Sangkung Jonah Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC040014912025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/423/2025

¶5

Sangkung Jonah

¶6

Son of Late Sang Kung Hamu, permanent resident of Village Sangkung, PO and PS Koloriang, Kurung Kumey District, Arunachal Pradesh and presently posting at Govt ME School, Sangkung, District Kurung Kumey, Arunachal Pradesh.

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of AP and 2 Ors

¶9

represented by Commissioner of Education, Govt of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. 2:The Director of Elementary Education Age: 0 Occupation : Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar.

¶10

3:The Deputy Director of School Education Age: 0 Occupation : Kurung Kumey District Arunachal Pradesh

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : Chorpok Modi, Tadar Bai,Nannu Yubi,Biri Esther,Wanglat Khomrang,Maklek Lego,Tame Rimi,K Gara,Uttam Deka

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : Taba Tagum, SC (Education)

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

BEFORE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA

¶15

ORDER

¶16

Date : 03.09.2025

¶17

Heard Mr. C. Modi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, representing all the respondents.

¶18

2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 2004, and has been rendering his services since then. The petitioner has the experience in conducting classes for students of Classes IX and X along with the Junior Teachers. Despite being eligible for consideration for promotion to the next higher post of Junior Teacher, the petitioner has not been considered. On the contrary, while the petitioner's case was overlooked for promotion, his juniors were promoted to the next higher post of Junior Teacher. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had filed a representation dated 05.10.2015, before the Director of Elementary School Education, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, ventilating his grievance. As the said representation remained pending, the petitioner again filed another representation dated 07.11.2023, before the Director of Elementary School Education, requesting consideration of his case for promotion from Assistant Teacher to Junior Teacher. However, no orders have been passed on his representations, nor has he been intimated regarding the status of his claim for promotion to the next higher post.

¶19

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has a limited prayer before this Court that specific direction be issued to the Director of Elementary School Education, to look into the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of his

¶20

Page No.# 3/4

¶21

representation.

¶22

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department, on the other hand, submits that it is the Commissioner, namely the respondent No. 1 herein, who is the appropriate authority for redressing the grievance of the petitioner.

¶23

5. Considering the submissions made, this Court is of the view that in considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, the writ petition can be closed with a direction to the Director of Elementary School Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, to forthwith forward the petitioner’s representations to the office of the Commissioner (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. The Commissioner of Education shall thereafter examine the grievance of the petitioner and, upon consideration of all relevant materials, if the petitioner is found eligible for being considered to the next higher post, then the Commissioner (Education) will direct the concerned authorities to initiate appropriate steps for considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the next higher post along with other eligible candidates.

¶24

6. Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the representations filed by the petitioner before the Director of Elementary School Education, be forwarded within a period of 1 (one) week to the office of the Commissioner of Education, Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The Commissioner of Education will thereafter look into the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order(s) within a period of 4 (four) weeks thereafter. The order directed to be so passed must be a speaking order, and the copies thereof shall be served on the writ petitioner.

¶25

Page No.# 4/4

¶26

7. In view of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Sangkung Jonah v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangkung Jonah v. The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Robin Padung Vs The State of Ap and 2 Ors.

Jomge Dulom Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Rigo Bam Vs The State of Ap and 4 Ors.

Tani Jonkey Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.

Sisi Welly Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Sova Hi-Tech Industries and 4 Ors. Vs The State of Ap and 3 Ors.