Akhtar Hussain Vs the State of Assam and Othrs

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010198112025

¶3

2025:GAU-AS:11931

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/5146/2025

¶6

AKHTAR HUSSAIN S/O-ALIM ALI , P.O-AGGUMI, CHHAYGAON, RESIDENT OF AGGUMI, KAMRUP, PIN 781137

¶7

VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6

¶8

2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI -19 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS KDC (METRO) KAMRUP (METRO) ASSA

¶9

Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS RITA DEVI, MRS. R DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU.,

¶10

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Date : 03.09.2025

¶13

Heard Ms. R. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. M. T. Chistie, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department for the

¶14

Page No.# 2/3

¶15

respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

¶16

[2.] Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage.

¶17

[3.] It is the case of the petitioner that he responded to two advertisements both dated 26.12.2023 for the post of Post-Graduate Teacher in different Government Secondary Schools as well as different provincialised Secondary Schools in Botany subject. However, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected on 06.06.2025, on the ground that the educational qualification of M.Sc in Ecorestoration possessed by him was found to be not equivalent to the subject Botany which he applied for. The learned counsel referring to the Certificate issued by the Professor and Head of Department of Life Sciences Dibrugarh University submits that M.Sc Ecorestoration Course offered by the Department of Life Sciences, Dibrugarh University is equivalent to M.Sc Botany. She therefore submits that the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected for the aforesaid reason. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner had submitted an application for submission of additional documents left out during document verification but the same was not considered by the respondent authority. She therefore submits that the respondent authority may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post he has applied for since the M.Sc Ecorestoration is equivalent to M.Sc Botany.

¶18

[4.] It may however be seen that the petitioner has not enclosed the subject wise and category wise posts as mentioned in the Advertisements both dated 26.12.2023 in order to appreciate the requirements for applying for the post of P.G Teacher in Botany. Further, the application submitted by the petitioner before the Director of Secondary Education on 10.06.2025 also does not indicate as to what additional documents was submitted by the petitioner.

¶19

Page No.# 3/3

¶20

Therefore, this Court is unable to appreciate the contention of the petitioner simply on the basis of the materials filed by him. Further, Mr. S. M. T. Chistie, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department had also submitted that the petitioner had not only obtained the Certificate from the Professor and Head of the Department of Life Sciences, Dibrugarh University belatedly and that the Professor and Head of Department of Life Sciences alone cannot be accepted as the competent authority to determine as to whether M.Sc Ecorestoration is equivalent to M.Sc Botany.

¶21

[5.] Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that there is no point in keeping the matter pending before this Court and therefore proposes to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit a concise and precise representation before the Director of Secondary Education, Government of Assam within 7(seven) days from today along with all supporting materials in support of his contention that M.Sc Ecorestoration is equivalent to M.Sc Botany. It is ordered accordingly. The Director upon receipt of the representation to be filed shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision within a period of 10(ten) days of receipt of the said representation.

¶22

[6.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

Comparing Assistant

Akhtar Hussain v. the State of Assam and Othrs

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akhtar Hussain v. the State of Assam and Othrs

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

Moushomi Purkayastha Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Imran Ali and Ors. Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Sri Deepjyoti Das Vs the State of Assam and Ors.

Dr. Prativa Patowary Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Smti Manjulata Goyari Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Smti Kamala Devi Vs Mr Pritam Saikia and Ors.