Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010192652025 2025:GAU-AS:11977 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5116/2025 SANJIB DAS S/O LATE BHARAT CH. DAS, R/O FOREST COLONY WEST DIVISION, RONGMILI WARD NO. 6, P.O. AND P.S.- DIPHU, DIST- KARBI ANGLONG, ASSAM, PIN-782460 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ENVIRONMENT AND FOREST DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND HEAD OF FOREST FORCE ASSAM ARANYA BHAWAN PANJABARI GUWAHATI DIST- KAMRUP (M) PIN-781037 ASSAM 3:THE SUPERINTENDENT ASSAM FOREST GUARDS TRAINING SCHOOL MAKU Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BANIK, MS F BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FOREST, Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 03.09.2025 Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I. Barthakur, learned Standing Counsel, Environment and Forest Department for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner is presently serving as a Forest Guard and he is a member of the Assam Junior Forest Service. The matters of recruitment and conditions of service of a member belonging to the Assam Forest Service are regulated by the Assam Junior Forest Service Rules, 2005. 3. The petitioner has stated that seeking clarification in respect of certain ambiguity in the Assam Junior Service Rules, 2005, more particularly, Rule 6 and Rule 12 thereof, the petitioner has preferred a representation before the respondent no. 2 on 19.06.2025. As the said representation has not yet been considered and disposed of by the respondent no. 2, the petitioner is before this Court by the instant writ petition. 4. Mr. Barthakur, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent authorities in the Environment and Forest Department has submitted that if the representation, stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 19.06.2025, before the respondent no. 2 has not yet been disposed of, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the contentions made in the Representation, can dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to take the said representation on board and thereafter, to dispose of the representation by way of a reasoned order. 5. Mr. Banik has agreed to such submissions of Mr. Barthakur. 6. In view of the broad consensus arrived at by the learned counsel for the parties in the afore-stated manner, this Court is of the considered view that if the representation, stated to have been filed by the petitioner before the respondent no. 2 on 19.06.2025, is pending and has not yet been disposed of, the writ petition instead of keeping it pending, can be disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to take the said representation on board Page No.# 3/3 immediately and thereafter, to consider and dispose of the same by way of a reasoned order within a stipulated time period. 7. Accordingly, it is directed that if the Representation dated 19.06.2025 has not yet been disposed of, the respondent no. 2 shall take the said representation on board and thereafter, consider and dispose of the said representation by way of a reasoned order within a period of 4 [four] weeks from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order by the petitioner at the office of the respondent no. 2. 8. It is further made clear that this Court has not made any observations as regards the merits of the claim made by the petitioner in the representation dated 19.06.2025 and thereafter, the respondent no. 2 shall consider the representation on its own merits and in accordance with law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant