Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010044302026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Cont.Cas(C)/135/2026 SULTAN AHMED S/O FAZAR ALI, R/O VILL- KAZAIKATA PART VI, P.O- KAZAIKATA, P.S- BILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783348 VERSUS SMTI MAMATA HOJAI, AES AND ANR THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, ASSAM -CUM- CHAIRMAN, STATE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE, ASSAM, KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI- 19 2:ADIT KUMAR SARMAH AES THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DDC -CUM- MEMBER SECRETARY OF DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE DHUBRI P.O AND P.S- DHUBRI DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M HUSSAIN, MR A.K. MOLLAH,MR. R I MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D SAIKIA(R1), MS P DAS(R1),MR. U SARMA(R1),MR S M T CHISTIE(R1,2) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER Page No.# 2/3 05.10.2026 Heard Mr. M. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.M.T Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 & 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful and disobedience of the directions contained in the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in W.P(C) No. 3584/2025. By the said order, the following directions were issued: “(3) The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant in Dhalapara Public High School in the Dhubri district and that the services of the teaching as well as the non-teaching staff of the said schools have been provincialised to the exclusion of the petitioner solely on the ground that the name of the petitioner was mentioned as Satter Ahmed instead of Sultan Ahmed in the recommendation made by the District Scrutiny Committee However, detecting the said mistake committed by the District Scrutiny Committee, the respondent No.5, i.e. the Inspector of Schools, DDC, Dhubri vide letter dated 15.03.2022 forwarded the correct name of the petitioner to the respondent No.3, i.e. the Director of Secondary Education, Assam for provincialisation of the service of the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted two representations, the first one was submitted before the respondent No.3 on 28.09.2022 and the other was submitted before the Inspector of Schools, DDC, Dhubri on 10.06.2024. However, despite the same, since no action has been taken, the petitioner is before this Court. (4) Having regard to the correction made by the District Scrutiny Committee on the name of the petitioner while recommending for provincialisation of his service, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents, more particularly, the respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service in terms of the recommendation made by the District Scrutiny Committee as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” After issuance of notice, the learned counsel for the respondent has place before the Court a copy of the order dated 05.10.2026 by which the petitioner’s Page No.# 3/3 claim for provincialisation was duly examined and considered and it was found that he lacks of the prescribed minimum qualification of “Diploma in English and Assamese Typewriting”. Therefore, the claim for provincialisation was rejected. A copy of this order is placed before the Court and is kept in the case record. Considering the same, the Court is of the view that the directions contained in the order dated 25.06.2025 passed in W.P(C) No. 3584/2025 have since been complied with. The Court does not want to proceed any further in the contempt petition. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands closed. Notices issued are recalled. JUDGE Comparing Assistant