Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3482/2026 of BISHNUJYOTI RAY AND 2 ORS Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS on 11 August 2026
GAHC010133322026 2026:GAU-AS:11327 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3482/2026 BISHNUJYOTI RAY AND 2 ORS SON OF SHRI MANIK CH RAY, VILLAGE BORGHOLA PART I SRIJANGRAM, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783384.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
GAHC010133322026
2026:GAU-AS:11327
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3482/2026 BISHNUJYOTI RAY AND 2 ORS SON OF SHRI MANIK CH RAY, VILLAGE BORGHOLA PART I SRIJANGRAM, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783384. 2: AJIT CHETRY SON OF SONTABIR CHETRY VILLAGE- LEMCHAPORI BAHGURI MIRI DISTRICT- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN 785614 3: ABID HUSSAIN SON OF BURHAN UDDIN VILLAGE BANDARKUNA BLK-2 P.O. ERALIGOOL P.S. PATHARKANDI DISTRICT- SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN 788723 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI - 110001. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/ SECRETARY STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 110003
4:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION RUKMINI NAGAR P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA GUWAHATI-06 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ADDRESS 6:PRESIDING OFFICER-PST/PET BOARD ARTC AND S (SHOKUVI) DIMAPUR CENTE Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DEKA, MR I HUSSAIN,MR N ALI Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY(C.G.C.)
BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 12.08.2026 This matter was taken up on 03.08.2026, on which date, Mr. S.S Roy, learned CGC was asked to obtain instructions as to why petitioner No.3 has been left out from the Medical Review Board while the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 have been called. Today, Ms. R. Dev, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. S.S Roy, learned CGC submits that the petitioner No.3 has been called for detailed medical examination test and was asked to report on 10.08.2026 along with along with the call letter. Learned counsel therefore, submits that the writ petition has become infructuous. In support of her submission, she has produced a copy of the communication dated 05.08.2026 issued to the petitioner No.3.
Mr. N. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that in view of the call letter issued to the petitioner No.3, the matter has become infructuous. In view of above, the writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous.
The copy of the call letter dated 05.08.2026 be retained in the record and marked as ‘X’ for identification.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant