Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2968 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/5 vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 10 February, 2025

Author: Nelson Sailo

Bench: Nelson Sailo

                                                                         Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010144132018




                                                                  2025:GAU-AS:1347

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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/4393/2018

            ARIFUL HAQUE
            S/O- MD. ABED ALI, R/O- GONDHIYA, P.S- BELSOR, DIST- NALBARI,
            ASSAM, PIN- 781304

            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.
            REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM,
            REVENUE DEPTT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06

            2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             NALBARI
             PIN- 78130

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. D SARMAH, MR. S HAZARIKA,MR K JAIN

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. J HANDIQUE, SC, REVENUE DEPT.


                                   BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

                                          ORDER

Date : 10-02-2025

Heard Mr. S Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department appearing for respondent No. 1 and Ms. U Sharma, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No. 2.

[2.] By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for a direction to Page No.# 2/5

the respondent authorities to appoint him as Gaonburah of Gandhiya village under Dharampur Mouza in Panchim Nalabari Revenue Circle. It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for the said post and alongwith him five other persons were also considered. The Selection Committee which held its meeting under the chairmanship of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari, as per instructions of the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari held its meeting on 14.09.2016 and recommended the petitioner for appointment to the post of Gaonburah. However, before the petitioner could be appointed, a criminal case being GR Case No. 516/2016 had been filed but the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari vide judgment dated 20.01.2018 acquitted all the accused persons, including the writ petitioner of the alleged offences under Sections 143/325/354/427/294 of the IPC. The petitioner then submitted a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari praying for issuance of an appointment letter to him in the post of Gaonburah of the village Gandhiya (Part-3) informing the said authority about his acquittal from the charge. The said representation was received by the Deputy Commissioner on 23.05.2018. However, the Deputy Commissioner did not take any steps for issuing him an appointment order, therefore being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court.

[3.] Ms. U Sharma, learned Government Advocate referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 submits that a WT message was received from the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue & D.M. (LR) Department on 20.02.2017 stating that the notification dated 06.01.2016 regarding the guidelines of selection and appointment of Gaonburahs should not be acted upon and that the said notification be kept in abeyance until further orders. She therefore submits that in view of the WT message received from the State Government, the recommendation made for appointment of Gaonburahs Page No.# 3/5

in favour of the petitioner on 14.09.2016 has not been acted upon. She submits that the State Government in the Revenue & D.M. (LR) Department has come up with a new guideline vide notification dated 10.04.2018 and therefore, any appointment to be made to the post of Gaonburah would be covered in terms of the same.

[4.] Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department also submits that mere selection and recommendation to the post of Gaonburah does not give the petitioner a right to be appointed. He also submits that just because the petitioner has been acquitted by the Criminal Court that does not mean an automatic appointment to the post of Gaonburah. He therefore, submits that if a decision has not been arrived at by the Deputy Commissioner concerned regarding the appointment of the petitioner to the said post, Court may leave such discretion to the said authority.

[5.] The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand submits that the petitioner was duly recommended in terms of the relevant guidelines at the time of his consideration and therefore, he cannot be brought under the new guidelines notified only in the year 2018. In this connection, the learned counsel relies upon the case of Gopal Krushna Rath vs. M.A.A. Baig (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors., reported in (1999) 1 SCC 544. Referring to the said judgment, the learned counsel submits that the Apex Court by relying upon the earlier judgment of the same Court, P. Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka , reported in (1990) 1 SCC 411 held that the appellant in that case possessed the necessary qualifications that were advertised on the last date of receiving the applications. The qualifications were in accordance with the Rules/guidelines then in force. Therefore, the appellant was to be considered in terms of the guideline that was in force at the time of application and any subsequent Page No.# 4/5

changes in the qualification would not affect his right. The learned counsel therefore, submits that the case of the writ petitioner is also squarely covered with the said decision. He submits that the respondents may therefore, be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Gaonburah.

[6.] I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have also perused the materials available on record.

[7.] There is no dispute to the fact that the petitioner was recommended to be appointed as Gaonburah of village Gandhiya (Part-3) in terms of the minutes of the Selection Committee which held its meeting on 14.09.2016. However, due to the registration of a criminal case against the petitioner and other persons, the petitioner admittedly was not given the appointment soon after such recommendation. The criminal case as already stated, ended in acquittal of all the accused persons. Although the respondents have taken the stand that in view of the WT message dated 20.02.2017 the guidelines notified on 06.01.2016 should not be given affect to, there is nothing on record by which the recommendation made by the Selection Committee on 14.09.2016 in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled. There is also no specific order by which the said recommendation has been kept in abeyance. On the other hand, the appointment of the petitioner to the post in question did not materialize admittedly in view of the criminal case registered against him and others. After his acquittal vide the judgment dated 20.01.2018, the petitioner submitted his representation seeking his appointment which was received by the Deputy Commissioner, Nalbari on 23.05.2018. No materials have been placed on record showing that the same has been considered by the authorities concerned except for the WT message dated 20.02.2017.

[8.] It may also been seen that the WT message has been sent Page No.# 5/5

instructing that the Government notification dated 06.01.2016 should be kept in abeyance. But, however, by that time, recommendation has already been made in terms of the meeting minutes dated 14.09.2016. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has since been acquitted from the charge of the criminal case and at the same time, the recommendation made in his favour has not been cancelled by any specific order, the message given through the WT message dated 20.02.2017 by itself cannot debar the consideration of the appointment of the petitioner to the post in question.

[9.] This Court is therefore, inclined to direct the respondent authorities, more particularly respondent No. 2 to take into consideration the recommendation made by the Selection Committee on 14.09.2016 in favour of the petitioner and also the order of acquittal dated 20.01.2018 for appointing the petitioner to the post of Gaonburah of village Gandhiya (Part-3). If the petitioner is found fit to be considered for appointment in terms of the prevailing guidelines at the relevant time, he shall be appointed without further delay.

[10.] The consideration as directed herein above shall be done within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

[11.] With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant