Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010172162025 2026:GAU-AS:8258 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review Pet 42/2026 KAMAL PHUKAN AND 4 ORS S/O TIKENDRA PHUKAN R/O UDAIPUR P.O. JONAI P.S. JONAI PIN 787060 DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM. 2: NITYANANDA PEGU S/O BINESWAR PEGU R/O KATHALGURI P.O. KEKURIPOMUA P.S. DHAKUAKHANA PIN 787055 DIST. LAKHIMPUR ASSAM. 3: DHANJIT DEKA SO BASUNDHAR DEKA R/O SENAPATIPARA P.O. BURHINAGAR P.S. SIPAJHAR PIN 784147 DIST. DARRANG ASSAM. 4: BHARGAB JYOTI NATH S/O HEM CHANDRA NATH R/O NAYAKPARA P.O. SIPAJHAR P.S. SIPAJHAR PIN 784145 Page No.# 2/6 DIST. DARRANG ASSAM. 5: SADDAM HUSSAIN S/O MOSLEM ALI R/O SAPKATA MUKALMUA P.O. NALBARI PIN 781126 DIST. NALBARI ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPTT. ELEMENTARY DISPUR GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019 ------------ Advocate for : MR S BORTHAKUR Advocate for : SC ELEM. EDU appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 10.06.2026 1. Heard Mr S. Borthakur, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr D. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr NJ Khataniar, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department. 2. The present review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 09.05.2025, passed in WP(C) Page No.# 3/6 No.3100/2022 and other connected matters. 3. The principal grievance of the review petitioners is not that the determination on the substantive issue of eligibility qualifications for the appointment of Hindi teachers in Upper Primary Schools is wrong, but that an aspect arising out of an interim order passed during the pendency of the writ proceeding has remained unaddressed. 4. While disposing of the writ petition, this court held that neither the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 1977, nor the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010 prescribed Hindi as a compulsory subject at the graduation level for appointment as Teachers in the Upper Primary School and consequently held that insistence upon such qualification in the absence of a statutory prescription could not be sustained. 5. Mr. Borthakur, learned senior counsel contends that during pendency of the writ petition, by an interim order dated 29.01.2024 in I.A(C) No.30/2024 in WP(C) No.3100/2024 they are permitted to participate in the recruitment process initiated under the advertisement dated 27.12.2023 and than although such participation was allowed, subject to outcome of the writ proceeding, the final judgment under Review did not avert to the consequences thereof. It is urged that omissions had resulted in uncertainty regarding the consideration of their candidature. 6. Mr NJ Khataniar, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, submits that pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, the petitioners were allowed to participate in Page No.# 4/6 the selection process, and 26 posts were left vacant. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given my anxious considerations to the submissions advanced by them. 8. The scope of review is well settled. A review cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise, nor can it be employed to rehear or re-argue issues already adjudicated. Equally, where a material aspect arises from the record that has inadvertently escaped consideration, and such omission has a direct bearing on the implementation of the judgment, the court is not powerless to clarify its decision so as to give effect to the true intent. 9. Having considered the matter, this court finds no error apparent on the face of the record warranting consideration of the findings recorded in paragraphs 13 to 25 of the judgment dated 09.05.2025 under review. 10. The conclusions reached therein remain unaltered. 11. The review petition, insofar as it seeks reopening of the merits of the controversy, does not arise inasmuch as it is the submission of Mr. Borthakur that they are not insisting upon review of the final determination made in the aforesaid paragraphs. It is his further contention that a clarificatory declaration is required in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. After perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that during pendency of the writ petition being WP(C) No.3100/2022, the writ petitioners/review petitioners filed an Interlocutory application being I.A(C) No.30/2024, which was Page No.# 5/6 disposed of by allowing the applicants to participate in the selection process; merit and marks secured was directed to be kept in a sealed cover, results of the petitioners were not to be declared without leave of this court and entitlement of the applicants subject to the determination made in the writ petition. 13. This court is also of the opinion that the effect of the aforesaid interim order pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.12.2023 has not been expressly dealt with, which merits acceptance to a limited extent. 14. The omission is not one affecting the correctness of the decision on the merits but concerns the consequential relief arising from the adjudication rendered by this court in its judgment dated 09.05.2025, passed in WP(C) No.3100/2022. 15. Accordingly paragraph 24 of the judgment dated 09.05.2025 shall stands clarified to the effect that if any of the petitioners have been permitted by interim order of this court, participated in the recruitment process which was pending on the date of the judgment and if such participation was pursuant to the interim order dated 29.01.2024 passed in the writ proceeding, the candidature of such petitioners shall be considered by the concerned authorities in the light of the declarations and findings recorded in the judgment dated 09.05.2025 under review, subject of course to fulfillment of all other eligibility conditions. 16. With the aforesaid clarification, the present review petition stands disposed of. The judgment and order dated 09.05.2025 passed in WP(C) No.3100/2022 shall otherwise remain Page No.# 6/6 unaltered. 17. The review petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant