Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DAILYLAW 1767 (GAU)

RATNAWALI DEVI v. THE STATE OF ASSAM

WP(C)/581/2018 · 2026-03-11

N Unni Krishnan Nair

Writ Petition (Civil)body2018

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010017272018 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/581/2018 RATNAWALI DEVI W/O- BIRENDRA CHANDRA SARMAH, R/O- VILL- GOMTHAPARA, P.O- DEODHANIGHAT, PIN- 784147, P.S- SIPAJHAR, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT., ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY- 781019 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DARRANG DISTRICT CIRCLE MANGALDOI ASSAM 4:THE PRESIDENT GOVERNING BODY BURHINAGAR JUNIOR COLLEGE MAHALIPARA DARRANG-784147 ASSAM 5:DIGANTA RAJBONGSHI S/O- DINANATH DEKA R/O- SONALIPAM MANGALDOI DIST- DARRANG ASSAM Page No.# 2/3 6:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE POST OF PRINCIPAL BURHINAGAR JUNIOR COLLEGE MAHALIPARA DARRANG-784147 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K SARMAH, S K DAS,MD R ISLAM,MS. A TALUKDAR,MR H BORAH,MR P BURAGOHAIN,MR S C DAS,MR. R C DAS Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SECONDARY EDUCATION, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 12/03/2026 None appears for the petitioner on call. Mr. U Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education Department is present. The present writ petition has been instituted by the petitioner assailing the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5 as the Principal of Burhinagar Junior College. This Court finds that the petitioner in the matter had already retired from her services on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2018 itself. It is a settled position of law that after superannuation, the prayer for promotion with retrospective effect would not be mandated to be so considered, more so, when the rules holding the field also do not make any provision for a retrospective promotion in respect of a retired employee. However, in view of the fact that there is no one representing the petitioner today, as Page No.# 3/3 well as it is found that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner on the last date of listing, i.e., on 28.03.2025, the present writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. JUDGE Comparing Assistant