Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030000222026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5/2026 Sri Viswambharan N. S/o Late Nanu, R/o Village Poruvazh.y, P.O. Edakkadu (South), P.s. Chakkuvally, District- Kollam, Kerela. Pin-6191552 VERSUS The Union of India and 3 Ors. R/b the Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 2:The Mahanirdeshalaya Assam Rifles R/b the Director General Assam Rifles 3:The Commandant 14 Assam Rifle Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Porag Jyoti Saikia Advocate for the Respondent : Ms Zairemsangpuii, CGC for R1-4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER Date : 11-02-2026 Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that Page No.# 2/3 the petitioner is enrolled as Rfn/GD in Assam Rifles on 07.05.1985, subsequently he has been promoted from Rfn/GD to HAV/GD on 08.09.2002 and then promoted from HAV/GD to WO/GD on 01.01.2015. The next promotion from WO/GD is Nb/Sub (GD). 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the eligibility criteria for promotion from WO/GD to Nb/Sub (GD) is 32 years to 34 years of regular service. In this context, the petitioner has completed 40 years of regular service in Assam Rifles and eligible to promotion for Nb/Sub (GD). In this connection, the Director General, Assam Rifles, Record Branch, Shillong vide his letter issued under Memo No.1.19012/2025/Adm-I (A) GD prom/665 dated 10th November, 2025 has circulated the required service period for promotion to different post. 3. The learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner was not previously considered for recommendation for promotion in the year 2023 as he was placed in MED CAT A 3 (T-24) because he had met with an accident causing fracture on both forearms at main office Chieswema BN HQ Tara haba. Thereafter, even though he had fully recovered from his injuries and has all the eligibility conditions for promotion, his case has not been considered for promotion though he has put in almost 40 years of service. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is due to retire in the month of December, 2026, there is urgency in the matter and submitted that the instant writ petition can be disposed of, if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, after he files his representation to the concerned authorities. Page No.# 3/3 5. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the State respondents is present and submits that considering the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner after he submits his representation, she has no objection to the writ petition being disposed of at the motion stage. 6. On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for both the parties, on taking into consideration the limited prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court finds it appropriate to dispose of the instant writ petition without going into the merits of the case, by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, after the petitioner submits his written representation to the respondent authorities, since it appears that no such representation has been made by the petitioner till date. A copy of the writ petition may also be enclosed alongwith the representation made by the petitioner for the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner with a speaking order as deemed fit, within a period of 5 (five) weeks from the date of receiving a certified true copy of this order or/from the date the written representation, whichever is later. 7. Accordingly, WP(C) No. 5/2026 stands disposed of as above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant