Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010099022026 2026:GAU-AS:8661 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2685/2026 MUKTI DAS C/O. GAJIRAM DAS, VILL. BOROTICHUK GAON, P.O-GARPARA VIA DIKOM, DIST.- DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786101, 2: MAMONI DEKA C/O. PURNA KANTA DEKA VILL. DEKAPAM RLY STATION P.O- DHEMAJI P.S - SIMAN CHAPORI DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN- 787061 M. NO9678605327. 3: MAUCHUMI SAIKIA W/O. MUKUL GOGOI VILL. BHEHPARA WARD NO.4 P.O - DHEMAJI P.S - DHEMAJI DIST.-DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787057 M.NO- 9954409674 4: DULUMONI KONWAR C/O. BIDYUT GOGOI VILL. NO.2 BHARALICHUK P.O - DHEMAJI P.S - DHEMAJI DIST.-DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787057 M.NO8011589688 Page No.# 2/8 5: JAYANTA DAS C/O. GOPINATH DAS VILL. DAHUDI P.O - BELSOR P.S - BELSOR DIST.-NALBARI ASSAM PIN-78133 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI, PIN-781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI PIN-781006. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI PIN- 781019. 4:NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR TEACHERS EDUCATION G7 SECTOR-10 DWARKA NEAR METRO STATION NEW DELHI-110075 5:NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF OPEN SCHOOLING A24/25 INSTITUTIONAL AREA SECTOR - 62 NOIDA DISTRICT GAUTAM BUDDHA NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH 20130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A T SARKAR, MR B M DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, N C T E Page No.# 3/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 16.06.2026 Heard Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, for respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, and Mr. T. Sk., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, NCTE. 2. Being aggrieved by the notices dated 19.11.2025 and 27.11.2025, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, respondent No. 3 herein, whereby the petitioners were directed to submit UDISE Code as proof of their in-service status as on 10.08.2017 for the purpose of recruitment to the posts of Assistant Teacher of Lower Primary Schools pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.01.2025, and assailing the action of the respondent authorities in insisting upon UDISE Code as a proof of in-service status, the present writ petition is filed. 3. As the similar issue has already been decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is considered and disposed of at the order stage itself. 4. Briefly put, the case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.01.2025, issued by the Director of Elementary Page No.# 4/8 Education, Assam, for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Teacher of Lower Primary Schools, they have applied for the same being eligible and having possessed the requisite educational qualifications, including 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) from the National Institute of Open Schooling (NIOS). However, the respondent No. 3 subsequently issued notices dated 19.11.2025 and 27.11.2025 directing the candidates possessing 18 months D.El.Ed. from NIOS to furnish UDISE particulars, failing which their candidatures would liable to be cancelled. 5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated 10.12.2024, passed in Review Petition filed in 2024 arising out of Civil Appeal No. 7872/2023 (Viswanath & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand), clarified that candidates possessing 18 months D.El.Ed. from NIOS would be treated as valid diploma holders for the purpose of applying in other institutions or for promotional avenues, subject to their being in service as on 10.08.2017. The petitioner contends that they were in service as on 10.08.2017 and possess documentary evidences in support thereof. The petitioners had furnished the particulars sought for by the respondent authorities. However, when the lists of candidates called for physical document verification were published, the names of the petitioners were not included therein. On enquiry, the petitioners came to learn that their names were excluded on the ground that the respondent authorities could not verify their UDISE particulars as proof of their in-service status as on 10.08.2017. 6. Mr. B. M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that insistence upon UDISE particulars as the sole proof of in-service status is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. He submits that while issuing the notification dated Page No.# 5/8 17.06.2025, the respondent authorities themselves had prescribed various documents, including appointment letters, joining reports, attendance records, certificates issued by the school authorities and salary statements, for establishing the in-service status of a candidate as on 10.08.2017. He submits that the petitioners possess the requisite documents and therefore, non- availability of UDISE particulars cannot be a ground for excluding them from the recruitment process. The NIOS scheme itself permitted registration of eligible candidates even in cases where UDISE particulars of the concerned school were not available. He submits that several schools obtained UDISE codes subsequent to 10.08.2017 and therefore, insistence upon production of UDISE particulars for proving in-service status as on 10.08.2017 is wholly unreasonable. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioners be allowed to participate in the document verification process and their candidature be considered in accordance with law. 7. Mr. Deka, learned counsel, by relying on the order dated 04.06.2026 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 842/2026 (Suraj Sarma & Ors. Vs. The State of Assam & Ors.) and connected matters, submits that this Court had granted relief in a similar matter and therefore, prays for grant of similar relief to the present petitioners. 8. Mr. A. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, fairly submits that the case of Suraj Sarma (supra), as relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, has been rendered on similar facts and law, which would cover the case of the present petitioners. 9. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the order dated 04.06.2026, passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suraj Sarma (supra) and connected matters. Page No.# 6/8 10. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid order are reproduced hereinbelow: “10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated teaches had approached this court by filing writ petition being WP(C) No. 3794/2025, wherein, similar prayer was made that demand for additional documents for verification was arbitrary and it violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the instant case also the petitioners were asked to submit their UDISE along with the details of examinations. 11. The learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3794/2025, had dismissed the said writ petition and the petitioners filed an intra court appeal before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court being W.A. No. 345/2025 and the Division Bench vide order dated 24.03.2026 had taken note on the basis of the submission made by the Advocate General that applications of the appellants shall be verified by the State and whatever documents demanded by notification dated 17.06.2025, if not produced by the appellants, the same will not be fatal and that the authorities would verify the said information from the State records/Data base. 12. The notification dated 17.06.2025, was issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, notifying that the candidates who had applied their online applications with 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education from NIOS against Advertisement dated 26.12.2023, were asked to attend the Physical Document Verification by carrying certain documents mentioned in the said notification and one of the document that was asked for was the UDISE code as a proof that the applicant was in service as on 10.08.2017. 13. Further it is stated that the said notification was issued in terms of the Supreme Court Judgment as mentioned above. In the instant case also while calling the petitioners for document verification, the said notification was applied, i.e., Notification dated 17.06.2025. The Hon’ble Division Bench held that the State would verify the documents furnished by the petitioners and if some documents are not found as per the notification dated 17.06.2025, the same will be verified from the State Records/Data base. 14. It is further observed that in the event of rejection of the application, the applicants shall be communicated about the reasons of such rejection. 15. Mr. P. N. Sharma, the learned counsel for Elementary Education, submits that the notice dated 17.06.2025 is issued pursuant to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in Review Petition as mentioned above. He also submits that the recruitment process for which the Hon’ble Division Bench had rendered the judgment is different from the recruitment process conducted in the instant case and also that the recruitment process initiated by Advertisement of 2025 has ended. 16. Ms. R. B. Borah, the learned counsel for the NIOS, submits that entire process of obtaining Diploma in Elementary Education was conducted through online mode and on careful perusal of the guidelines issued by the NIOS, the candidates has to Page No.# 7/8 apply and also that the testimonials submitted by the candidates were to be verified by the concerned Principal of the respective institutions and the said verification had to be done under the control of the Nodal Officer who has been appointed by the State Government. 17. In the instant case, it is seen that for lack of UDISE code, the petitioners were not appointed in pursuance to the Advertisement, i.e., Advertisement A & B published on 8th January, 2025. 18. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that maintaining the UDISE Code with State is a mandatory requirement but some schools had not maintained. As such, asking for such documents from the petitioners is challenged in the instant writ petition. However, the state authorities can verify from the records as to whether the said exercise has been undertaken by the said schools. 19. In view of the conclusions reached in Writ Appeal No. 345/2025 and if the records shows that the petitioners were in service candidates as on 10.08.2017 and who have completed 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education and the school existed where they had worked as teachers, the State Authorities will consider the appointment of the petitioners to the UP & LP Schools commenced vide Advertisement dated 08.01.2025 and the exercise should be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.” 11. Perusal of the above order shows that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the above order in a matter which is similar on facts and law with the present case. Thus, I am of the considered view that the above order would squarely cover the case of the present petitioners. 12. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to be provided with similar relief as provided in the case of Suraj Sarma (supra) and connected matters. 13. Accordingly, it is directed that if the records show that the petitioners were in service as on 10.08.2017 and had completed the 18 months Diploma in Elementary Education from NIOS and the schools where they had worked were in existence, the respondent authorities shall consider the candidature of the petitioners pursuant to the advertisement dated 08.01.2025 for recruitment to the posts of Assistant Teacher of Lower Primary Schools, in accordance with law. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 2 (two) Page No.# 8/8 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 14. The writ petition stands disposed of, accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant