Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010185802026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/320/2026 DR LOKMAN ALI S/O- LATE MD. SAYED ALI, RESIDENT OF- VILLAGE GHOGA, P.O.- LAWTOLA, P.S.- MUKALMUA, DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM PIN-781126 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, JANATA BHAWAN ASSAM SECRETARIAT COMPLEX, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 19 3:THE GOVERNING BODY OF BARKHETRI COLLEGE NARAYANPUR MUKALMUA DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM PIN781126 TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SUMANTA BORTHAKUR 4:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR SELECTION/APPOINTMENT OF THE REGULAR PRINCIPAL OF BARKHETRI COLLEGE TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN - CUM- VICE-CHANCELLOR GAUHATI UNIVERSITY GOPINATH BORDOLOI NAGAR GUWAHATI- 78101 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N Z CHOUDHURY, MR. A R BHUYAN,MR. A SARIF,MS. R YASMIN,MS. S LASKAR,MR S ABDULLAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MR J H SAIKIA(R3),MR. S DUTTA(R3),SC, G U BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 08.09.2026 (K.R. Surana, J) 1. Heard Mr. A. R. Bhuyan, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Z. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department appearing for respondent nos. 1 and 2, Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and Mr. P. J. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati University, for respondent no.4. 2. The case of the appellant is that by a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, he had assailed the advertisement dated 10.07.2026, issued by the President, Governing Body, Barkhetri College for appointment to the post of Principal of the said College, amongst others on the ground that the selection process has been initiated without first disposing of the claim of the petitioner for the said post in terms of the order dated 07.06.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 6264/2021. 3. The learned senior counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the writ petition a prayer for interim relief was made for staying the operation of the Page No.# 3/4 impugned advertisement dated 10.07.2026 and to restrain the respondent authorities from conducting a proceedings with the interview/selection process and made others prayers. 4. It is submitted that as the interim prayer was not considered, the appellant is likely to suffer prejudice if the consequential selection and appointment is made. 5. Responding to the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the learned senior counsel for respondent no.3 has submitted that as the impugned order dated 21.08.2026 does not reflect as to whether the prayer for interim relief was made and refused, it would be open to the appellant to always move the learned Single Judge for consideration of such prayer. 6. Similarly, the learned Standing Counsel for the Higher Education Department has no objection, if the learned Single Judge is moved for making the prayer for interim relief. 7. Having noted that in the impugned order dated 21.08.2026, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4521/2026, does not contain reference to a prayer for interim relief being made, this Court deems it appropriate to grant leave to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant to move the learned Single Judge by making a mention for out of turn listing for consideration of interim prayer. 8. Accordingly, by granting leave to the learned counsel for the appellant to move the learned Single Judge for out of turn listing for consideration of interim prayer, this intra Court appeal stands closed without considering the issues raised in this appeal on merit. Page No.# 4/4 9. Accordingly, in the event, such a prayer is made, the learned Single Judge is requested to take a call as deemed appropriate, as the merit of the matter has not been gone into in this intra-Court appeal. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant