Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010085552024 2025:GAU-AS:15674 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/553/2024 JAYANTA DAS C/O GAJENDRA DAS RESIDENT OF KUKUWABATABARY WARD NO. 8 PO PATHSALA DIST BAJALAI ASSAM 781325 2: SEWALI DAS C/O MOHINI DAS VILLAGE RUPNAGAR PO INDRAPUR DIST BARPETA ASSAM 781032 3: MAMANI BHATTACHARYYA C/O HAREKRISHNA SHARMA RESIDENT OF BHATTADEV NAGAR WARD NO. 1 PO PATHSALA DIST BARPETA ASSAM 781325 4: MALAYA MALAKAR C/O TAPAN BHARALI VILLAGE DUBI (MALIPARA) PO DUBI DIST BAJALI ASSAM 781325 5: NAREN PATHAK C/O LATE MATHUR PATHAK VILLAGE MAKHIBAHA PO MAKHIBAHA DIST NALBARI ASSAM 781325 Page No.# 2/3 VERSUS NARAYAN KONWAR COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY ) DEPT DISPUR GUWAHATI 2:MAMATA HOJAI DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 ------------ Advocate for : MR S BORTHAKUR Advocate for : MR. D SAIKIA (R-2) appearing for NARAYAN KONWAR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 19.11.2025 Heard Mr. D. C. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, who submits that the common Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2023 passed by this Court with the lead case being WP(C) No. 1353 of 2022 has not been complied with by the respondent and for which reason the instant contempt petition has been filed. [2.] Mr. S. M. T. Chistie, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent authority concerned has passed a Speaking Order on 18.11.2025, whereby, upon coming to a finding that the petitioners have not rendered six (6) years of continuous service as on 01.01.2017 counting from 31.12.2010, their service cannot be provincialised. Accordingly, the Speaking Order was passed in compliance of the Court’s direction. [3.] Mr. D. C. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that this Court had indeed taken into consideration all aspects of the matter and thereafter passed the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2023 and as Page No.# 3/3 such, it will not be open for the respondent to not grant the benefit of provincialisation to the petitioners. [4.] Upon perusing the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2023 and also the Speaking Order produced by Mr. S. M. T. Chistie, this Court is inclined to close the contempt petition. [5.] However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the Speaking Order by way of appropriate proceeding as may be permissible in law, if so advised. [6.] The Speaking Order produced by Mr. S. M. T. Chistie, shall be kept on record and marked as “X” for identification. JUDGE Comparing Assistant