Nirmal Goyari Vs Jagadish Prasad Brahma and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2026)

Nirmal Goyari Vs Jagadish Prasad Brahma and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition closed without any adverse finding against the respondents; petitioner given liberty to approach another appropriate forum for redressal regarding the legality of the DSC resolution.

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents are liable to be held guilty of contempt of Court on account of the petitioner's rejection at the District Scrutiny Committee stage, notwithstanding that the direction to place his case before the DSC has been carried out.

Court's answer

The direction to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was confined to placing the petitioner's case before the District Scrutiny Committee, which has been done; accordingly the respondents cannot be held guilty of contempt for the subsequent rejection of the petitioner by the DSC.

Ratio / Principle

The legality or otherwise of the Minutes/Resolution of the DSC is required to be tested in an appropriate proceeding other than a contempt proceeding; the petitioner is given liberty to approach such other appropriate forum for redressal.

Key takeaways

From a perusal of the DSC resolution, the petitioner's case was rejected only on the ground that he had crossed the age limit.obiter¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Justice Rajesh Mazumdar), Cont.Cas(C)/13/2025, order dated 10-02-2026: Contempt petition by Nirmal Goyari alleging non-compliance with the order dated 11.01.2024 in WP(C) No. 2984/2026, which had directed the Director of Education, BTC to have his case considered for provincialisation of service under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 through the District Scrutiny Committee within one month. Respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit producing the DSC minutes of 03.12.2024 (Resolution No. 3), by which the petitioner was rejected - the Court observed, on perusal, solely on the ground that he had crossed the age limit (the committee had also recorded that the 18-month Diploma Elementary Education from NIOS was no longer a valid qualification for fresh recruitment). Holding that the direction underlying the contempt petition extended only to placing the petitioner's case before the DSC, which had been done, the Court declined to hold the respondents guilty of contempt; the legality of the DSC minutes is to be tested in an appropriate proceeding other than contempt. The contempt petition was closed with liberty to the petitioner to approach such other appropriate forum for redressal.

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010277022024

undefined

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

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/13/2025

NIRMAL GOYARI

S/O. LT. BAPU RAM GOYARI, VILL. BALISIHA JANGHAL, P.O. JAMUGURI, DIST. UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM, PIN-784114

VERSUS

JAGADISH PRASAD BRAHMA AND ANR DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, BODOLAND TERRITORIAL AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL, KOKRAJHAR, PIN 783370.

2:RINTU CHANDRA BORO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (BTR) AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION KOKRAJHAR BTR PIN 78337

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F U BARBHUIYA, MS S DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D SAIKIA (R-1,2), P BHOWMICK(R-1),MR A SHARMA(R1),MR. A KHOUND(R-1),MS. N CHOUDHURY(R-1),MR. A K BHUYAN (R-1),MR. S BORA(R1,2),MS. R B BORA(R-1,2)

Page No.# 2/3

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

ORDER

Date : 10-02-2026

Heard Mr. F.U Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R.B Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 & 2.

The order of which the contempt petition has been alleged was passed on 11.01.2024 in WP(C) No. 2984/2026 by which the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent No. 5, Director of Education, BTC to forthwith have the case of the petitioner considered for provincialisation of the service under the provisions of the 2017 Act and for the said purpose required the case of the petitioner to be considered by the District Scrutiny Committee as constituted under the said 2017 Act. The case of the petitioner for provincialisation be placed before the District Scrutiny Committee by the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

By filing an affidavit, the respondent No.1 has placed before this Court the Minutes of the Meeting on 03.12.2024 by the DSC for implementation of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. In the said DSC, the petitioner had been rejected on the ground where by the Resolution No.3, the committee came to a conclusion that the persons under consideration had acquired 18 months in Diploma Elementary Education from NIOS, which was no longer valid qualification for fresh recruitment and the age limit and qualification of the 3 Nos. of petitioners are not eligible/considerable as per Assam Act 2017. From a perusal of the resolution, it appears that the case of the petitioner has been

Page No.# 3/3

rejected only on the ground that he had crossed the age limit.

Mr. F.U Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a rejection is wrong in law and the respondents should be liable to be held guilty of contempt of Court. This Court is constrained to observe that the direction to the respondent No. 1 & 2 were to the extent of placing the case of the petitioner before the DSC which has been done. The legality or otherwise of the Minutes of the Resolution of the DSC are required to be tested in the appropriate proceeding other than contempt proceeding. Giving liberty to the petitioner to approach such other appropriate forum for redressal, this contempt petition is closed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant