Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010277022024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/13/2025 NIRMAL GOYARI S/O. LT. BAPU RAM GOYARI, VILL. BALISIHA JANGHAL, P.O. JAMUGURI, DIST. UDALGURI, BTR, ASSAM, PIN-784114 VERSUS JAGADISH PRASAD BRAHMA AND ANR DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, BODOLAND TERRITORIAL AUTONOMOUS COUNCIL, KOKRAJHAR, PIN 783370. 2:RINTU CHANDRA BORO PRINCIPAL SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT (BTR) AND CHAIRMAN DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR EDUCATION KOKRAJHAR BTR PIN 78337 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR F U BARBHUIYA, MS S DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D SAIKIA (R-1,2), P BHOWMICK(R-1),MR A SHARMA(R- 1),MR. A KHOUND(R-1),MS. N CHOUDHURY(R-1),MR. A K BHUYAN (R-1),MR. S BORA(R- 1,2),MS. R B BORA(R-1,2) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 10-02-2026 Heard Mr. F.U Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R.B Bora, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 & 2. The order of which the contempt petition has been alleged was passed on 11.01.2024 in WP(C) No. 2984/2026 by which the writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent No. 5, Director of Education, BTC to forthwith have the case of the petitioner considered for provincialisation of the service under the provisions of the 2017 Act and for the said purpose required the case of the petitioner to be considered by the District Scrutiny Committee as constituted under the said 2017 Act. The case of the petitioner for provincialisation be placed before the District Scrutiny Committee by the respondent No. 5 in the writ petition within a period of 1 month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. By filing an affidavit, the respondent No.1 has placed before this Court the Minutes of the Meeting on 03.12.2024 by the DSC for implementation of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. In the said DSC, the petitioner had been rejected on the ground where by the Resolution No.3, the committee came to a conclusion that the persons under consideration had acquired 18 months in Diploma Elementary Education from NIOS, which was no longer valid qualification for fresh recruitment and the age limit and qualification of the 3 Nos. of petitioners are not eligible/considerable as per Assam Act 2017. From a perusal of the resolution, it appears that the case of the petitioner has been Page No.# 3/3 rejected only on the ground that he had crossed the age limit. Mr. F.U Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that such a rejection is wrong in law and the respondents should be liable to be held guilty of contempt of Court. This Court is constrained to observe that the direction to the respondent No. 1 & 2 were to the extent of placing the case of the petitioner before the DSC which has been done. The legality or otherwise of the Minutes of the Resolution of the DSC are required to be tested in the appropriate proceeding other than contempt proceeding. Giving liberty to the petitioner to approach such other appropriate forum for redressal, this contempt petition is closed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant