Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010122132026 2026:GAU-AS:12176 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3207/2026 MD TAJ UDDIN LASKAR S/O- LATE MOTOFAR ALI LASKAR,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BAHADURPUR,P.O.- RANGAUTI, PIN-788155,DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM,PRESENTLY SERVING AS SENIOR LECTURER,DIET, KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, JANATA BHAWAN ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019 ASSAM 3:THE DIRECTOR STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING SCERT ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4:THE DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEESELECTION BOARD DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-06.TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETAR Advocate for the Petitioner : S LASKAR, MR N Z CHOUDHURY Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, SCERT, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 24-08-2026 Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. N.Z. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, SCERT, appearing for the respondent No. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authority to promote him to the post of Principal, DIET, Hailakandi, in accordance with his merit, seniority and eligibility along with all consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected that he being serving as a Senior Lecturer and also holding the post of Principal, DIET, Hailakandi, on In-Charge basis, was within the zone of consideration for promotion to the cadre of Principal on regular basis. It is projected by the petitioner that the case of the petitioner not being considered by the respondent authority for such promotion, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although a departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner vide issuance of a show- cause notice dated 22-12-2023, the enquiry, therein, was already concluded by the Page No.# 3/5 Enquiry Officer, sometime in the month of June, 2025. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer, thereafter, had not submitted its Enquiry Report in the matter and accordingly, the petitioner’s further advancement in his service career has been disrupted. Mr. Bhuyan, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner, submits that the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner not being taken to its logical conclusion, there being an abnormal delay in the conclusion of the same, the respondent authorities are required to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his promotion to the post of Principal, DIET and thereafter, to promote him in accordance with the merit position obtained in the selection process. 5. Mr. B. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, SCERT, Assam, on instruction, submits that the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner has not been concluded. He submits that the allegation levelled against the petitioner being also pertaining to the financial irregularities committed by him, the Enquiry Officer has sought for certain reports, in the matter, from the concerned authorities. He submits that the reports being received, further proceeding in the enquiry would be conducted and the proceeding would be closed. Mr. Choudhury submits that after the Enquiry Report is received from the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner would expeditiously consider the matter and take the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner to its logical conclusion. Mr. Choudhury, however, on instruction has submits that the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Principal, DIET was already considered by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in its meeting held on 06-01-2025 and the recommendation made in respect of the petitioner Page No.# 4/5 has been kept in sealed cover by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UoI & Ors. Vs. K.V. Jankiraman reported in AIR (1991) SC 2010. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 7. The prayer of the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authorities for promotion to the post of Principal, DIET, Hailakandi in the facts and circumstances of the present case, would not mandate consideration by this Court, at this stage, inasmuch as, the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner is yet to be taken to its logical conclusion. Following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (Supra), this Court finds that the respondent authorities had placed the case of the petitioner before the constituted DPC for consideration of his case for promotion to the rank of Principal, DIET and the said Committee on a due consideration being so made had kept its recommendation in respect of the petitioner, herein, in sealed cover. The said sealed cover would now be permissible to be opened only on conclusion of the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner and the petitioner being exonerated from the charges framed against him, therein. Accordingly, a direction for promotion of the petitioner to the cadre of Principal would not be permissible to be so issued by this Court at this stage. 8. With regard to the prayer of the petitioner for a direction upon the respondent authority to culminate the departmental proceeding instituted against the petitioner and to bring the same to a logical conclusion, this Court noticing the submission made by Mr. B. Choudhury, learned standing counsel, SCERT that the enquiry initiated against the Page No.# 5/5 petitioner is on the verge of being concluded, directs the respondent authorities to conclude the departmental proceeding expeditiously but not later than a period of 08 (eight) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant