Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010091252026 2026:GAU-AS:7146 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2625/2026 JOGITA THAKURIYA D/O- SANATAN THAKURIYA, VILL. AND P.O- CHINADI, P.S- SARTHEBARI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781312 2: MD. NAZIM UDDIN C/O- HAFIZ UDDIN SK VILL- RAKSHYASINI GAROPARA PART -I P.O- RAKSHYASHANI P.S- MORNOI DIST- GOAKLPARA ASSAM PIN-783101 3: JANIF ALI S/O- MIAR ALI VILL- NADIRMUKH P.O AND P.S- KHARUPETIA DIST- DARRANG ASSAM PIN-78411 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY Page No.# 2/7 MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION AND LITERACY 122-C SHASTRI BHAWAN NEW DELHI-01 4:NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION G-7 SECTOR 10 DWARKA NEARMETRO STATION NEW DELHI-75 5:NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPEN SCHOOLING A-24 25 INSTITUTIONAL AREA I SECTOR -62 NOIDA DIST- GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH PIN-20130 Advocate for the Petitioner : S. HUSSAIN, MR. B SINGHA,MR. A T SARKAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, N C T E,DY.S.G.I.,SC, NIOS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER Date : 22.05.2026 Heard Mr. S. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.3. The respondent No.4 and 5 although not represented today, in view of the orders that are proposed to be passed, their presence at this stage may not be necessary. 2. The petitioners claim to have participated in the selection process initiated by the respondent 1 and 2 through an advertisement dated 26-12-2023 for filling Page No.# 3/7 up posts of Assistant Teachers in Lower Primary and Upper Primary Schools. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the notification dated 17-06-2025 issued by the respondent No.2, whereby it was prescribed that the candidates who have submitted their online applications with 18 months D. El.Ed. obtained from “NIOS” against the advertisements, were required to produce the following documents: ALIST OF TESTIMONIALS/DOCUMENTS: 1. Paper related to proof of "IN SERVICE" as on 10.08.2017 viz - 1. Appointment Letter & Accepted Joining Report of the applicant. 2. Minutes of the School Managing Committee (SMC) of the school in respect of appointment of the applicant concerned. 3. Photocopy of the Attendance Register of the school during the Service period of the applicant duly countersigned by the Head of the Institutions. 4. Certificate issued by the school authority, specifying the service of the applicant in the school as on 10.08.2017. 5. Salary Statements stating the Pay Band, Basic Pay, DA and other allowances of the applicant for the entire service period. 6. UDISE records as a proof that the applicant was in service as on 10/08/2017. 4. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some of the documents which have been sought for are not available with the petitioners, since neither Page No.# 4/7 are they the custodian of the same, nor do they have access to such documents. 5. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order dated 24-03-2026 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.345/2025, wherein a similar issue had been taken up and the following orders were passed: During the course of the arguments, Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior Advocate representing the appellants submitted that the appellants have no objection in submitting the documents available with them. However, as all the additional documents demanded vide the notification dated 17.06.2025 are not available with the appellants, they would be satisfied if the documents, which they are not in possession of, are verified by the State from the State archive. After such verification, in case the candidature of the appellants are not found to be genuine and are rejected, they ought to be intimated about the reason for the rejection of their application. Later, Mr. M. Kalra, learned Advocate for the applicants in these Interlocutory Applications, as per instructions from his clients, also adopted the arguments of Mr. K. N. Choudhury and agreed to the proposition with the expectation that the additional document(s), which the applicants are not in possession of, shall be looked for by the State from its records for further assessing and verifying their bona fide candidature and, in the case of rejection of their applications, they shall be intimated about the reason(s) thereof. The learned Advocate General, Assam, though initially contested the Page No.# 5/7 appeal and the Interlocutory Applications on merits, but agreed that the applications of the appellants/applicants shall be verified by the State and whatever documents, as demanded vide the notification dated 17.06.2025, are not produced by the appellants/ applicants, the same shall be verified from the State records/database and in case their applications are rejected for the reason of the same having been found to be not genuine, or not meeting the eligibility criteria, the reason for rejection of their applications shall be intimated to them. Thus, with such undertaking by the appellants/applicants, we consider that this appeal and the Interlocutory Applications ought to be closed, sustaining the judgment impugned in this appeal in its entirety with the only caveat that the applications of the appellants/applicants shall be verified by the State on the basis of the documents furnished by them and, if some of the documents demanded by way of the notification dated 17.06.2025 are not furnished, the same will be verified from the State records/database and, in the event of the rejection of their applications, each of the appellants/applicants shall be communicated the reason(s) for such rejection. We order accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we also modify the judgment impugned to the extent that we absolve the appellants/applicants from paying the cost of Rs. 10,000/- and we also make this appeal as well as the Interlocutory Applications cost easy. Accordingly, we close this appeal along with the Interlocutory Applications with the expectation that such exercise, as directed above, shall be carried out and concluded within a period of three months from today, keeping in mind that Page No.# 6/7 such exercise must be meaningful, meaning thereby that the number of vacancies commensurate with the number of the appellants and the applicants must remain unfilled for such verification to be meaningful. The appeal and the Interlocutory Applications stand disposed off accordingly. 6. The Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case the respondent authorities are directed to process the application forms of the petitioners for further participation in the selection process in the manner in which the Division Bench of this Court had directed the respondents to adopt for the appellants in WA No.345/2025, the grievance of the petitioners for the present would be redressed. 7. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and 2, have submitted that the process of verification cannot be a never-ending process and interminant appearance of parties to have their cases verified and processed would cause a delay in the entire selection and appointment process. 8. It is noticed that the orders by the Division Bench were passed on 24-03- 2026 expecting the respondents to carry out and conclude the process of verification etc. within a period of three months from the date of the order. 9. Since the petitioners have already participated in the initial part of the proceedings and the time frame given by the Division Bench of this Court in the writ appeal is yet to expire, we deem it fit to allow the prayers of the writ petitioners to the extent that they would also be entitled to have their cases Page No.# 7/7 verified by the respondent authorities. 10. As such, this writ petition is disposed of directing the writ petitioners to approach the respondent No. 2 within a period of 7 (seven) days from today along with all the documents which are available with them from the list given in the notice dated 17-06-2025. 11. The respondent authorities shall thereafter verify the documents so submitted and process the case of the petitioners for consideration for selection along with the appellants in WA No. 345 of 2025, in the manner provided for in order dated 24.03.2026 in WA No. 345/2025. JUDGE Comparing Assistant