Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010060302025 2025:GAU-AS:4976 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1591/2025 BAHARUL ISLAM S/O- LATE AMIR UDDIN, R/O- RAJABARI GRANT, P.O. SOLOQURI, DIST- NAGAON, PIN- 782123, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, MS S A KHALIFA,MR. A DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 23.04.2025 Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Page No.# 2/3 2. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 21.03.2025, Mr. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel for the respondents has obtained instruction and produced one Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2024, before this Court dealing with the issue of refusal of promotion and fixation of seniority thereafter. To a pointed query of this Court, as to whether the authority concerned, while passing the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, had taken note of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, Mr. Kaushik submits that a perusal of the impugned order does not indicate that the said Office Memorandum was taken note of by the respondent authorities and as such, Mr. Kaushik submits that the matter may be relegated to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2024. 3. Ms. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has no objection in the event of relegating the matter to the respondent authorities to consider the same in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2024. However, she submits that the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, may be set aside. 4. Having heard the submissions of learned Advocates of both sides, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, and the Office Memorandum dated 31.04.2024, produced by Mr. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 5. Perusal of the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, indicates that in the said order, the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2024, has not been taken into account while considering the case of the petitioner. 6. Thus, taking note of aforesaid aspect and also considering the submissions Page No.# 3/3 of learned counsel for both the parties, and as agreed upon, the impugned order dated 06.03.2025, stands set aside and quashed and the matter stands relegated to the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner, in the light of the Office Memorandum dated 31.05.2024. This exercise has to be carried out within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authority within a period of 15 days from today. 7. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant