SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 9601

HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
SATYAJIT KHOUND – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
I.A.(Civil) / 440 / 2026



GAHC010029442026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/440/2026 SATYAJIT KHOUND SON OF MAKON KHOUND,VILLAGE- SONARI GAON,PO- RRL NEIST,DISTRICT- JORHAT, ASSAM 785001

2: SUDEEP KUMAR CHETIA SON OF SONAD KR. CHETIA VILLAGE- MANKATA ALI JOYSAGAR P.O.- RUDRASAGAR DISTRICT- SIVASAGAR ASSAM. PIN-785665 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER ANDSECRETARY TO THE GOVT.

OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR,GUWAHATI-781006.

2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006.

3:THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ASSAM SIXMILE KHANAPARA

4:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES ASSAM HENGRABARI

5:THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (FW)

ASSAM HENGRABARI GUWAHATI-781036

6:PARIMONI GOGOI DAUGHTER OF BHUPEN GOGOI VILLAGE- PANITULA TEOK PO- HAHCHARA PS- TEOK DIST.- JORHAT ASSAM PIN- 78568 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K DAS, MRS P P BORAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

ORDER

31.03.2026 Date :

Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Health & Family Welfare Department for Opposite Party No. 1 to 5.

This is an application praying for correction of the name of the respondent No.6, which has been inadvertently shown as Parimita Gogoi in place of Parimoni Gogoi.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the petitioner has filed the connected writ petition challenging the appointment of some persons as Laboratory Technician pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.11.2014 including the respondent No.6 whose name has been inadvertently written as Parimita Gogoi in place of Parimoni Gogoi. Therefore, he may be allowed to correct the name of the respondent No.6 in the cause title.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also considering that the name of the respondent No.6 appears to have been inadvertently shown as “Parimita Gogoi” in place of “Parimoni Gogoi”, I deem it appropriate to allow this application.

Accordingly, the learned counsel for the applicant is allowed to amend the Cause Title in respect of respondent No.6 by her correct name as “Parimoni Gogoi.”

I.A. stands allowed and disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top