Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010211442025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/527/2025 ARATI RANI MAZUMDER WIFE OF SRI BIJAN KUMAR PURKAYASTHA, R/O VILLAGE BHEUL (SYEDPUR), P.O.- SYEDPUR, P.S.- HAILAKANDI, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM VERSUS SMTI SURANJANA SENAPATI, ACS THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ASSAM, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI-19 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M AHMED, MD I H LASKAR Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D SAIKIA, MR. A PHUKAN,MR S M T CHISTIE BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 18.09 .2026 Heard Mr. M. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2] This contempt petition is by the petitioner alleging wilful disobedience and Page No.# 2/5 non compliance of the order dated 06.05.2024 passed in WP(C) No.7265/2021. 3] After issuance of notice and during the pendency of the contempt proceeding the order dated 23.06.2026 came to be issued by the Director which is placed before the Court. 4] The Court by the said judgment and order issued the following directions: “16. In view of the conclusions as reached herein above, the case of the petitioner is held entitled to have her services regularized in terms of the decision of this Court in the case of Jibon Ch. Deka (Supra) and Md. Harunal Rashid (supra). Accordingly, the following directions are issued:- (i). In view of the fact that the petitioner’s services was not regularized only on the ground that her case was so recommended by High Power Committee as a Sanskrit Teacher, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam is now directed to place the case of the petitioner again before the High Power Committee with the stipulation that the petitioner, during her service tenure in Borband M. E. School, Hailakandi had been teaching the General subject and accordingly, she would be entitled to be regularized in her services as a Assistant Teacher in the said school. (ii). The case of the petitioner being placed before the High Power Committee, the committee shall again verify the particulars of the petitioner and by referring to its earlier recommendation as made in respect of the petitioner, proceed to make fresh recommendation now by reckoning that the petitioner was teaching the General subjects in the school since the date of her initial appointment. (iii). The recommendations as would now be made in the case of the petitioner by the High Power Committee, shall be further processed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam and in the event, the said recommendation is in favor of the petitioner, proceed to take all requisite steps for regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f. the date; when persons similarly situated were regularized in their services in pursuance to the decision of this Court in the case of Jibon Ch. Deka (supra) with all consequential benefits of pay, allowances etc. (iv).The case of the petitioner now being directed to be regularized with retrospective effect, the respondent authorities, under such circumstances shall also consider as to the pension and pensionary benefits that would now be available to the petitioner on account of her such regularization of her services Page No.# 3/5 with retrospective effect and thereafter, on computation of the same in the manner as required, release to the petitioner her such benefits. (v). In the event, the High Power Committee on examination of the case of the petitioner is of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to have her services regularized as an Assistant Teacher in the said school, the High Power Committee shall record its reasons for the same and forward the matter to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, on receipt of such recommendation shall communicate to the petitioner the reasons for which her services could not be regularized, in the form of a speaking order. 17. The above exercise as now required be carried out by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam shall be so initiated and concluded within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 5] In terms of the said directions the order dated 23.06.2026 was passed, wherein the following findings were recorded: “(i) The petitioner was initially appointed honorarily as Sanskrit Mistress and not as an Assistant Teacher. (ii) Discrepancies was noticed regarding the relevant School Managing Committee Resolution under which the appointment was made. Also, it was reported that the approval order of Appointment of the petitioner, Arati Rani Mazumder, issued by DIS, Hailakandi dated 16/07/1981, the Reslution No. of the SMC Meeting is given as No. 3 dated 04/03/1977. On the other hand, in the Appointment order in respect of the petitioner, Arati Rani Mazumder issued by the Secretary of Borbond MES, dated 26/03/1977, the Resolution No. is mentioned as No.2 and the date of the SMC meeting is mentioned as 25/03/1977. (iii) The joining report produced during verification differs from the copy annexed in the writ petition, thereby casting doubt upon the authenticity of the records. Petitioner enclosed unsigned copy of the Joining letter in the Writ petition but during verification submitted a signed copy of joining report duly endorsed by the Headmaster of the school. (iv) Serious inconsistencies have been noticed regarding the educational qualification of the petitioner. The certificate relied upon to establish Sanskrit Madhyamik qualification appears doubtful when Page No.# 4/5 examined in the light of the age reflected in the HSLC records. A certificate dated 05/01/1966 was shown by the petitioner during verification wherein it is stated that she had passed Sanskrit Madhyamik examination in the year 1965 from a School named Sri Sri Ramkrishna Satupathi, Hailakandi. Taking into consideration the date of birth as per HSLC certificate and Admit Card issued by SEBA, her age was 15 years 08 months 20 days as on 01/03/1974. As such the age of the petitioner in the year 1965 was about 6 years, i.e she passed Sanskrit Madhyamik Examination at the age of 6 years. (v) The Petitioner submitted working certificate issued by the then Headmaster of Barbond ME School on 20/12/2005. In the said certificate it had been certified that the petitioner had been working in the school since provincialisation. The school of the petitioner was provincialized in the year 1978 (mentioned in point 6 of the Writ Petition). However, the joining report submitted by the petitioner during verification shows that she joined on 01/04/1977. Thus, there is inconsistency between the timeline of the two documents. (vi) The appointment and working status of the petitioner could not be conclusively established due to non-availability of contemporaneous records, including the relevant School Managing Committee Resolution Book and Teacher Attendance Registers, which have reportedly been damaged. In the absence of such crucial documents it cannot be said with certainty that she had indeed been rightfully appointed and she has rendered her services during the said period.” 6] On the basis of the findings by the High Power Committee in it's minutes dated 08.06.2024 rejected the cases of the petitioner and the same was communicated by the order which is placed before the Court. 7] Considering the said order since the directions have already been complied with this Court does not wish to proceed any further in contempt petition and the same is accordingly, stands closed. Needless to say if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2026 liberty is granted to assail the same before the Court by way of independent proceeding. Page No.# 5/5 8] This contempt petition stands closed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant