Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/3052/2024 of DR. ATOWAR RAHMAN Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS on 17 May 2026
GAHC010114412024 2026:GAU-AS:6829 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3052/2024 DR. ATOWAR RAHMAN SON OF LATE SANTOSH ALI AHMED, R/O- NO. 2 SOUTH RANGAPANI, P.O.- BADLA BAZAR, P.S.- BOKO, DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF
GAHC010114412024
2026:GAU-AS:6829
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/3052/2024
DR. ATOWAR RAHMAN
SON OF LATE SANTOSH ALI AHMED,
R/O- NO. 2 SOUTH RANGAPANI,
P.O.- BADLA BAZAR,
P.S.- BOKO,
DIST.- KAMRUP, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-06.
3:DR. ABUL KALAM AZAD
TUTOR PRINCIPAL
SONTALI ANCHOLIK COLLEGE
P.O.- MAHTOLI
P.S.- BOKO
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781136.
4:THE GOVERNING BODY OF SONTALI ANCHOLIK COLLEGE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT NAMELY GANESWAR SAHARIA
P.O.- MAHTOLI
P.S.- BOKO
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781136.
5:MOBARAK AHMED
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
SONTALI ANCHOLIK COLLEGE
SON OF LATE KURAN ALI DEWANI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- PURANGAON
P.O.- KALATOLI
P.S.- CHHAYGAON
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781137.
6:NAWSHAD ALI AHMED
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
SONTALI ANCHALIK COLLEGE
SON OF LATE HUSSAIN ALI
RESIDENT OF PURANGAON
P.O.-MAHTOLI
P.S.- BOKO
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781136
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A ALI, MR. Y ALI,MR S ISLAM
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, MR. P BOIRAGI (R-5)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
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.
ORDER
18.05.2026 Heard Mr. A Ali, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Department of Higher Education and P Bairagi, learned counsel, for respondent No. 5. Respondent No. 6 did not enter an appearance in the matter .
2. This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was preferred by the petitioner asailing the “lecturers Seniority Panel list” of Sontali Anchaiik College, contending that the respondent No. 5 & 6 should have been shown as Junior to the petitioner. The grounds of challenge was that the respondent No. 5 was shown appointed in the college in a subject which did not exist or have the concurrence of the Government at the time of appointment of the respondent No. 5. Similarly, relevant grounds had also been agitated for the respondent No. 6.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, at best, the Seniority of the respondent No. 5 could have been counted from the date on which the college received the concurrence for opening the subject of Arabic.
The learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has submitted that an affidavit-in- opposition has been filed wherein a stand has been taken that the petitioner has been appointed in the college after the appointment of the respondent No. 5, and therefore he would stand Senior to the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel appearing for a Department of Higher Education submitted that the Seniority list may require a review, in view of the fact that the respondent No. 5 had been appointed on a date earlier to the concurrence being received for the relevant subject.
5. The learned counsel for the Department of Higher Education has submitted that the department would not be adverse to taking a relook in the matter after giving all the respective parties appropriate notice and an opportunity of putting through their case before revisiting the Seniority list.
6. Accordingly, on the consensus arrived by all the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of redirecting the petitioner to file his representation against the impugned relation list/lecturer Seniority list dated 05.10.2021 before the Director of Higher Education who shall thereafter process the matter in accordance with law.
7. The respondent Nos. 5 & 6 shall also be given opportunity by giving opportunity to respondent Nos. 5 & 6 to respond to the representation filed by the petitioner before the Director of Higher Education.
8. It is expected that the department would take a conscious decision in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation from the petitioner.
9. Writ Petition accordingly disposed of.
10. Nothing in this order shall be constituted to have raised a question on the provincialisation of respondent No. 5. JUDGE Comparing Assistant