Pabitra Pegu vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4856 Gua

                                                         Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010237212022




                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                       Case No. : WP(C)/4359/2022


         PABITRA PEGU
         S/O. BABUL GUTI PEGU
          VILL. KOILA ALI
          P.O. RAMDHAN DIKARI
          PIN-787060
          P.S. SIMEN CHAPORI
          DIST. DHEMAJI
         ASSAM.


          VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY
         GOVT. OF ASSAM
         DEPTT. OF REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
         DISPUR
         GUWAHATI-781006.

         2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

         DIST. DHEMAJI
         P.O. AND P.S. DHEMAJI
         787057
         ASSAM.
         3:THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER (REVENUE)

         DIST. DHEMAJI
         P.O. AND P.S. DHEMAJI-787057
         ASSAM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER.
         4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER

         DHEMAJI CIRCLE
                                                                      Page No.# 2/7

           P.O. AND P.S. DHEMAJI-787057.
           5:AJOY PEGU
           S/O. LT. JOGESWAR PEGU
           R/O. MECHAKI CHAPORI
           P.O. LAIMEKURI-787060
           DIST. DHEMAJI
           ASSAM.
           ------------

Advocate for : MR G JALAN Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Date : 09-12-2022

Heard Mr. G. Jalan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1. I have also heard Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. R. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent 5.

2. The instant matter has come up before this Court today in view of an application being filed by the respondent No.5 seeking vacation/modification/alteration of the order dated 30.06.2022. At the time of taking up the said application, it appeared that any decision on the said application would have a bearing on the merits of the case and as such the matter has been taken up for final disposal at this stage.

3. From a perusal of the writ petition, it appears that an advertisement was Page No.# 3/7

issued on 28.01.2022 by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji District whereby applications were invited for filling up the posts of Lot Gaon Pradhan of the Lot Gaons falling under the Jonai Revenue Circle/Mouza of Dhemaji District. It was mentioned that the applicants were required to submit their application by 15.02.2022 either at the Office of the Deputy Commissioner or at the Office of the Circle Officer. Further to that, it was mentioned that in terms with the Government Notification dated 10.04.2018 and 29.11.2021, proof of the qualifications/conditions were required to be enclosed along with the application.

4. For the purpose of the instant case, it is relevant to take into consideration the condition Nos. 1, 2 and 7 amongst the various other conditions mentioned therein. The said conditions for the sake of convenience are reproduced hereinbelow:

1. Applicant must be an Indian Citizen and a permanent resident of the below mentioned LOT Gaons.

2. Applicant must have completed the age of 30 (thirty) years as on 01.01.2021. The minimum educational qualification of the applicant should be HSLC passed.

7. Applicant must have landed property or immovable property within the LOT in which he has applied for the post of Gram Pradhan.

5. From the above conditions, it transpires that the applicant has to be an Indian Citizen and a permanent resident of the mentioned Lot Gaons. A further perusal of the advertisement and more particularly to the vernacular version, it transpires that there are various Gaon Lot numbers. The instant writ petition pertains to Gaon Lot No.77 which includes the following 5 Lot Gaons i.e. (i) Page No.# 4/7

Kekon Dikhari, (ii) 2 No. Koila Ali, (iii) 3 No. Bodo Gaon, (iv) 3. No. Ravan and

(v) Anu Chapori Part-I. Further to that, in terms with Condition No.2, the applicant must have completed 30 (thirty) years as on 01.01.2021 and the minimum educational qualification of the applicant should be HSLC passed. In terms with Condition No.7, the applicant must have landed property or immovable property within the Lot in which he has applied for the post of Gaon Pradhan.

6. The petitioner along with the respondent No.5 had applied for filling up the vacant post of Lot Gaon Pradhan in respect to Lot No.77 and the respondent authorities vide an order dated 01.06.2022 have selected the respondent No.5 against Gaon Lot No.77 for appointment of Gaon Pradhan subject to obtaining Police Verification Report from the Superintendent of Police, Dhemaji. Pursuant to the said order dated 01.06.2022, the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji had issued an order dated 03.06.2022 whereby the respondent No.5 was appointed as the Lot Gaon Pradhan in respect to Lot No.77.

7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 01.06.2022 as well as the order dated 03.06.2022 on the ground that the respondent No.5 being not a resident of any of the Lot Gaons mentioned against Lot No.77 was not eligible to be selected for appointment of the Gaon Pradhan in respect to Lot No.77. It was mentioned in the writ petition that the respondent No.5 was a resident of Mechaki Chapori which fell within Lot No.78 and as such the respondent No.5 could not have been selected for the Lot No.77.

8. This Court vide an order dated 30.06.2022 issued notice making it returnable by 6 (six) weeks and in the interim had stayed the order dated Page No.# 5/7

03.06.2022 whereby the respondent No.5 was appointed until further orders.

9. The respondent No.5 has filed the accompanying Interlocutory Application seeking vacation/modification/alteration of the said order. In the said application so filed by the respondent No.5, it has been mentioned that on 05.04.2022, the Circle Officer, Jonai Revenue Circle, Jonai upon allegations being made from one Smti. Niru Prova Pegu, Sri Prafulla Pegu and others had carried out a verification and found that the respondent No.5 is a resident of Koila Ali Anu Chapori Village which is a constituent village of Lot No.77. Further to that, the respondent No.5 had also submitted a Revenue receipt in that regard. It was also mentioned that the earlier Gaon Pradhan of Lot No.77, one Shri Chandibar Kumbang also belonged to Koila Ali Anu Chapori and the houses of the previous Gaon Pradhan i.e. Shri Chandibar Kumbang and Shri Ajay Pegu are nearby and located in the same village. Further to that, it has also been mentioned that the applicant Shri Pabitra Pegu whose date of birth is 01.02.1992 does not fulfill the age criteria mentioned in the advertisement.

10. Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 have also produced an instruction given by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji dated 12.08.2022 whereby it has been mentioned that in terms with the report of the Circle Officer, Jonai Revenue Circle, it was found that the respondent No.5 is a resident of Koila Ali Anu Chapori village which is a constituent village of Lot No.77. Further to that, it was also found out from the statement given by the respondent No.5 that he exercises his voting right at Mechaki Chapori L.P. School under Laimekuri G.P. and Koila Ali Anu Chapori falls under Laimekuri G.P. It was also mentioned that the respondent No.5's name was also enrolled in the Page No.# 6/7

electoral roll in P.S. No.1, Santapur LPS which is in Siga G.P. but applying in Form No.7 long back, he has sought for striking out from that Polling Station. Furthermore, it appears from the report that the respondent No.5 had shifted his residence from Siga G.P. to Laimekuri G.P. in the year 2000 and hence applied for a Voter Card at Laimekuri G.P. It was also mentioned that the petitioner whose date of birth is 01.02.1992 in terms with his admit card did not fulfill the age criteria mentioned in the advertisement. Along with the said instruction, a Land Revenue Receipt as well as a Residential Certificate issued by the Laimekuri Gaon Panchayat Secretary were enclosed. From a perusal of the said Certificate issued by the Secretary, Laimekuri Gaon Panchayat, it was certified that the respondent No.5 who is the son of Mukeswar Pegu is an inhabitant of Village Anu Chapori Part-I, P.O. Laimekuri Thana and Mouza-Jonai in the District of Dhemaji, Assam under Laimekuri Gaon Panchayat.

11. In the backdrop of the above facts, two questions arises for consideration before this Court. The first question is as to whether the petitioner has the locus to challenge the appointment of the respondent No.5 taking into account that the petitioner is not eligible in terms with the advertisement and the second question which arises is as to whether the respondent No.5 is a resident of any of the Lot villages mentioned against Lot No.77.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner with all fairness has duly submitted that the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.02.1992 and as such in terms with the Condition No.2, the petitioner was not 30 (thirty) years as on 01.01.2021 to apply in terms with the advertisement dated 28.01.2022. The next question therefore which arises is as to whether the respondent No.5 was a resident of any of the Lot villages mentioned against Lot No.77, it would transpire from the Page No.# 7/7

reports being submitted by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji as well as the Circle Officer which have been supplemented by the certificate being given by the Secretary, Laimekuri Gaon Panchayat and the Land Revenue Receipt that the respondent No.5 duly satisfies the Condition No. 1 and 7 of the advertisement dated 28.01.2022 and accordingly the respondent No.5's selection as well as appointment made on 01.06.2022 and 03.06.2022 respectively cannot be faulted on the grounds alleged in the writ petition.

13. In view of the above two observations and also taking into account that the petitioner is not an eligible candidate, this Court does not find any merit in the instant petition for which the instant petition stands dismissed. However, in the facts of the instant case, this Court is not inclined to impose any cost. Interim order dated 30.06.2022 stands vacated.

14. The instructions which have been submitted to Mr. J. K. Goswami, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate by the Deputy Commissioner, Dhemaji is kept on record and marked with the letter "X".

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant