Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8884 (GAU)

SRI DHAN BASUMATARY v. STATE OF ASSAM

I.A.(Civil)/2050/2026 · 2026-06-21

Rajesh Mazumdar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010120522026 2026:GAU-AS:9002 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/2050/2026 SRI DHAN BASUMATARY SON OF BIBHISION BASUMATARY RESIDENT OF BORPOTHAR KOSARI GAON P.O.- PUNJA BORPATHAR, DISTRICT - WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM, PIN- 782450. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF MEDICAL EDUCATION ASSAM KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-22 4:SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR THE POST OF TECHNICIAN IN AUDIOVISUAL AIDS PHOTROGRAPHY DIPHU MEDICAL COLLEGE DIPHU REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL -CUM-CHIEFSUPERINTENDENT OF THE DIPHU MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL P.O- DIPHU DISTRICT- KARBI ANGIONG ASSAM PIN-782462. Page No.# 2/3 5:PRINCIPAL CUM CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT ASSAM HILLS MEDICAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE DIPHU P.O- DIPHU DISTRICT- KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN-782462. 6:THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 ASSAM 7:DIRECTOR EMPLOYMENT AND CRAFTSMEN TRAINING ASSAM A. K. AZAD REHABARI GUWAHATI ROAD PIN NO. P.O.- 781008 KAMRUPM ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D MAHANTA, Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HEALTH, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 22.06.2026 Heard Mr. D. Mahanta, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. D. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department, for the opposite party nos. 1 – 5. This I.A. has been preferred praying for impleadment of the opposite parties, no. 6 & 7, as respondents no. 6 & 7 in Writ Petition No. 5063/2021. Page No.# 3/3 The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that allowing the impleadment of the aforesaid respondents would have made the adjudication feasible. The learned counsel for the opposite parties does not object to the impleadment. Accordingly, the prayer for impleadment of opposite party nos. 6 & 7 as respondents in the writ petition is allowed. I.A. is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant