclude the petitioner from approaching this Court, subject to the petitioner obtaining the qualifications as is mandated under Rule 7(B)(II) of the Rules of
2017, if so advised.
Sd/-
JUDGE Comparing Assistant