Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010126742025 2025:GAU-AS:8387 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3522/2025 BIKASH GOSWAMI SON OF HERAMBA KUMAR GOSWAMI, R/O ADLAGURI, P.O.- ADLAGURI, P.S.- MANIKPUR, DIST- BONGAIGAON, PIN-783392 VERSUS 1: THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 3:PRINCIPAL OF B.H. COLLEGE HOWLY P.O - HOWLY ASSAM PIN-78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R GOSWAMI, MS N DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, - BEFORE - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO Date : 23-06-2025 Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2. [2] Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after cancelling the advertisement on 2(two) occasions, the respondent authority Page No.# 2/3 concerned finally acted upon the advertisement dated 10.09.2024 for the post of Junior Assistant (Unreserved category), amongst others, under the establishment of the Principal of B.H. College, Howly (respondent No.3). He submits that though the written examination for the post in question was conducted on 16.02.2025 but the same was in a most un-transparent manner. He submits that there were serious anomalies and irregularities committed in the manner in which the examination was conducted as stated in Paragraph 8 of the writ petition. The petitioner, who has the experience of having worked for about 5(five) years under the said establishment on temporary basis, was aspiring to be selected for the post in question. However, in view of the manner in which the examination was conducted, the petitioner has all the reasons to believe that he will not be appointed and instead another blue eyed person may be appointed against the said post. [3] At this stage, Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department submits that it appears that the petitioner has not addressed his grievance before the respondent authorities concerned before coming to this Court and, therefore, he may be asked to exhaust the alternative remedy available to him. [4] Considering the projections made by the petitioner and the submission made by Mr. A.R. Tahbildar, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Higher) Department, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file a concise representation before the Director of Higher Education, Assam, i.e. the respondent No.2, within a period of 7(seven) days from today, highlighting his grievance about the manner in which the written examination has been conducted. The respondent No.2, upon receipt of the Page No.# 3/3 same, shall consider the representation and dispose of the same by way of a speaking order within 2(two) weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall also submit a copy of the writ petition to the respondent No.2 for doing the needful. [5] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. J U D G E Comparing Assistant