Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 12270 (GAU)

ABINASH DAS v. THE SECRETARY

I.A.(Civil)/1529/2025 · 2025-05-22

Robin Phukan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010099842025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1529/2025 ABINASH DAS S/O- LATE JATINDRA NATH DAS, R/O- VILL- BHAWANIPUR, PO- BHAWANIPUR, BARPETA, PIN- 781352, ASSAM VERSUS THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION 2ND FLOOR KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM-781019 3:UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION BAHADUR SHAH ZAFAR MARG NEW DELHI-110002 4:ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION NELSON MANDELA MARG VASANT KUNJ NEW DELHI-110070 5:THE PRINCIPAL BAKSA POLYTECHNIC BELGURI PATHAR BAKSA ASSAM-781372 6:THE PRINCIPAL NOWGONG POLYTECHNIC Page No.# 2/3 NAGAON ASSAM-78200 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M SARMA, MR P BHARDWAJ,MR. M SARMA,MS. ANASUYA C,MRIDUNIL M KASHYAP Advocate for the Respondent : SC. EDU., SC, U G C,MR. K. P. PATHAK, SC, A I C T E, (R-4),MR. K P PATHAK BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 23.05.2025 Heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. D. Upamanyu, learned standing counsel of Higher Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2; Mr. Y.N. Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3; and Mr. B. Das, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. This interlocutory application, is preferred by the application for clarifying the judgment and order, dated 28.04.2025, passed by this court. 3. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that while passing the order dated 28.04.2025, in paragraph No. 14, inadvertently the word Regulation 3(f) has not been incorporated and as such, the applicant herein facing some difficulties. Mr. Sarma further submits that in the said order no timeline has been fixed by this court for completion of the exercise which has been directed to be carried out by the State respondents and as such, a timeline may be fixed. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that they have no objection in the event of allowing this interlocutory application. 5. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, it Page No.# 3/3 is provided that, henceforth, in paragraph No. 14, of the judgment and order dated 28.04.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 1188/2025, after the word ‘Polytechnics of Assam’, the word ‘Regulation 3(f)’ shall be incorporated. It is further provided that the exercise mentioned in the aforesaid order shall be carried out within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 6. Accordingly, necessary correction may be made in the order dated 28.04.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 1188/2025. 7. In terms of above, this IA stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant