MOHSIN AHMED vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS Advocate - GA, ASSAM — WP(C)/1881/2026

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Next hearing: : -.

Next hearing —

CNR: GAHC010061812026

e-Filing Number

23-03-2026

Filing Number

WP(C)/3494/2026

Filing Date

23-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP(C)/1881/2026

Registration Date

30-Mar-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice Soumitra Saikia

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice Soumitra Saikia

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

10027 - Seniority with respect to State Govt Employees. ( 27 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Last updated 01-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MOHSIN AHMED

    Adv. MR D N SARMA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHRS Advocate - GA (Government Advocate), ASSAM

  2. 2.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

  3. 3.THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMIN)

  4. 4.THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ADMIN)

  5. 5.THE COMMANDANT

  6. 6.MADHOBI BORAH DSP (Deputy Superintendent of Police) (JUNIOR GRADE)

Case History

  1. —

    Next hearingPending

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice Soumitra SaikiaView PDF

    Case: Mohsin Ahmed v. State of Assam | WP(C)/1881/2026 The writ petition filed by police officer Mohsin Ahmed challenging his non-promotion was admitted for hearing. The court issued notice returnable in four weeks, waiving formal notices to respondents 1-5 (who accepted service), and directed notice to respondent 6 by speed post. The State was ordered to file complete instructions explaining why the petitioner was denied promotion. The court clarified that pending representations before authorities shall not be barred by the writ petition's pendency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 23-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/1881/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case: Mohsin Ahmed v. State of Assam | WP(C)/1881/2026 The writ petition filed by police officer Mohsin Ahmed challenging his non-promotion was admitted for hearing. The court issued notice returnable in four weeks, waiving formal notices to respondents 1-5 (who accepted service), and directed notice to respondent 6 by speed post. The State was ordered to file complete instructions explaining why the petitioner was denied promotion. The court clarified that pending representations before authorities shall not be barred by the writ petition's pendency. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case