Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010029012019 2025:GAU-AS:2210 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1092/2019 MITRA SARKAR MAZUMDER W/O. SRI SUBHASH RANJAN MAZUMDER, R/O. VILL. LANE NO.19, VIVEKANANDA ROAD, SILCHAR TOWN, P.O. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REP. BY THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIAPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIAPARA GUWAHATI-19. 5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS CDC Page No.# 2/4 CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM SILCHAR-01. 6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CACHAR SILCHAR-01 ASSAM. 7:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SILCHAR P.O. SILCHAR-01 CACHAR ASSAM. 8:THE HEADMASTER OF TARAPUR GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL SILCHAR-788003 CACHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MR. M KHAN,MR. J RAHMAN,KAKALI DEVI Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, SEC. EDU.,MR. A K DUTTA (R8),MR. B PURKAYASTHA (R8) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 04.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. M Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Sarma learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Mr. B Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent No.8. 2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer: Page No.# 3/4 “Admit, call for the records and issue a rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari be not issued by setting aside the letter dated 9.07.2008 (Annex- 16) issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar and to declare the judgment and order dated 26.11.2015 in Title Suit No.163/2008 passed by the Munsiff No.1, Cachar (Annex-18) and judgment and order dated 15.12.2008 in T.A No.2/2016 passed by the Civil Judge No.1 (Annex-19) are non-est in law and/or a writ of Mandamus be not issued directing the respondents to release the current and arrear salary from July, 2008 to the petitioner and/or be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge her duty as Assistant Teacher of Tarapur Girls ME School being amalgamated with Tarapur Girls ME School and/or cause or causes shown, if any and upon hearing the parties, make the rule absolute and/or pass such further or other order(s).” 3. The Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Radhe Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors reported in 2015 3 SCR 197, held that writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all high courts. A writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdictional orders of tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. It was further held that there is no precedence in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Control of working of subordinate courts in dealing with their judicial order is exercised by way of appellate or revisional power or power of subordination under Article 227. Page No.# 4/4 4. It was also laid down that order of civil court stands on different footing from the orders of authorities or tribunal or courts other than Judicial/Civil Courts and the expression inferior court is not referable to Judicial Court. Accordingly it was held that a Writ of Certiorari cannot be issued against a Civil Court. 5. It is seen that in this case Writ of Certiorari is sought for against judgment passed in Title Suit by Munsiff No.1, Cachar and against the appellate order passed by Civil Judge No.1, inasmuch as the letter dated 09.07.2008 was subject matter of the suit in question. 6. Therefore, this issue should not detain this court any further and it is an unhesitant conclusion of this court that the present writ petition is not maintainable as by way of this writ petition decree/appellate court decree of Civil Courts are under challenge and the challenge made to order dated 09.07.2008 relate to the said decrees. 7. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. 8. At this stage, Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be granted to him to approach the appropriate court. This court need not grant any liberty inasmuch as liberty shall always remain with the petitioner, to challenge such decree etc., as permitted under law. JUDGE Comparing Assistant