Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010114412024 2026:GAU-AS:6829 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3052/2024 DR. ATOWAR RAHMAN SON OF LATE SANTOSH ALI AHMED, R/O- NO. 2 SOUTH RANGAPANI, P.O.- BADLA BAZAR, P.S.- BOKO, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-06. 3:DR. ABUL KALAM AZAD TUTOR PRINCIPAL SONTALI ANCHOLIK COLLEGE P.O.- MAHTOLI P.S.- BOKO DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781136. Page No.# 2/5 4:THE GOVERNING BODY OF SONTALI ANCHOLIK COLLEGE REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT NAMELY GANESWAR SAHARIA P.O.- MAHTOLI P.S.- BOKO DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781136. 5:MOBARAK AHMED ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SONTALI ANCHOLIK COLLEGE SON OF LATE KURAN ALI DEWANI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PURANGAON P.O.- KALATOLI P.S.- CHHAYGAON DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781137. 6:NAWSHAD ALI AHMED ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SONTALI ANCHALIK COLLEGE SON OF LATE HUSSAIN ALI RESIDENT OF PURANGAON P.O.-MAHTOLI P.S.- BOKO DIST.- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781136 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ALI, MR. Y ALI,MR S ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MR. P BOIRAGI (R-5) Page No.# 3/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 18.05.2026 Heard Mr. A Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Department of Higher Education and P Bairagi, learned counsel, for respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 6 did not enter an appearance in the matter . 2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was preferred by the petitioner asailing the “lecturers Seniority Panel list” of Sontali Anchaiik College, contending that the respondent No. 5 & 6 should have been shown as Junior to the petitioner. The grounds of challenge was that the respondent No. 5 was shown appointed in the college in a subject which did not exist or have the concurrence of the Government at the time of appointment of the respondent No. 5. Similarly, relevant grounds had also been agitated for the respondent No. 6. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, at best, the Seniority of the respondent No. 5 could have been counted from the date on which the college received the concurrence for opening the subject of Arabic. Page No.# 4/5 The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that an affidavit-in- opposition has been filed wherein a stand has been taken that the petitioner has been appointed in the college after the appointment of the respondent No. 5, and therefore he would stand Senior to the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel appearing for a Department of Higher Education submitted that the Seniority list may require a review, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 5 had been appointed on a date earlier to the concurrence being received for the relevant subject. 5. The learned counsel for the Department of Higher Education has submitted that the department would not be adverse to taking a relook in the matter after giving all the respective parties appropriate notice and an opportunity of putting through their case before revisiting the Seniority list. 6. Accordingly, on the consensus arrived by all the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of redirecting the petitioner to file his representation against the impugned relation list/lecturer Seniority list dated 05.10.2021 before the Director of Higher Education who shall thereafter process the matter in accordance with law. 7. The respondent Nos. 5 & 6 shall also be given opportunity by giving Page No.# 5/5 opportunity to respondent Nos. 5 & 6 to respond to the representation filed by the petitioner before the Director of Higher Education. 8. It is expected that the department would take a conscious decision in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. 9. Writ Petition accordingly disposed of. 10. Nothing in this order shall be constituted to have raised a question on the provincialisation of respondent No. 5. JUDGE Comparing Assistant