Gauhati High Court
Wahed Ali vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 13 May, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010298592019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/9039/2019
WAHED ALI
S/O LT. SARIAT ULLAH, R/O VILL. KAURJOHI, P.O. AND P.S- KALGACHIA,
DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781319
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS.
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI,
PIN-781006
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BARPETA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781301
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER
KALGACHIA REVENUE CIRCLE
P.O. AND P.S. KALGACHIA
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781319
4:THE MOUZADAR
RUPSHI MOUZA
P.O. AND P.S. RUPSHI
DIST. BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-78131
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N N UPADHYAYA
Page No.# 2/4
Advocate for the Respondent : SC. REVENUE
BEFORE
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
Advocate for the petitioners : Shri R. Dhar
Advocate for the respondents : Shri CKS Baruah, GA-Assam
Shri J. Handique, SC-Revenue
Date of hearing : 13.05.2024
Date of Judgment : 13.05.2024
Judgment & Order
A short controversy has been raised in this writ petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India pertaining to selection and appointment of
Gaonburah of Charge No. 16 under Kalgachia Revenue Circle in the district of
Barpeta. A recruitment process was initiated vide an advertisement dated
27.06.2018 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. The petitioner, who
claims to be eligible in all respects, had offered his candidature. Subsequently,
there was a clarification vide notification dated 08.11.2019 whereby a clause
was introduced with regard to filing of declaration of number of living children of
the prospective candidate. Such notice was issued in view of the Gazette
Notification dated 19.07.2019 whereby certain amendments were made to the
Executive Instruction No. 162(1) and 162-A in the Assam Land and Revenue
Regulation pertaining to an appointment of a Gaonburah. As per the said
amendment, no person would be eligible for such appointment if he or she has
Page No.# 3/4
more than two living children from a single or multiple partners. It is the
contention of the petitioner that such amendment would affect his candidature.
2. I have heard Shri R. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also
heard Shri CKS Baruah, learned State Counsel and Shri J. Handique, learned
Standing Counsel, Revenue Department.
3. Shri Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
eligibility of the petitioner has to be examined from the aspect of the date of
original advertisement which is 27.06.2018 and any subsequent notification
cannot change the eligibility criteria. He has also informed this Court that an
impugned order is in operation regarding the impugned advertisement dated
08.11.2019.
4. Shri Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department has
however submitted that the apprehension of the petitioner with regard to the
advertisement dated 08.11.2019 may not be correct. He submits that the
Gazette Notification dated 19.07.2019 itself clarifies that the embargo was
inserted with regard to the factor of having more than 2 living children prior to
the date of coming into force of the notification i.e. 19.07.2019. The learned
Standing Counsel accordingly submits that because of the advertisement in
question i.e. 08.11.2019, the eligibility of the petitioner would not adversely
affect.
5. Shri Baruah, learned State Counsel endorses the views expressed by the
learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and submits that because of
the interim order, the recruitment process have been put on halt.
6. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submission
advanced, this Court is of the opinion that the Gazette Notification dated
Page No.# 4/4
19.07.2019, while inserting the embargo in the form of disqualification for a
candidate having two or more living children has itself clarified that such
embargo would be effective prospectively from the date of the notification which
is 19.07.2019. The original advertisement for the recruitment process in the
instant case being of 27.06.2018, the subsequent notice dated 08.11.2019, in
the considered opinion of this Court would not have any bearing on the
eligibility of the petitioner on the aspect of the aforesaid embargo, if otherwise
the petitioner is found to be eligible in other aspects.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing that the
aforesaid aspect of disqualification on the ground of having two or more
children would not be applicable to the petitioner qua the advertisement dated
27.06.2018 and his candidature may accordingly be considered at par with other
eligible candidates. The authorities however are required to look into the other
eligibility aspects of the petitioner while assessing such candidature. It is further
made clear that the aforesaid consideration is to be made in case the
recruitment process was not finalized before the stay order was passed on
19.12.2020. In case the process is still on, the same be completed expeditiously
and appointment of the concerned Gaonburah of Charge No. 16 under Kalgachia
Revenue Circle in the district of Barpeta be made.
8. The interim order dated 19.12.2020 stands vacated to facilitate the
completion of the aforesaid process.
9. Cost made easy.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
