Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Assam And 7 Ors on 4 March, 2025
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010029012019
2025:GAU-AS:2210
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1092/2019
MITRA SARKAR MAZUMDER
W/O. SRI SUBHASH RANJAN MAZUMDER, R/O. VILL. LANE NO.19,
VIVEKANANDA ROAD, SILCHAR TOWN, P.O. SILCHAR, DIST. CACHAR,
ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS.
REP. BY THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT.,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06.
2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY.
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT.
DISPUR
GUWAHATI-06.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIAPARA
GUWAHATI-19.
4:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIAPARA
GUWAHATI-19.
5:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
CDC
Page No.# 2/4
CACHAR
SILCHAR
ASSAM
SILCHAR-01.
6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
CACHAR
SILCHAR-01
ASSAM.
7:THE DY. INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
SILCHAR
P.O. SILCHAR-01
CACHAR
ASSAM.
8:THE HEADMASTER OF TARAPUR GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
SILCHAR-788003
CACHAR
ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U K NAIR, MR. M KHAN,MR. J RAHMAN,KAKALI DEVI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, SEC. EDU.,MR. A K DUTTA (R8),MR. B
PURKAYASTHA (R8)
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 04.03.2025
1. Heard Mr. M Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. P.N. Sarma learned standing counsel, Elementary Education
Department appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Mr. B Purkayastha,
learned counsel for the respondent No.8.
2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
Page No.# 3/4
"Admit, call for the records and issue a rule calling upon the
respondents to show cause as to why a writ of certiorari be
not issued by setting aside the letter dated 9.07.2008 (Annex-
16) issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Silchar and to
declare the judgment and order dated 26.11.2015 in Title
Suit No.163/2008 passed by the Munsiff No.1, Cachar
(Annex-18) and judgment and order dated 15.12.2008 in T.A
No.2/2016 passed by the Civil Judge No.1 (Annex-19) are
non-est in law and/or a writ of Mandamus be not issued
directing the respondents to release the current and arrear
salary from July, 2008 to the petitioner and/or be pleased to
direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to discharge
her duty as Assistant Teacher of Tarapur Girls ME School
being amalgamated with Tarapur Girls ME School and/or
cause or causes shown, if any and upon hearing the parties,
make the rule absolute and/or pass such further or other
order(s)."
3. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of Radhe Shyam & Anr. Vs.
Chhabi Nath & Ors reported in 2015 3 SCR 197, held that writ
jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all high courts. A writ of
certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdictional orders
of tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts. It was
further held that there is no precedence in India for High Courts to issue
writs to subordinate courts. Control of working of subordinate courts in
dealing with their judicial order is exercised by way of appellate or
revisional power or power of subordination under Article 227.
Page No.# 4/4
4. It was also laid down that order of civil court stands on different
footing from the orders of authorities or tribunal or courts other than
Judicial/Civil Courts and the expression inferior court is not referable to
Judicial Court. Accordingly it was held that a Writ of Certiorari cannot
be issued against a Civil Court.
5. It is seen that in this case Writ of Certiorari is sought for against
judgment passed in Title Suit by Munsiff No.1, Cachar and against the
appellate order passed by Civil Judge No.1, inasmuch as the letter dated
09.07.2008 was subject matter of the suit in question.
6. Therefore, this issue should not detain this court any further
and it is an unhesitant conclusion of this court that the present writ
petition is not maintainable as by way of this writ petition
decree/appellate court decree of Civil Courts are under challenge and
the challenge made to order dated 09.07.2008 relate to the said
decrees.
7. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. Parties to bear
their own cost.
8. At this stage, Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that liberty may be granted to him to approach the appropriate
court. This court need not grant any liberty inasmuch as liberty shall
always remain with the petitioner, to challenge such decree etc., as
permitted under law.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
