Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010116392025 2025:GAU-AS:9782 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3869/2025 RANA CHOUDHURY S/O - LATE SUKHA RANJAN CHOUDHURY, R/O - DURGADAS ROAD, WARD NO. 4, NEAR CENTRAL BANK, P.O, P.S AND DIST. - DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN - 783301 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI PIN - 781006. 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI ASSAM PIN - 783301. 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DHUBRI ASSAM PIN - 783301. 5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DHUBRI DIST.- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN - 783301. Page No.# 2/3 6:THE DISTRICT LEVEL COMMITTEE HEADED BY DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DHUBRI DIST. -DHUBRI ASSAM PIN - 78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MAHMUD, M AHMED,MS. B CHETIA,MR. S. SUR,MS. D BORA,MR S ISLAM,MR S H MAHMUD Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 30.07.2025 Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that by filing this writ petition, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the respondent authorities concerned to issue a fresh appointment letter to him for the post of Peon (Grade-IV) in the Office of the Block Elementary Education Officer, Golakganj, Dhubri in view of the fact that the earlier appointment letter issued to him on 15.02.1999 was not known to him due to lack of communication by his appointed counsel. 2. It may be seen that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court with a same prayer by filing Civil Rule No.1889/1996 and this Court vide order dated 26.11.1997, disposed the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order considering the fact that there was one post lying vacant under the establishment of Deputy Inspector of Schools, Dhubri. Page No.# 3/3 3. It is pursuant to the said order that the petitioner subsequently was given an appointment order on 15.02.1999. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he had not been informed by his appointed counsel about the issuance of the order, it is too late in the day to turn back the clock for a fresh direction like the one issued on 26.11.1997. In other words, the writ petition suffers from the vice of delay and laches. 4. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition and the same is dismissed. 5. Ms. N. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. JUDGE Comparing Assistant