Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6607 (GAU)

HASINA BEGUM TALUKDAR AND 3 ORS v. THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

WP(C)/2347/2026 · 2026-05-07

Soumitra Saikia

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010085182026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2347/2026 HASINA BEGUM TALUKDAR AND 3 ORS D/O ISKONDAR ALI TALUKDAR, VILL. AND P.O. SLACHAPRA, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM. 2: SUMIT CHAKRABARTY S/O- SAMARESH CHAKRABARTY R/O- COLLEGE ROAD SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR (ASSAM) 3: SHRI H. DEBASHISH SINGHA S/O- SAMARESH CHAKRABARTY R/O- COLLEGE ROAD SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR (ASSAM) 4: SRI NIRUPAM SAHA S/O- SRI UTTAM KUMAR SAHA R/O- PWD QUARTER SADAR GHAT SILCHAR P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR DIST.- CACHAR (ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PANJABARI Page No.# 2/4 GUUWAHATI- 3 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A H M R CHOUDHURY, MR N RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, P AND R.D., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 08.05. 2026 Heard Mr. A. H. M. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, also heard Mr. A. K. Ghosh, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development for relaxation of their education qualification in respect of the recruitment process which was undertaken by the Department vide advertisement dated 19.02.2026. The petitioner had applied for the three posts which are advertised in the said advertisement, namely Gram Rozgar Sahayak, Computer Assistant and Gram Panchayat Coordinator. The essential education qualification prescribed in the said advertisement is, inter alia, Graduation in any discipline with 50% marks. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the representation has been filed before the Commissioner Panchayat and Rural Development on 11.03.2026, seeking relaxation of the prescribed educational qualification; however, the said representation is still pending and has not yet been disposed of. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they satisfy all the other required qualifications except that they do not have 50% marks in their Graduation. Therefore, there is a fair chance that if there is some relaxation given in respect of their education qualification, the petitioners would be Page No.# 3/4 considered for selection and appointment to the said posts. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court the instructions appended to the said advertisement at Clause 7(v) (xiii). According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the Commissioner, Panchayat and Rural Development reserves the right to make necessary changes or cancel or postpone the recruitment process on specific grounds and also modify the recruitment process. 5. Mr. A. K. Ghosh, learned Standing Counsel submits that at this stage there is no instructions, but the advertisement specifies the criteria on the basis of which the selection is to be made. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the parties have been heard and due considerations has been given to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court. 7. The said advertisement has also been perused and it is specifically mentioned in the Clauses that for the posts the criteria specified is graduate in any discipline from any recognized university or institution with minimum 50% marks. This is shown to be the desired qualification in terms of the said advertisement. Though the various Clauses appended to the advertisement do not specifically provide for any specific clause for relaxation, the Court is of the view that the qualification so prescribed appears to be in the nature of a desirable qualification which the respondent authorities ordinarily expect from candidates. However, in the event if suitable candidates possessing the said desired qualification is not available, it would remain open to the Department to modify this qualification and go for a fresh advertisement, if so required. 8. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Commissioner, Panchayat and Page No.# 4/4 Rural Development to consider the claims of the writ petitioner and dispose of the representation dated 11.03.2026 in accordance with law. 9. In the event, during the recruitment process, the Department finds it necessary to take a decision to relax the education qualification and/ or finds that the candidates possessing the desired qualification are not sufficiently available, then if such a decision is taken, the petitioner shall also be given equal opportunity to participate in and undergo the selection process. 10. It is also made clear that this Court dispose of this writ petition without expressing anything on the merit of the case. 11. Accordingly, in terms of the above this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant