DHRITIRAM RAY MEDHI AND 67 ORS. vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. Advocate - SC, REVENUE, ,SC, BTADC — WP(C)/2442/2019

Case under Constitution of India Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Of on 01st April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: GAHC010070382019

Filing Number

WP(C)/4367/2019

Filing Date

29-Mar-2019

Registration No

WP(C)/2442/2019

Registration Date

08-Apr-2019

Judge

Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Coram

Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair

Category

10023 - Selection and appointment with respect to State Govt Employees. ( 23 )

Judicial Branch

Writ Section

Decision Date

01-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Of

Last updated 01-May-2026

Acts & Sections

Constitution of India Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.DHRITIRAM RAY MEDHI AND 67 ORS.

    Adv. MR. M SARANIA,MS. I KEITZAR,MS. I KEITZAR, ,MR. A I KATHAR,MS. I KEITZAR

  2. 2.MEDHINI BAYAN

  3. 3.SASANKAR DAS

  4. 4.BIRBAL BORO

  5. 5.JIYAUL HOQUE

  6. 6.ATAUR RAHMAN

  7. 7.GEOFF ALI

  8. 8.MAHSINUR RAHMAN

  9. 9.HAFIZUR RAHMAN

  10. 10.PANASH TARAFDER

  11. 11.KAMAL KRISAN MAJUMDER

  12. 12.DEWANANDRA RAY

  13. 13.BIKRAM SARKAR

  14. 14.BISWAJIT BORUA

  15. 15.CHAKRASING BASUMATARY

  16. 16.AMBIKA PRASAD BORO

  17. 17.INDADUL HUSSAIN

  18. 18.JAYANTGA MAZUMDAR

  19. 19.FARUK AHMED

  20. 20.DEEP JYOTI THAKURIA

  21. 21.THEMPHALI BARO

  22. 22.BIKEN KHERKATARY

  23. 23.JANAHUR ISLAM

  24. 24.KAPILDEV NATH

  25. 25.MINI BASUMATARY

  26. 26.MANOJ BRAHMA

  27. 27.DHIRAJ KHERKATARY

  28. 28.RATUL SWARGIARY

  29. 29.SIBANANDA WARY

  30. 30.NAYANJYOTI DEKA

  31. 31.BIBHUTI NANANDAN RAY

  32. 32.ANIL DAS

  33. 33.SMT. HIMASRI RAY MEDHI

  34. 34.SMT PAPORI RAY

  35. 35.NAKUL KIRTONIYA

  36. 36.ASWINI KUMAR BISWAS

  37. 37.PRIYARANJAN DAS

  38. 38.ADHIR BISWAS

  39. 39.SUDIP BHATTACHARJEE

  40. 40.SANJU SARKAR

  41. 41.KUSHAL DAS

  42. 42.SIMANTA RAY

  43. 43.JAHARUL ISLAM

  44. 44.BIRKHANG DAIMARI

  45. 45.DHWRWM BRAHMA

  46. 46.MOUSOM BAGLARI

  47. 47.PRABESWAR BORGOYARY

  48. 48.MUNNA BASUMATARY

  49. 49.DILWARA BEGUM

  50. 50.SAPAN BASUMATARY

  51. 51.ANSUMA DAIMARY

  52. 52.ONARU DAIMARY

  53. 53.ANSAIGWRA BORO

  54. 54.PREMJIT DAIMARY

  55. 55.MITHISWAR BASUMATARY

  56. 56.MANISWRANG MOCHAHARI

  57. 57.RAJU DAIMARY

  58. 58.RAJEN SARMA

  59. 59.FARUK ABDULLAH

  60. 60.SMT. RWISUMWI NARZARY

  61. 61.SMT. SEEMA MANDAL DAS

  62. 62.MEENAKSHI KOCH

  63. 63.JOWSRANG BASUMATARY

  64. 64.NADADIP BRAHMA

  65. 65.NABA BASUMATARY

  66. 66.DIPANKAR BARMA

  67. 67.NABAJIT KR. BRAHMA

  68. 68.SANGITA DAIMARY

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. Advocate - SC, REVENUE, ,SC, BTADC

  2. 2.THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEY ETC, ASSAM

  3. 3.THE PRINCIPAL,

  4. 4.THE BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL

  5. 5.THE JOINT SECRETARY (REVENUE),

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 01-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr. Justice N. Unni Krishnan NairView PDF

    Summary The Gauhati High Court closed a writ petition filed by 68 petitioners as infructuous on April 1, 2026, after the petitioners obtained the relief they had sought during the proceedings. The court accepted the petitioners' prayer to close the matter since there was no objection from the respondents' counsel, rendering further litigation unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 26-Jul-2019

    Admission

    Honourable Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

  4. 10-Jun-2019

    Admission

    Honourable Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar Singh

  5. 10-May-2019

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  6. 10-Apr-2019

    Honourable Mr. Justice N. Kotiswar SinghView PDF

  7. 29-Mar-2019

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP(C)/2442/2019

casestatus.in Summary

Summary The Gauhati High Court closed a writ petition filed by 68 petitioners as infructuous on April 1, 2026, after the petitioners obtained the relief they had sought during the proceedings. The court accepted the petitioners' prayer to close the matter since there was no objection from the respondents' counsel, rendering further litigation unnecessary. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case