Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010136782025 2025:GAU-AS:15654 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3624/2025 HIMAJYOTI MAZUMDAR D/O NARENDA NATH MAZUMDAR, VILL NABURKA SATRA P.O. KHUDRADIMU, P.S.- RANGIA, KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781382 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS K.D.C. KAMRUP AMINGAON PIN-781031 4:RANJIT KUMAR SARMA ASSISTANT TEACHER PATIDARRANG VIDYAPITH HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL KARARA DIST- KAMRUP (R) PIN-78138 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHAKRAVARTY, A BHARALI,MR K K MEDHI,MS. R. R. SAIKIA,MR. S K MEDHI Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., MR. H A LASKAR (R-4),N SARMAH(R-4) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 19.11.2025 Heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. D. Musahary, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in Secondary Education Department. Also heard Mr. H. A. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. During the course of deliberation, Ms. Musahary has produced one order, dated 18.11.2025, and on the basis of the said order, Ms. Musahary submits that the order, dated 22.05.2025, by which, the private respondent was given the charge of Academic In-charge of the school, has been withdrawn. 3. At this stage, Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the order, dated 22.05.2025, has been withdrawn by the respondent authorities, this matter becomes infructuous. However, he submits that an observation may be made, to the effect that whenever the appointment of In- charge Headmaster is considered, then the same has to be considered on the basis of seniority. Mr. Medhi, in support of his submission, has referred to a decision of this Court in the case of Pradip Chakravorty Vs. State of Assam and Others, reported in (2012) Legal Eagle (GAU) 764. 4. However, Mr. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has opposed to the submission being advanced by Mr. Medhi. Page No.# 3/3 5. Taking note of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and also, the decision referred to by Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the case of Pradip Chakravorty (Supra), this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition, for being infructuous. However, it is provided that whenever the case of appointment of In-charge Headmaster arises, then the respondent authorities shall consider the same, strictly in accordance with law. 6. In terms of the above, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant