Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010032222025 2026:GAU-AS:6898 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1178/2025 LUHIT PHUKAN S/O HARI PHUKAN, R/O DULIAJAN TOWN, P.O. AND P.S.-DULIAJAN, DIST- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786602 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE ASSAM STATE SCHOOL EDUCATION BOARD DIVISION I (ASSEB) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-781021 3:THE OIL INDIA LIMITED DULIAJAN TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER (HR ACQUISITION) DEPTT. DULIAJAN DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM 4:PRINCIPAL F.F.R.R. MEMORIAL SCHOOL P.O.- KATHALGURI DIST- DIBRUGARH ASSAM PIN-78662 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K A MAZUMDER, MISS R A CHOUDHURY,MR E AHMED Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MR. M S MONDAL(R-4),MS. M BEGUM(R- 4),MR. D A KAIYUM (R-4),MS N T MANPOONG(R-3),MS P BARUAH(R-3),S AZIZ(R-3),MR. B DEKA (R-3),SC, A S S E B,SC, OIL BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 19.05.2026 Heard Mr. E. Ahmed, learned counsel assisted by Mr. K.A. Mazumder and Mr. S.A. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D.K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, ASSEB for the respondent no.2 and Ms. A. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Deka, learned CGC, OIL for the respondent no.3, as well as Mr. D.A. Kaiyum, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. 2. The present writ petition has been instituted seeking directions to respondent no. 2 to submit a status report along with all relevant records pertaining to the petitioner’s HSLC examination result, purportedly declared vide Notification No. SEBA/EX/CON/1/05/05 dated 16.07.2006, which was allegedly published following revaluation/re-examination, for the scrutiny of this Court. 3. The respondent no. 2 has filed an affidavit as well as an additional affidavit, wherein it has been categorically stated that the notification dated 16.07.2006 is not available in the records maintained by respondent no. 2. It has further been stated that there exists no record indicating that the petitioner had passed the Page No.# 3/4 subjects in the HSLC Examination conducted in the year 2006. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there may exist other relevant records indicating whether the petitioner’s answer scripts were re-examined/re-evaluated, and has accordingly prayed that the respondents be directed to produce such records before this Hon’ble Court. 5. It appears to this Court that the present matter involves disputed questions of fact as well as disputed records. The existence of such disputed factual issues would not enable this Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to arrive at a proper adjudication of the petitioner’s claim that he had, in fact, passed the HSLC Examination held in the year 2006 pursuant to re-examination/re- evaluation of his answer scripts. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore submitted that in the event this Court is not inclined to continue entertaining the present writ petition on the ground that the matter involves disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication upon appreciation of evidence to be adduced by the parties, the petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands closed, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law for Page No.# 4/4 redressal of his grievances. It is, however, clarified that nothing contained in this order shall be construed as a rejection of the petitioner’s claim on the merits. JUDGE Comparing Assistant