Debo Mali Vs Kurthi Jalli and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2026)

Debo Mali Vs Kurthi Jalli and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Gauhati HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Contempt petition Cont.Cas(C)/740/2022 closed; liberty granted to the petitioner to revive the petition by filing a one page affidavit.

Issue for consideration

Whether the direction in the order dated 08.02.2022 in WP(C) No. 704/2022 — that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment be reconsidered by DLC, Kamrup (R) — stood complied with, so that the contempt petition could be closed.

Court's answer

As none appeared for the petitioner on call, the court presumed that the petitioner was not interested, since the recommendation had duly been placed before the DLC.

Ratio / Principle

The contempt petition stands closed, with liberty to the petitioner to revive it by filing a one page affidavit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Arun Dev Choudhury, J.), order dated 06.02.2026 in Cont.Cas(C)/740/2022 — Debo Mali v. The Deputy Commissioner & Chairman, District Level Committee, Kamrup and Dr. Nabajyoti Das, Principal & Secretary, Dakhin Kamrup College, Mirza. The contempt petition arose from the order dated 08.02.2022 in WP(C) No. 704/2022, by which the court had interfered with the District Level Committee's rejection (meeting dated 18.03.2020) of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment and remanded the matter to DLC, Kamrup (R) for fresh consideration, taking note of her initial application dated 26.10.2012. None appeared for the petitioner on call. Respondent No. 2 reported that, pursuant to communication dated 07.03.2022, the matter was directed to be placed before the next DLC meeting along with a detail report dated 16.03.2022, which the Principal submitted before the DLC; the court also noted that no notice had issued to respondent No. 1 on whether the petitioner's case was considered by the DLC; and that in a subsequent selection for the Grade-IV post in the same college the petitioner was successful, her name having been forwarded by the Governing Body to the Director of Higher Education, Assam for approval. Presuming the petitioner not interested as the recommendation had duly been placed before the DLC, the court closed the contempt petition, granting liberty to revive it by filing a one page affidavit.

Page No.# 1/2

GAHC010240382022

2026:GAU-AS:1573

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

Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/740/2022

DEBO MALI

D/O. LT. ARUN MALI, R/O. SONTOLA (MILANPUR) P.O. MIRZA, P.S. PALASBARI, DIST. KAMRUP (M), ASSAM.

VERSUS

KURTHI JALLI AND ANR

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND THE CHEIRMAN DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE, KAMRUP.

2:DR. NABAJYOTI DAS PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY DAKHIN KAMRUP COLLEGE MIRZA

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. R KALITA, MS N BORDOLOI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR B CHOUDHURY (R-2), W AHMED (R-2)

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY O R D E R

06.02.2026

By order dated 08.02.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 704/2022, while interfering with the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by District Level Committee in its meeting

Page No.# 2/2

dated 18.03.2020, this court remanded the matter back to DLC, Kamrup (R) for a fresh consideration by taking note of initial application dated 26.10.2012 with further direction to consider the said application.

None appears for the petitioner on call.

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 referring to the communication dated 07.03.2022 submits that the matter was directed to be placed before the next meeting of DLC along with detail report dated 16.03.2022. Subsequently, the Principal of the College submitted a detail report dated 16.03.2022 before the District Level Committee.

No notice has been issued to the respondent no. 1 as to whether the case of the petitioner was considered by the DLC.

Be that as it may, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that in the meantime pursuant to selection process in the same college, for the post of Grade-IV she has been successful and the Governing Body of the college forwarded her name to the Director of Higher Education, Assam for approval.

Be that as it may, as none appears for the petitioner on call, this court presumes that the petitioner is not interested inasmuch as the recommendation was duly placed before the DLC.

Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. However, if the petitioner is interested to revive this petition, she may file one page affidavit for such revival of this petition.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant