Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 4 Ors on 23 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010188772022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6263/2022
MONOWAR HOSSAIN AND 11 ORS
S/O AFZAL ALI MONDAL, R/O VILL-JHAGRARPAR PART-I, P.O.-
JHAGRARPAR, DIST-DHUBRI, ASSAM
2: ABDUL SAFUR
S/O LATE NASARUDDIN SK
R/O VILL-TALLI PART-II
P.O.-BELGURI
P.S.-AGOMANI
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
3: BIPUL CH. BARMAN
S/O RAMESH CH. BARMAN
R/O VILL-BIDYAR DABRI PART-IV
P.O.-BIDYAR DABRI
P.S.-GOLAKGANJ
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
4: URMILA SINGHA
D/O UPEN SINGHA
R/O VILL-SAGOLIA PART-II
P.O.-SAGOLIA
P.S.-GOLAKGANJ
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
5: UTTAM SARKAR
S/O JATRA MOHAN SARKAR
R/O VILL-LOHAJANI
P.O.-MARAGADADHAR
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/6
6: BISWAJIT ROY
S/O GANESH CH. ROY
R/O VILL-KAIMARI PART-II
P.O.-KAIMARI
P.S.-GOLAKGANJ
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
7: ROKIBUL HUSSAIN
S/O NAYEB ALI SK
R/O VILL-KAMARDIHIP PART-I
P.O.-TILAPARA
P.S.-CHAPOR
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
8: HASEM ALI
S/O SATTAR ALI
R/O VILL-TOKRABANDHA
P.O.-CHIRAKUTA
P.S.-CHAPOR
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
9: KHALILUR RAHMAN
S/O EMAN ALI SIKDAR
R/O VILL-MOHISH BATHAN
P.O.-TILAPARA
P.S.-CHAPOR
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
10: ABDUS SAMAD AHMED
S/O ANOWAR HUSSAIN
R/O VILL-CHORUABAKHRA JANGAL BLOCK
P.O.-CHIRAKUTA
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
11: ALAUDIIN SARKAR
S/O GEDA SK
R/O KHERBARI PART-I
P.O.-KHERBARI
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
12: ABUSAMA HAQUE
Page No.# 3/6
S/O RAHIMUDDIN SK
R/O VILL-KAIMARI PART-III
P.O.-KAIMARI
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS
TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DHUBRI
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
DHUBRI REVENUE CIRCLE
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
AGOMONI REVENUE CIRCLE
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSAM
5:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
CHAPOR REVENUE CIRCLE
DIST-DHUBRI
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R BHUYAN
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, REVENUE
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
23.09.2022
Page No.# 4/6
Heard Mr. AR Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S
Dutta, learned counsel for the authorities under the Revenue and Disaster
Management Department, Government of Assam and Mr. H Sarma, learned
counsel for the respondents No.2, 3, 4 and 5 being the Deputy Commissioner,
Dhubri and the Circle Officers of Dhubri Revenue Circle, Agomani Revenue
Circle, and Chapor Revenue Circle respectively.
2. The petitioners claim to be the existing honorary Gaonburah appointed on
various dates and claim that they deserve a consideration to be regularised in
their respective posts. Incidentally, the petitioners also assail a Notification
dated 10.04.2018 of the Revenue and Disaster Management Department of the
Government of Assam made under Clause 160, 162, 162-A, 162-C and 164 of
the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886 (for short, the Regulation of 1886)
providing for the Executive Instructions under the Assam Land Revenue
Regulation, 1886 (Amendment 2016). The petitioner assails the Executive
Instructions by referring to the Supreme Court judgment wherein it has been
held that the post of Gaonburah/Gaon Pradhan are civil posts and therefore
there is a requirement of a Recruitment Rules for the purpose. We have noticed
that the Executive Instructions contained in the Notification dated 10.04.2018
provides for a procedure regulating the appointment of Gaonburahs/Gaon
Pradhans. From such point of view, prima facie it appears that the requirement
of the judgment of the Supreme Court for a Recruitment Rules for the post of
Gaonburahs/Gaon Pradhans is substantially complied with by the respondent
authorities, although a technical objection has been raised that the procedure
laid down is in the form of Executive Instructions rather than it being Rules
under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. No proposition is
Page No.# 5/6
put forth by the petitioners to substantiate that the procedure laid down for the
appointment would necessarily have to be under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution of India and any other form of a complete procedure would be
inapplicable. From such point of view, we do not find any merit on the claim of
the petitioners at present against the Notification dated 10.04.2018.
3. An issue has been raised by Mr. AR Bhuyan, learned counsel for the
petitioners that the age limit prescribed under the Notification dated 10.04.2018
are not as per the requirement of law, but however, it has been pointed out that
by a subsequent Notification dated 26.08.2021, the upper age and lower age
limit for the post of Gaonburahs/ Gaon Pradhans had already been laid down by
the authorities and therefore the submission that the age provided in the
Notification dated 10.04.2018 is improper would also not further hold good.
However, with regard to the first contention of the petitioners that they claim for
a right to be considered for regularization in the circumstance they are presently
appointed as honorary Gaonburah, we are of the view that ends of justice would
be met on individual representations being filed before the Deputy
Commissioner concerned. In the event, any such representation is submitted,
the Deputy Commissioner may pass any reasoned order as may be available
under the law. However, we are clarifying that by allowing the petitioners to
submit representations and requiring the Deputy Commissioner to pass a
reasoned orders thereon, it is not a direction from the Court that their prayer for
regularization is required to be allowed by virtue of the Court's order and it
would be entirely upon the Deputy Commissioner to pass a reasoned order on
the facts of the case and as per law.
Page No.# 6/6
4. Writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
