Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010286772025 2026:GAU-AS:4584 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/4225/2025 MD AZIZUL HOQUE CHOWDHURY S/O- LATE AMZAD ALI, VILL- LOCHANA BORI, P.S- MOIRABARI, DIST- MORIGAON, PIN-782126, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR , ASSAM 2:COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM SECONDARY EDUCATION DISPUR ASSAM 3:DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 4:INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL MORIGAON DISTRICT CIRCLE ASSAM 5:PRINCIPAL BARTHAL DOLOIGAON HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL P.O- DOLOIGAON MORIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U P CHALIHA, MS M ROY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SEC. EDU. Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 31.03.2026 Heard Mr. U.P. Chaliha, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. P. Das, learned standing counsel for the opposite parties in Secondary Education Department. 2. This interlocutory application is preferred by the applicant for correction of typographical error that occurred in the order dated 08.09.2025, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 4894/2025. 3. Mr. Chaliha, learned counsel for the applicant, by referring to the order dated 08.09.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 4894/2025, especially to paragraph Nos. 3 and 6, submits that in paragraph No. 3, it has been observed that “Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was regularized vide O.M. dated 03.03.2016”, and also in paragraph No. 6, it has been observed that “The petitioner was appointed as Science Teacher in Barthal Doloigaon H.S. School and his service was regularized vide O.M. Dated 03.03.2016...”. He submits that, however, the service of the petitioner was not regularized under the aforementioned O.M. and as such, in the 2nd line of paragraph No. 3 and in the 2nd line of paragraph No. 6, the word ‘not’ may be inserted before the word ‘regularized’. 4. Ms. Das, learned standing counsel for the opposite parties in Secondary Education Department submits that she has no objection in the event of allowing this application. Page No.# 3/3 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, this Court has carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on record, and perused the order dated 08.09.2025, passed in WP(C) No. 4894/2025. 6. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and also considering the facts and circumstances on the record, this Court is inclined to allow this application. 7. Accordingly, it is provided that in the 2nd line of paragraph No. 3 and in the 2nd line of paragraph No. 6 of the order dated 08.09.2025, henceforth be read as ‘not regularized’, for all purposes. 8. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. 9. Henceforth, this order shall be read along with the order dated 08.09.2025, for all purposes. JUDGE Comparing Assistant