Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 12720 (GAU)

JITUMONI BORUAH v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS

I.A.(Civil)/2317/2026 · 2026-08-20

Kaushik Goswami

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010145052026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2317/2026 JITUMONI BORUAH SON OF SRI GIRISH BORUAH, VILLAGEMAHDHOWA, P.O.-GANDHIA TINIALI, DISTRICT-LAKHIMPUR, PIN- 787058, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 4:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM AS CHAIRMAN GUWAHATI PIN-781019 5:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DISTRICT PIN- 782001 Page No.# 2/3 ASSAM. 6:THE PRINCIPAL MACHKHOWA DEGREE COLLEGE DHEMAJI PIN-787057 ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. M K SHARMA, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 21.08.2026 Heard Mr. A. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the applicant. Also heard Mr. S. Bhuyan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Higher Education Department. 2. By way of this interlocutory application, the applicant seeks correction of the cause title of WP(C)/3140/2026, as well as correction of certain typographical errors relating to the name of the college and the subject/post occupied by the petitioner. 3. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, due to inadvertence, while describing respondent No. 1 in the cause title, “Department of School Education” has been mentioned, whereas the same ought to have been described as “Department of Higher Education”. Similarly, the serial numbers of the respondents have been incorrectly typed as 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7, which ought to be corrected as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. 4. It is further submitted that the District Scrutiny Committee has also been incorrectly described in the cause title as “The District Scrutiny Page No.# 3/3 Committee represented by its Chairman-cum-District Commissioner, Morigaon”, whereas the correct description ought to be “The District Scrutiny Committee represented by its Chairman-cum-District Commissioner, Dhemaji”. 5. Further, in paragraph Nos. 5, 13 and 14 of the writ petition, the name of the college has been incorrectly mentioned as “Madhya Kampeeth College, Borka”, whereas the same ought to be “Machkhowa Degree College, Dhemaji”. Likewise, the subject/post has been incorrectly mentioned as “Economics”, whereas the same ought to be “English”. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the pleadings, it appears that the errors pointed out in the cause title and in the name of the college and subject/post are inadvertent typographical errors. It is also noticed that the name of the college requires correction in paragraph Nos. 5, 11, 13 and 14 of the writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the aforesaid typographical errors in the connected writ petition stand corrected. 8. Let an amended writ petition, incorporating the corrections in terms of this order, be furnished to the Registry, along with a copy thereof to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. Resultantly, the interlocutory application stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant