Page No.# 1/2 GAHC010208522024 2026:GAU-AS:923-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/135/2025 NILADHAR DEKA S/O LATE LAHBAR DEKA RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO 191 A RUB NAGAR, PS PALTAN BAZAR, DIST KAMRUP ASSAM 781032 VERSUS 1: DILIP CHANDRA KALITA AND 4 ORS S/O LATE KAMALA KANTA KALITA, RESIDENT OF NOONMATI, GOPAL NAGAR, RAM NAGAR, BYE LANE NO. 1, PO AND PS NOONMATI, GUWAHATI 781020, DIST KAMRUP M ASSAM 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FINANCE(TAXATION) DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 P.O- ASSAM SACHIVALAYA DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 4:THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXES GUWAHATI UNIT -D KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 5:THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF TAXES GUWAHATI UNIT -D KAR BHAWAN DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 DIST- KAMRUP(M) ASSA For the Appellant(s) : Mr. B.D. Das, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. J. Lotha, Advocate. or the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Sahu, Advocate for respondent No.1. : Mr. B. Gogoi, Additional Advocate General, Assam for respondent Nos.2, 3 4 & 5. Page No.# 2/2 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 28.01.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) Pursuant to the judgment impugned dated 08.08.2024, a promotional exercise was made by the Department and neither the appellant nor the respondent No.1 succeeded because of the change in the rules requiring basic degree of ‘Graduation’ for promotion to the post of Junior Assistant, which degree neither the appellant nor the respondent No.1 possessed. Though both the appellant and the respondent No.1 have argued that their cases should have been considered on the basis of the Rules prevalent then, but considering the fact that the judgment impugned has been acted upon and other persons have been granted promotion and the claim of the appellant and the respondent No.1 has been rejected, this appeal has become infructuous. It would be open for the parties (appellant or the respondent No.1) to challenge such selection process, if so desired. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant