GAHC010073472024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/1983/2024 AMANDEEP SINGH SON OF SRI SUKHBINDER SINGH, RESIDENT OF AMINGAON RAILWAY COLONY, P.O.- AMINGAON, P.S.- NORTH GUWAHATI, GUWAHATI- 781031, DISTRICT- KAMRUP(R), ASSAM.

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (HIGHER), DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.

2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.

3:THE PRINCIPAL-CUM-SECRETARY TO THE SELECTION COMMITTE FOR GRADE-IV NORTH GUWAHATI COLLEGE COLLEGE NAGAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781031 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D K DEY, MS T DEBNATH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MR. S RAHMAN(R-3),MR S MUKTAR(R-3)

BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

ORDER

Date : 18-03-2026 Heard Mr. DK Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Muktar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 as well as Mr. S Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department.

It is the case of the petitioner that he appeared for the selection process conducted after the advertisement dated 27.08.2022 for appointment to the unreserved category of Grade-IV and he stood successful in the said selection as he appeared in the top of the list. The petitioner further states that although he was selected, but no appointment was granted to him to the said post and when he filed the present case before this Court, the Higher Education Department filed an affidavit stating that the said post at Roster Point No. 18 has been filled up and that the process of selection of the said post was conducted prior to the advertisement and filled up before the selection process of the petitioner ended.

The counsel for the Higher Education Department states that it was the mistake of the College authority that has advertised the said post for selection.

As such, he submits that the petitioner cannot be appointed to the said post.

During the pendency of this proceeding, this Court, vide order dated

08.01.2025 had passed an order that if the post falling under Roster Point No. 16 has not been filled up on the said date, the same may not be filled up till the next date of listing. The said order was given only to explore the possibility of accommodating the petitioner in Roster Point No. 16. However, the counsel for the Higher Education Department submits that the process for appointment to the post of Grade-IV at Roster Point No. 16 was initiated for appointment of one Sri Hirok Jyoti Deka and the same was send for approval. But, it was noted by the Court that the petitioner ranked higher in the selection process than Sri Hirok Jyoti Deka and so that the petitioner is not deprived, the said order was passed.

The learned counsel for the Higher Education Department, however, submits that he is yet to get the instructions, as to whether the approval of said Sri Hirok Jyoti Deka was given by the Department for his appointment at Roster Point No. 16.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that another post in the said Grade is vacant, which is acceded to by Mr. S Muktar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, who submits that Roster Point No. 1 is vacant. However, Mr. Muktar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 is directed to get instructions, as to whether the petitioner can be accommodated if not in Roster Point No. 16 then in Roster Point No.1, which, however, has to be filled up by following the due process of law for filling up the fresh vacancy.

As such, Mr. Muktar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 prays for one week time to get the proper instructions.

List this matter again on 30.03.2026 for further order.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant