Nayak Amritanad Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Heard Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant. Also heard Ms. S. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1, Mr. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

¶59

2. By way of this application, the applicant is seeking impleadment of the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, School Education Department, Kahilipara, Guwahati, Assam and the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara as proposed respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in WP(C) No. 4114/2023.

¶60

3. It appears that during the course of hearing of the WP(C) No. 4114/2023 and from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Assam Public Service Commission, the presence of the aforesaid two respondents is necessitated. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said interlocutory application read as under:

¶61

“ 2. That, during the course of hearings of W.P.(C) No. 4114/2023 and from the affidavit filed on behalf of the Assam Public Service Commission, it has emerged that the School Education Department is a necessary party for the adjudication of the present case. From the said affidavit, it emerges that while one of the impugned advertisements i.e. Advertisement No. 17/2022 dated 26.8.2022 was issued in pursuance of the requisition of the Education (Higher) Department, the other impugned advertisement i.e. the Advertisement No. 20/2022 dated 13.9.2022 was issued in pursuance of the requisition of the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam. The Department of Elementary Education has now been merged to form the Department of School Education. For this reason, it is necessary to implead officials of the Department of School Education for a proper adjudication of the

¶62

Page No.# 5/5

¶63

case.

¶64

3. That, the officials of the Department of School Education had inadvertently not been impleaded as Respondents in the present case under the belief that the Department of Higher Education, Government of Assam, would be competent to respond to all the claims made in the writ petition.”

¶65

4. In view of the above, it appears that the presence of the proposed respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are essential and necessary for effective adjudication of the writ petition.

¶66

5. It is accordingly provided that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, School Education Department, Kahilipara, Guwahati, Assam and the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, are impleaded in the connected writ petition as respondent Nos. 6 & 7.

¶67

6. Resultantly, interlocutory application stands allowed.

¶68

7. Let amended Cause-title be submitted before the Registry for doing the needful.

¶69

JUDGE

¶70

Comparing Assistant

Nayak Amritanad v. the State of Assam and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nayak Amritanad v. the State of Assam and 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

Dipali Roy Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Rahino Multi Purpose Development Society Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Ranjana Singha Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Chandan Das and 40 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Kalanath Ray Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Master Rehan Barai Vs the State of Assam and Othrs