The Gauhati High Court disposed of a contempt petition alleging willful disobedience. The court held that the respondent authority had complied with previous directions by considering the petitioner's representation and finding her ineligible for provincialisation.
Contempt proceedings closed; notices recalled; order dated 17.01.2026 stands.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010100022026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/275/2026
AYESHA BEGUM
W/O MOHI UDDIN, VILL - SAGARPAR, P.O - CHATAL, DIST - SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN- 788720
VERSUS
SMTI SURANJANA SENAPATI, ACS
DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ASSAM, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S B LASKAR, MS D DUTTA,MR. H A LASKAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D SAIKIA, MS. N PHUKAN,MR S M T CHISTIE
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
02.09.2026
Heard Mr. S.B. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. SMT Chistie, learned counsel for the sole respondent.
2. This contempt petition has been filed alleging willful disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 21.06.2024 passed in W.P(C) No.
137/2023. By the said order, the following directions were issued:
Page No.# 2/3
”20. In view of the interference made by this Court with the order, dated 30.03.2022, following directions are hereby issued:
(i). The petitioner is directed to submit a detailed representation before the Director, Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam, within a period of 30(thirty) days from today and therein, stake a claim for provincialization of her services under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Reorganization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, by bringing on record all requisite particulars pertaining to Higher Secondary and/or equivalent qualification as possessed by her along with the D.El.Ed. qualification as acquired by her. (ii). The Director, Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam, on receipt of such representation from the petitioner, shall consider the same strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Reorganization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, and thereafter, in the event, it is found that the petitioner has acquired the prescribed qualification as mandated under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017; proceed to have the case of the petitioner considered in terms of the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, for provincialization of her services as a Tutor and/or Teacher as the case may be.
(iii). The exercise as now required to be carried-out in terms of the directions as passed by this Court hereinabove, shall be so initiated and completed by the Director, Elementary Education Department, Assam, within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of the representation to be submitted by the petitioner along with a certified copy of this order”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order was not complies and therefore the contempt petition has been filed wherein notice was issued as far back as 29.05.2026.
4. Today when the matter is called up, the learned counsel for the
Page No.# 3/3
respondent submits that the directions contained in the order dated 21.06.2024 has been complied with. The petitioner’s representation which was filed was duly considered and it was found that the petitioner was found to be under qualified and therefore, she was considered ineligible for provincialisation of the services and the same has been taken note of and is kept in the case record. 5. Considering the submissions made and also considering the order dated 17.01.2026 passed by the Director, Elementary Education namely the sole respondent and a copy of which is placed before the Court today by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court is of the view that the directions contained in the order dated 21.06.2024 passed in W.P(C) No. 137/2023 has been complied with. The petitioner’s representation was considered and it was found that she was under qualified and therefore, she was left out of being provincialised.
6. Perusal of the order reveals that the directions were to consider the representation of the petitioner have been carried out and no further cause is available for proceeding in the present contempt proceedings.
7. Accordingly, the contempt proceedings stands closed. Notices issued are recalled.
8. Needless to say that the petitioner may assail the order dated 17.01.2026 placed before the Court today if it is found that her grievances have not been redressed.
9. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent authority complied with the directions regarding the petitioner's provincialisation claim.
Whether contempt proceedings should continue after consideration of the petitioner's representation.
Whether the petitioner is eligible to assail the subsequent order of the Director.
Ayesha Begum
Smti Suranjana Senapati, ACS
Director of Elementary Education, Assam
Soumitra Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Proceedings for wilful disobedience of a court order under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
