Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010174452025 2025:GAU-AS:10807 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4560/2025 MANJULI BARMAN ASSAMD/O SURENDRA BARMAN W/O BIDYUT BARMAN R/O VILL KARKARI PART II KALAIN PS KATIGOAH DIST CACHAR ASSAM PIN 788815 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER ADN SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPTT SECONDARY DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPTT SECONDARY DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS CACHAR DISTRICT CIRCLE CACHAR PIN 78800 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. L R MAZUMDER, MR. A ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 13.08.2025 Heard Mr. L. R. Mazdumder, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the grievance of the petitioner is that her candidature for the post of Graduate Teacher in Science in Bengali medium for Government as well as Page No.# 2/2 Provincialised Secondary Schools was accepted vide the acknowledgment issued to her on 01.07.2025, but later on vide another acknowledgment slip dated 11.07.2025, her candidature was rejected on the ground that the date of issuance of provisional mark-sheet of diploma in Bengali was after the closer date of the on-line application i.e., 20.11.2024. [2.] Mr. S. M. T. Chistie, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department submits that in a case of similar nature, this Court had declined to entertain the writ petitions filed by the petitioners concerned and the present case is squarely covered by that decision. In support of his submission, the learned Standing Counsel has produced a copy of the order dated 01.08.2025, passed by this Court in WP(C)/3929/2025 (Nayan Sharma and Ors Vs. State of Assam and 5 Ors.) which was a common order covering five cases. [3.] Upon perusal of the materials available on record and upon hearing of the parties, this Court is of the view that the instant petition is squarely covered by the earlier decision of this Court. Therefore, Court finds no ground to entertain the instant writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant