Gauhati High Court
Ajmal Hoque vs The State Of Assam And 2 Ors on 22 January, 2021
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010287022019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/355/2019
AJMAL HOQUE
S/O LATE ROKMAN ALI, R/O VILL NO.1 MALIBARI PATHAR, PO MALIBARI
PATHAR BAZAR, PS BOKO, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781136
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, REVENUE AND
D.M.(L.R.) DEPARTMENT, ASSAM SECRETARIAT (CIVIL), DISPUR,
GUWAHATI-781006
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP(R)
AMINGAON
ASSAM
PIN 781136
3:THE SELECTION BOARD
FOR THE SELECTION OF GAONBURAH OF NO.1 MALIBARI PATHAR LAT
UNDER CHAMARIA REVENUE CIRCLE OF KAMRUP DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS MEMBER SECRETARY/ ADDITIONAL DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER
KAMRUP
AMINGAON
PIN 78113
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
Page No.# 2/3
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 22-01-2021
JUDGMENT & ORDER
(ORAL)
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ)
Heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. J. Handique,
learned counsel for respondent no. 1 as well as Mr. T. C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior
Government Advocate, appearing for respondent no. 2.
The appellant before this court has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge
dated 01.11.2019, passed in WP(C) 7927/2019, by which the writ petition was dismissed.
The case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that his father was a
"Gaonbura" and, during the last years of service when his father was not well, the
petitioner/appellant was assisting his father in performing the duties of "Gaonbura" on orders
of the authorities concerned.
The Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (R), on 18.05.2018 issued an advertisement for
filling up the posts of "Gaonbura" under his jurisdiction, including the No. 1 Malibari Pathar,
under Sontoli Mouza of Chamaria Revenue Circle, where the petitioner/appellant was
working. Vide a notification dated 10.04.2018, the State Government amended certain
provisions with regard to, amongst others, the minimum qualifications required for the post of
"Gaonbura" and, as per the amended provisions, a candidate must possess minimum 10 th
pass qualification for the post. The petitioner/appellant had only read up to Class IX and,
hence, was not eligible.
In the writ petition, the petitioner based his case on certain notifications and pleaded
that he had already acquired experience as "Gaonbura" and, being the son of a "Gaonbura",
he should be given preference. The learned Single Judge, however, did not agree with the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and dismissed the writ petition referring
to the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that though the conditions of service can be
Page No.# 3/3
relaxed but the essential conditions of eligibility cannot be relaxed. One of the essential
eligibility conditions of the present case is that the candidate must have minimum Class 10 th
pass qualification. Admittedly, the petitioner is read up to Class IX and is not qualified.
Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the long years of
service experience of the petitioner/appellant was liable to be considered as a special case
considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
In our view, this cannot be done. It would set a wrong precedent apart from being
clearly in violation of the law. The plain fact is that the petitioner/appellant does not have the
minimum qualification to be eligible for the post of "Gaonbura" and, therefore, he is outside
the zone of consideration.
We do not find that any interference is called for with the order of the learned Single
Judge.
The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
