Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010080792026 2026:GAU-AS:7069 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1654/2026 PALLABI SARMA CHAUDHURY D/O-LATE PABITRA KUMAR SARMA RESIDENT OF- HOUSE NO. 26 KRISHNA NAGAR CHATRIBARI P.S. - PALTAN BAZAR DISTRICT- KAMRUP M GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL ADEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI781006. 3:THE SECRETARY TIO THE GOVT OF ASSAM PERSONNEL A DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. ------------ Advocate for : IMSENKALA Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 21.05.2026 Heard Mr. A. Chowdhury, learned counsel Senior counsel appearing in the matter, assisted by Ms. M. Borah, learned counsel. Also heard Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing for all the respondents in the matter. This Interlocutory Application has been filed by the writ petitioner praying for leave to amend writ petition No. 5344/2025, at paragraph 36, (a)-(c), grounds FF and the prayers made in the Writ Petition. For ease of reference, the proposed amendment are reflected herein below: “After para (36) at Page 31, the following facts be added as under: “36 (a) That, on 18.09.2025, the Petitioner as Applicant, had preferred an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, interalia making the following queries therein: Page No.# 3/5 1 : Please provide the specific date and the part of the official gazette or any other public document where notification No. AAP. 315/2017/14 dated 27th November, 2017 was officially published. The Govt. order was marked to the Deputy Director, Assam Govt. Press for publication vide Memo copy at Sl. 18. The RTI petition is forwarded to the O/o the Govt. Press vide E.C.F No. 545818/61, dated 11.11.2025 2 : Please provide the certified copy of the file noting’s related to the preparation and issuance of the aforementioned order. This includes all notes, remarks, and recommendations made by officials that led to the extension of my probationary period. The file noting of the relevant file come within the ambit of Section 8 (i) of the RTI Act, as such the information is rejected. 36 (b) That, on 15.12.2025, the Petitioner was furnished with the information that, the Notification No. AAP.315/2017/14 dated 27.11.2017, is not traceable in this directory. The copy of the RTI response dated 11.11.2025, 12.11.2025, 15.12.2025, in response to the Petitioner's Application dated 18.09.2025 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure- A/A 36 (c) That, the aforesaid contention made by way of the instant Application, lends credence to the fact that, the probation of the Petitioner Page No.# 4/5 had stood completed on 31.08.2017, and the said post facto extension that too, after three months after the completion of her probation period is illegal, invalid and void ab-initio. Moreso, as the notification is not traceable in the office file, and was subsequently manufactured and created. Even at the cost of repetition, the Petitioner begs to submit that, the purported extension is not with accordance with the proviso appended to Rule 22 (1) of the Assam Civil Service Rule 1998. I. After Ground "EE", the following Grounds be added: FF. BECAUSE, the expost facto extension that, too after three months, when the Petitioner's probation stood completed on the probation of the Petitioner had stood completed on 31.08.2017, is illegal, invalid and void ab-initio. On this very ground, the impugned the purported Notification dated 27.11.2017, has no legs to stand and is therefore illegal in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. After the main prayer iii at Pages 63-64, the following prayer be added, at Page 64: iii a. Declare the Notification dated 27.11.2017, purporting to extend the probation period of the Petitioner, as illegal, non-existent, void and not Page No.# 5/5 binding on the Petitioner” The learned Senior Counsel has submitted that there is a typographical error in the interlocutory application inasmuch as the prayer which is required to be amended on the amendment should be numbered as prayer (b)(b) after paragraph (b). The learned counsel representing the State respondent stated that the State would not have any objection for allowing the amendment sought for. Accordingly, this Interlocutory Application is allowed. The petitioner would file an amended Writ Petition and shall serve requisite extra copies upon the State respondents within tomorrow. I.A accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant