Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010223372025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2110/2026 SRI BHRIGU KUMAR MEDHI S/O- SHRI GAJIN CHANDRA MEDHI, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAHA GAON, WARD NO.2, HOUSE -3- NO.158, P.O- RAHA, P.S.- RAHA, DISTRICT-NAGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, JANATA BHAWAN, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06, ASSAM. 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM IMPLEMENTATION OF ASSAM ACCORD DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-06 3:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 4:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM FISHERY DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006. 5:THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES ASSAM MEEN BHAWAN GUWAHATI-16 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR DEBA SARMAH, RAKESH CHETRY,MS. S SUT Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, FISHERY BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 23.06. 2026 Heard Mr. D. Sarmah learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D. D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents, Ms. S. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Fishery Department. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that his case has not been considered for appointment under the Assam Public Service (Preferential Appointment) Rules, 1999 and in terms of Article 14 of the Assam Accord. The petitioner claims to be an educated unemployed member of a family of martyr of Assam Movement, who applied for a Grade-III post on 15.03.2021 and thereby submitted his application before the concerned authorities for appointment of the petitioner. However, the respondent authorities did not consider his case in respect of a Grade-III posts which the petitioner claims for appointment in the Fishery Department. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he had filed an application as far back as 15.06.2021, which was not redressed by the respondents, and therefore, he has approached this Court. He further submits that he would like to file a fresh representation before the authorities concerned and thereafter the authorities may consider his case. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents does not object to such prayer Page No.# 3/3 made. 4. The learned counsel for the parties has been heard. Pleadings available on record have been carefully perused. 5. Considering the limited prayer made by the petitioner, this writ petition stands disposed of, permitting the petitioner to file a fresh application, ventilating his grievances before the appropriate authorities. It is made clear that while disposing of the writ petition, this Court does not express any opinion on the merits of the writ petition, and therefore this writ petition is closed only on the prayers made by the petitioner. 6. In the event, such a representation if filed, the respondent authority will endeavour to dispose of the matter within a reasonable period of time by passing a speaking order and redressing the grievances of the writ petitioner in accordance with law. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant