Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010098322024 2026:GAU-AS:7150 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2654/2024 MOZIDUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY S/O- LATE ABDUL KARIM, R/O- VILLAGE- GERAMARI PART-I, P.O. GERAMARI, DISTRICT- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783339 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOLEDUCATION (SECONDARY), ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOL DHUBRI P.O. AND DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN NO. 783301 4:SRI KHURSEHEDUL ISLAM ACADEMIC IN-CHARGE BORKANDA PEOPLES ACADEMY H.S.SCHOOL VILLAGE AND P.O. BORKANDA DISTRICT- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 78334 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M ISLAM, MS A KHATUN Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 22.05.2026 Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Ms. H. Teranpi, learned Standing Counsel Education appearing for the respondent No.1, 2 and 3., 2. The notice on the respondent No.4 was taken to be completed by the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by the Lawazima Court. None appears for the respondent No.4 today. 3. The grievance raised in this writ petition was in connection with the order dated 30.01.2024 whereby the respondent No.4 was allowed to act as the Academic In-charge of Borkanda Peoples’ Higher Secondary School. The case of the petitioner was that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.4, and therefore it was he who should have been allowed to hold the academic in charge. 4. A grievance was also raised against the order dated 31.01.2024 whereby the respondent No.3 was allowed to hold the charge of the Principal of the School, along with financial powers. The petitioner had prayed that he may be allowed Page No.# 3/4 to act as the Principal in-charge for all practical purposes, including the academic in-charge with financial powers also. 5. During the pendency of this writ petition, the respondents have passed orders allowing the petitioner to hold the charge of the Principal of the School, however, only to the extent of being an academic in charge with no financial powers. On a specific query raised to the learned counsel appearing to the parties, it has been submitted that, there is no writ petition in the knowledge of the counsels against the aforesaid order. 6. In such circumstances, the learned Senior counsel, Mr. T.J. Mahanta, has submitted that the grievance of the petitioner would be replaced for the present if he is allowed to continue to hold the academic charge of the School, granting him liberty to file an appropriate representation to the appropriate authority to be also vested with the financial power with regard to the School. 7. The learned counsel for the State respondents has submitted that in the event such a representation has been filed, the same can be considered by the competent authority and can be disposed of within a specified period of time. Since the parties are at consensus, this Court disposes of this writ petition by directing that the responsibility of academic in charge being placed on the petitioner shall not be withdrawn by the respondents without prior notice to the petitioner. Page No.# 4/4 8. It is further provided that the petitioner would be at liberty to file a representation before the Director of Secondary Education, requesting that the financial powers also be vested in him till the time he continues as an academic in charge. On receipt of the said representation, the Director of Secondary Education shall dispose of the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. 9. The petitioner shall be at liberty to raise his grievance against any orders rejecting his representation before the appropriate forum of law. 10. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant