Page No.# 1/3 GAHC030003312026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/104/2026 The National Institute of Technology Through The Registrar, Chaltlang, Aizawl, Mizoram - 796012 2: The National Institute of Technology Mizoram 3: The Board of Governors National Institute of Technology Mizora VERSUS Dr. Bijayananda Mohanty Associate Professor (since removed), Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Mizoram 2:Union of Indi Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Zochhuanmawia Advocate for the Respondent : Mr. T Lalnunsiama for R.1 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 02-06-2026 Page No.# 2/3 Heard Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned Senior counsel for the applicant assisted by Mr. Zochhuanmawia, learned counsel. Also heard Ms. P.D. Bujarbaruah, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B.A. Wanswett. 2. The present application is for modification of the Order dated 09.04.2026, wherein this Court had held that the termination of the petitioner from service and any appointment made pursuant to the advertisement dated 19.03.2026, shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the post to be filled up in terms of the advertisement dated 19.03.2026, has nothing to do with the post from which the petitioner has been removed from service. As such, there was no need to pass an interim order, saying that the post to be filled up pursuant to the advertisement would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 4. Ms. P.D. Bujarbaruah, learned Senior counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the posts of Associate Professor Civil Engineering is sometimes transferred to various departments and as such, there was no infirmity in the order passed by this Court, stating that the filling up of the post advertised on 19.03.2026, would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 5. On considering the issue at hand, I do not find any infirmity in the direction passed by this Court on 09.04.2026, inasmuch as, there is no bar for the applicant to fill up the 3 (three) posts in the advertisement dated 19.03.2026. Further, when the post of the writ petitioner from which he had Page No.# 3/3 been removed from service is not to be filled up, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 19.03.2026, there is no reason to go beyond the advertisement dated 19.03.2026 or the Order dated 09.04.2026 passed by this Court. 6. In view of the fact that the writ petitioner’s post from which he had been removed from service is not to be filled up in terms of the advertisement dated 19.03.2026, this Court does not find any reason to make a modification of the Order dated 09.04.2026, except to clarify that the post from which the petitioner had been removed from service, is not the post to be filled up in terms of the above said advertisement. 7. The application is accordingly dismissed. 8. However, in the event of the writ petitioner’s post, from which he had been removed from service, is filled up by some applicant/candidate in future, the same would be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant