Page No. 1/13 2026:GAU-AS:10604 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Writ petition [c] no. 7169/2025 Jiarul Islam, S/o- Abdul Mannan, Vill. Barbhita, P.O. Jatradia, P.S. Tarabari, Dist. Barpeta, Pin - 781305. ………………Petitioner -VERSUS- 1. The State of Assam, Represented by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Land Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Dispur, Guwahati - 781006. 2. The District Commissioner, Barpeta, P.O. Barpeta, Pin - 781301. 3. The Revenue Circle Officer, Chenga, Dist. Barpeta, P.O. Chenga, Pin - 781305. ……………….Respondents GAHC010265402025 Page No. 2/13 BeFore Hon’BLe Mr. JUStice MAniSH cHoUDHUrY Advocates : For the Petitioner : Mr. M.A. Sheikh, Advocate For the Respondent no. 1 : Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department For the Respondent nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. H.K. Hazarika, Junior Government Advocate, Assam Date of pronouncement of judgment : 28.07.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? : No Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? : Yes JUDGMent & orDer This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by rejection of his application for issuance of a ‘Permanent Residential Certificate [PRC] for Higher Education’ by a Rejection Order dated 04.04.2025 passed by the Designated Public Servant. Assail is made to the Rejection Order dated 04.04.2025 on the ground that the same has been passed arbitrarily and without Page No. 3/13 application of mind. The Rejection Order is also assailed on the ground that the factors germane for issuance of Permanent Residential Certificate [PRC] for Higher Education were not taken into consideration by the Designated Public Servant. 2. It is stated that the petitioner was born on 01.09.2002. The name of his grandfather Late Jabed Ali, son of Sadek and the name of his father is Sri Abdul Mannan. It is stated that the family of the petitioner has been residing in Village – Barbhita, Sub-Division – Barpeta, Mouza – Chenga, Police Station – Tarabari, District – Barpeta, which is within the territorial limits of Chenga Legislative Assembly Constituency [LAC], since the time of his grandfather. It is stated that the name of the petitioner’s grandfather appeared in the Electoral Roll, published in the years 1970, 1997 and thereafter for Chenga LAC. It is further mentioned that in the NRC of 1951, the name of the petitioner’s grandfather was recorded wrongly as Abed Ali, instead of Jabed Ali. The petitioner has claimed that there was an annual Kheraj Patta no. 105 issued in favour of the petitioner’s grandfather on 09.01.1965 in respect of a plot of land, covered by Dag nos. 208 and 225, Village – Barbhita. 3. The petitioner has stated that as he has the requisite qualifications, he appeared in the National Eligibility-cum- Entrance Test [NEET] [UG] – 2025 conducted for the Ministry of Education & Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of India by the National Testing Agency [NTA] on 04.05.2025. In the application submitted for the NEET [UG] – 2025, the petitioner mentioned Assam as the State of eligibility. The application submitted by the petitioner for NEET [UG] – 2025 was processed and thereafter, a provisional Admit Card was issued to him to appear in the NEET [UG] – 2025 on Page No. 4/13 04.05.2025 from a test centre in Guwahati. The petitioner’s Roll Number, as shown in the provisional Admit Card, was 1402109124. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared in the NEET [UG-2025] on 04.05.2025. As per the Score Card published by the National Testing Agency [NTA], the petitioner scored 92.5368790 Percentile, by obtaining 425 marks out of total marks of 720. 4. As after publication of the results, the NTA used to conduct Counselling Sessions for the purpose of admitting students in the Medical Colleges and it was a requirement to submit a Permanent Residential Certificate [PRC] to get admission with Assam as the petitioner’s State of eligibility, the petitioner applied for a Permanent Residential Certificate [PRC] online in the designated portal on 12.03.2025. The receipt of the said application number was acknowledged as Application no. SSDG/ED/PRC/107708762. As per the acknowledgement receipt, the Designated Public Servant for the notified public service, ‘Permanent Residential Certificate [PRC]’ was the District Commissioner, Barpeta and fourteen working days from 12.03.2025 was mentioned as proposed delivery date. 5. When the petitioner did not receive the service within the prescribed delivery date, the petitioner checked the status of his application in the designated portal and on such checking, the petitioner came to learn from the designated portal that the concerned Circle Officer did not recommend for issuance of the Permanent Residential Certificate [PRC] for the petitioner. In the designated portal, the status of the application was shown simply as ‘Rejected’. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition assailing the said Rejection Order dated 04.04.2025 and for a direction to Page No. 5/13 the respondent authorities to issue the Permanent Residential Certificate [PRC]. 6. I have heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam for the respondent no. 1; and Mr. H.K. Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 & 3. 7. Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had submitted all the supporting documents along with the application when he submitted the application online on 12.03.2025. It is submitted by Mr. Sheikh that there was a minor discrepancy in the name of the petitioner’s grandfather in the NRC of 1951 in that his name was wrongly shown as ‘Abed Ali’ instead of ‘Jabed Ali’. To that effect, an affidavit was submitted stating that the names were wrongly shown as ‘Abed Ali’ and ‘Sabed’, instead of ‘Jabed Ali’ and ‘Sadek’. He has further contended that the Rejection Order dated 04.04.2025 was without any reason. He has further canvassed that the respondent authorities have subsequently tried to improve their case by showing certain reasons in the affidavit-in-opposition filed through the respondent no. 3. According to him, such explanations are not to be taken into consideration when the question is regarding legality and validity of the impugned Rejection Order dated 04.04.2025. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that with the application, the petitioner had submitted a number of other documents in support of the claim, apart from the NRC of 1951 reflecting the name of the petitioner’s grandfather. It is contended that the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Designated Public Servant did not consider any of those Page No. 6/13 supporting documents prior to rejection of the application by the cryptic Rejection Order dated 04.04.2025. 8. In response, Mr. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has submitted that the matter of issuance of Permanent Residential Certificate [PRC] for Higher Education is regulated by the procedure laid down in an Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2013 issued by the Political [B] Department, Government of Assam. He has drawn attention to the fact that issue of PRC for Higher Education is a notified public service under the Assam Right to Public Services [ARTPS] Act, 2012 and therefore, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the Rejection Order dated 04.04.2025, the petitioner has the remedy of filing of an appeal instead of approaching this Court by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution directly. Mr. Dutta has placed a copy of the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2013; a Notification dated 10.04.2013 issued under Section 4 of the Assam Right to Public Services [ARTPS] Act, 2012, as amended; an Office Memorandum dated 19.01.2022; and a Circular dated 01.04.2022 of the Political [B] Department, Government of Assam, which are on the subject of issuance of PRC for educational purposes. 9. Mr. Hazarika, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 has submitted, by referring to the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed through the respondent no. 3, that the petitioner himself had admitted regarding the discrepancy in the NRC of 1951, where the name of the applicant’s grandfather was recorded as ‘Abed Ali’ instead of ‘Jabed Ali’. He has contended that a self-declared affidavit, which was submitted by the petitioner could not be treated as a legal Page No. 7/13 document to remove the discrepancy in the NRC of 1951. He has submitted that there was a break in linkage and due to variations in the names, the application for the PRC was rejected on 04.04.2024 after submission of a field verification report by the Land Records Assistant. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the materials brought on record by the learned counsel for the parties through their pleadings. 11. As per the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2013, ‘Issue of Permanent Residential Certificate [PRC] for Higher Education’ is a notified public service and a PRC is issued to Indian citizens only for the purpose of admission to educational institutions where such certificates are insisted upon by the educational institutions. Such certificates are issued as per existing provisions after due examination by the District Commissioners and Sub-Divisional Officers [Civil] containing a clear provision that it will be applicable only in respect of the specific requirement of admission to that specific institution and shall not be valid for any other purpose. 12. In the Circular dated 01.04.2022 [supra] also, it has been clarified that the PRC will be issued only for the purpose of admission to educational institutions with the following conditions : [i] Admission to educational institutions where such certificates are insisted upon; [ii] PRCs are to be issued as per existing provisions after due examination by DCs/SDOs; and [iii] PRCs should contain a clear provision that it will be applicable only in respect of the specific requirement of admission to that specific institution and shall not be valid for any other purposes. Page No. 8/13 13. The procedure to be followed for submitting an application for PRC and issuance of PRC has been outlined in the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2013. In the Citizen Charter attached to the Office Memorandum, the Standard Guidelines, Procedure, Timeline, Designated Public Servant, Appellate Authority, Reviewing Authority and the documents required to be submitted with the application are specified. 14. It is of relevance to mention that the following three categories of persons are made eligible for Permanent Residential Certificate [PRC] for Higher Education by the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2013 :- [1] a person who along with his parents and forefathers or whose parents and forefathers has/have continuously resided in Assam for a minimum period of 50 years; [2] a person who has continuously resided in Assam for a minimum period of 20 years; and [3] a person who is a child of any person falling in any of the preceding categories. 15. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 3, it is averred that the petitioner has himself admitted that there is a discrepancy in the NRC of 1951 in that there the name of the petitioner’s grandfather was recorded as ‘Abed Ali’ instead of ‘Jabed Ali’ and therefore, a self-declared affidavit dated 30.10.1993 cannot be treated as a conclusive legal document to remove the discrepancy in the NRC of 1951. It is further averred that since there is a break in linkage between the legacy person [1951] and the subsequent generations resulting in variation of names ‘Jabed’ and ‘Abed’ and in absence of an unbroken chain, the Revenue Office could not verify the claim. It is stated that inclusion in the latest NRC is the primary proof Page No. 9/13 of citizenship and a PRC requires distinct proof of permanent domicile. 16. From the stand taken by the respondent no. 3 in the affidavit- in-opposition, it appears that the primary ground for rejection of the application of the petitioner is the discrepancy in the legacy data recorded in the NRC of 1951 regarding the link of the petitioner’s grandfather with the petitioner. Having regard to the Circular dated 01.04.2022 of the Political [B] Department, Government of Assam, which has been issued as a clarification in the matter of issuance of PRC, this Court is of the considered view that such ground as the primary ground for rejection of the application of the petitioner for PRC is not tenable. In the Circular dated 01.04.2022, it has been clarified that for an application of PRC, which is a notified public service under the provisions of Assam Right to Public Services [ARTPS] Act, 2012, the Designated Public Servant is not to insist on submission of a copy of Draft NRC, which was published on 31.08.2019 as a supporting document while applying for PRC by the applicant. The reason is that the Draft NRC published on 31.08.2019 is yet to be finalised by the competent authority. 17. As per the Citizen Charter annexed to the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2013, the stipulated time period for providing the notified public service is fourteen days and the Designated Public Servant is the Additional District Commissioner or Sub- Divisional Officer [Sadar], as notified by the District Commissioner in a District and the Sub-Divisional Officer [C] in the Sub-Division. The Appellate Authority is the District Commissioner. Page No. 10/13 18. The Assam Right to Public Services [ARTPS] Act, 2012 has been enacted by the Assam Legislative Assembly in order to provide for delivery of notified public services to the people of the State of Assam within the stipulated time limit and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto. As per Section 2[h], ‘Right to Public Service’ means right to obtain the public services under the ARTPS Act, notified from time to time, within the stipulated time limit as prescribed under Section 5. Section 5 of the ARTPS Act has laid down that every eligible person shall have the right to obtain the services in accordance with the ARTPS Act within the time bound period as notified under Section 4. It is the liability of the Designated Government Servant to deliver services, under Section 6 of the ARTPS Act, within the stipulated period. The stipulated time limit, as per Section 7[1], starts from the date when the application for obtaining a required notified service is submitted to the Designated Public Servant or to a person subordinate to him authorized to receive the application. As per Section 7[2], the Designated Public Servant on receipt of an application under sub-section [1] shall, within the stipulated time limit, provide the notified service or reject the application and in case of rejection of application, he shall record the reasons in writing and communicate to the person making the application, [i] the reasons for such rejection; [ii] the period within which an appeal against such rejection may be preferred; and [iii] the particulars of the Appellate Authority. 19. A reasoned or speaking order is one which expressly states the reasons for the decision. In other words, a reasoned order speaks for itself by assigning the reasons behind the conclusion. If an order is passed without giving a reason by the concerned authority, more particularly, when the authority is Page No. 11/13 statutory authority then the order is a non-speaking one. Non- speaking order is one which does not provide a clear reason for its decision. The authority exercising the statutory power must record reasons for its decision, unless such obligation is not expressly or impliedly dispensed with. It is implicit in the principles of natural justice and fair play that an authority which has been vested with the power to decide the matter should record reasons as it is part of fair procedure, more particularly, when the decision is likely to affect the person concerned. When the order is an appealable order, recording of reasons assumes significance as the reasons would come under examination of the appellate authority. Without a reasoned order, the appellant also finds himself handicapped to challenge the order when the reasons are not disclosed in the order itself. In the case in hand, the right of the applicant is also traceable to his right to pursue education. Recording of reasons is also prima facie suggestive of conscious application of mind on the part of the authority. The obligation to record reasons is a possible check against arbitrary action on the part of the authority invested with the statutory power to take a decision which is likely to affect the right of the person concerned. When the statute itself contains a prescription to record reasons in the decision, absence of reasons in the decision falls short of prescription and would be in violation of the prescription and thus, illegal. Against a non-speaking order, even if it is an appealable order, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be entertained as such an order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and fairplay. 20. The reason assigned subsequently regarding rejection of the petitioner’s application for NRC in the affidavit is not found sustainable in view of the clarification provided in the Circular Page No. 12/13 dated 01.04.2022. That apart, any reason assigned in the affidavit-in-opposition is to be discarded considering the rejection of the application cryptically as ‘Rejected’. The law is settled that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain ground, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order that in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, gets validated by additional grounds later brought out [Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others, [1978] 1 SCC 405]. 21. Viewed from the above standpoints, the Rejection Order dated 04.04.2025 cannot be termed as a reasoned order, fulfilling the prescription under Section 7[2] of the Assam Right to Public Services [ARTPS] Act, 2012, as amended. Thus, the impugned Rejection Order is liable to be set aside and quashed. It is accordingly set aside and quashed. 22. At this stage, Mr. Sheikh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that though the process of admission through the Counseling Sessions on the basis of the results of NEET [UG] – 2025 has already been over, the petitioner has, in the meantime, appeared in the NEET [UG] – 2026. As per the Score-Card published in the NEET [UG] – 2026, as placed by Mr. Sheikh, the petitioner has scored 522 marks out of total 720 marks and his percentile score is 96.7910815. Mr. Sheikh has submitted that there is a fair possibility of the petitioner getting admission into a Medical College on the basis of such Score- Card in the Counseling Sessions likely to be held within a month or two. Page No. 13/13 23. With the setting aside and quashing of the Rejection Order dated 04.04.2025, the matter stands reverted back to the Designated Public Servant for consideration of the application of the petitioner for issuance of PRC for Higher Education. The Designated Public Servant shall consider the application afresh strictly in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2013; the provisions of Assam Right to Public Services [ARTPS] Act, 2012, as amended; the Citizen Charter attached to the Office Memorandum dated 01.04.2013; and other notifications/office memoranda/circular, etc. on the subject. As the matter of the admission of the petitioner for pursuing medical education on the basis of the results in the NEET [UG] – 2026 is dependent with the issuance of PRC for Higher Education or otherwise, the Designated Public Servant shall bring the entire process into its finality within a period of thirty days from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order at his office by the petitioner. If in the processing of the application, any further document is found necessary from the petitioner, then the Designated Public Servant is to inform the petitioner in writing as regards the deficiency, if any, in the application within a time period of fifteen days from the date of submission of a copy of this order at his office. In such a situation, the time period of thirty days is to be calculated from the date of meeting the deficiency by the petitioner. 24. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition is allowed to the extent, indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant Ananta Konwar Digitally signed by Ananta Konwar DN: c=IN, o=Personal, postalCode=782103, l=Nagaon, st=Assam, street=00 Kahiguri, Gandhibari, Raha Assam India 782103 Near Namghar, title=8844, 2.5.4.20=b5a05e1af058b36f4059a90ed7cffd5bb96f7ecd72ef4648d7f09f1773 320e01, serialNumber=d2d87646b496abfcb916daa92f0cc8a8476a70693ea30fe4d16 a2fc5fbaca1e3, email=anantakonwar88@gmail.com, cn=Ananta Konwar Date: 2026.08.01 13:57:52 +05'30'