Gauhati High Court
WA/362/2022 on 6 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010234352022
2025:GAU-AS:5628-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT APPEAL NO.362 OF 2022
Nurul Amin,
Son of Late Amir Uddin Ahmed,
Village: Palhazi, Aminpara, PO: Palhazi, PS: Barpeta,
District: Barpeta, Assam, PIN - 781301.
.....Appellant
-Versus-
1. Kashem Ali Ahmed,
Son of Late Abul Hussain,
Village: Palhazi, PO: Palhazi,
PS: Barpeta, Assam, PIN - 781309.
2. The State of Assam, represented by the Commissioner &
Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Land
Revenue & Disaster Management, Dispur, Guwahati -
781006, District: Kamrup (Metro), Assam.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, District: Barpeta, Assam, PIN -
781301.
4. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta Revenue
Circle, District: Barpeta, Assam, PIN - 781301.
.....Respondents
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, Advocate.
: Mr. H. Ali, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M. Sarma, Advocate for respondent No.1.
: Mr. J. Handique, Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for
respondent No.2.
Page No.# 2/8
: Ms. S. Sarma, Junior Govt. Advocate, Assam for respondent Nos.3
& 4.
Date of Hearing : 06.05.2025.
Date of judgment : 06.05.2025.
JUDGMENT &ORDER (ORAL)
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
This writ appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment &
order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)
No.4883/2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the selection
and appointment of the appellant as Gaonburah of Charge No.17, Mouza -
Barpeta under Barpeta Revenue Circle, District - Barpeta and has directed the
State authorities to initiate a fresh process of selection for appointment of
Gaonburah of Charge No.17 as expeditiously as possible on the basis of the
qualifications laid down by the Notification bearing No.RLR.187/2007/39 dated
10.04.2018 or any amendment made thereafter, as the case may be, clarifying
that the selection process should proceed on the basis of the qualification
prevailing on the relevant date.
2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the issue involved in this writ
appeal are that the vacancy for the post of Gaonburah of Charge No.17
occurred on 08.06.2012. However, the respondent No.1 herein Kashem Ali
Ahmed was allowed by the respondent authorities to discharge the duties of
Gaonburah of Charge No.17. The said action of the authorities allowing the
respondent No.1 herein to discharge the duties of Gaonburah of Charge No.17
came to be challenged by one Jahurul Islam by way of an appeal under the
provisions of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886 (hereinafter to be
referred as the "1886 Regulation") before the Appellate Authority, i.e. the
Page No.# 3/8
Commissioner of Lower Assam Division. The Appellate Authority allowed the
appeal filed by Jahurul Islam vide order dated 08.10.2013 and cancelled the
order of permitting the respondent No.1 herein to discharge the duties of
Gaonburah of Charge No.17 with a further direction to initiate fresh process of
selection under the relevant provisions of the Executive Instructions issued
under the 1886 Regulations, as amended.
Pursuant to that an advertisement inviting applications from the
aspirants for filling up the post of Gaonburah for Charge No.17 was issued on
06.08.2014. In the meantime, vide order dated 16.08.2014, one Akkabbar Ali
was entrusted to look after the day-to-day works of Gaonburah of Charge
No.17.
3. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 herein filed WP(C) No.4289/2015
challenging the order dated 08.10.2013 passed by the Appellate Authority,
whereby permission granted to him to continue as Gaonburah of Charge No.17
was interfered with. However, during the pendency of WP(C) No.4289/2015
preferred on behalf of the respondent No.1 herein, Notification No.RLR.187/
2007/43 dated 05.01.2016 was issued by the State respondents, whereby the
earlier Executive Instruction Nos.160 to 167 contained in the 1886 Regulations
were amended and taking into consideration the same, the Writ Court in WP(C)
No.4289/2015 observed that since the advertisement dated 06.08.2014 did not
lead to appointment of any person as regular Gaonburah of Charge No.17, the
respondent State authorities should initiate a fresh process of recruitment for
the post of Gaonburah of Charge No.17 by abandoning the earlier process
initiated through advertisement dated 06.08.2014. While disposing of WP(C)
No.4289/2015 vide order dated 31.05.2017, the Writ Court also directed the
respondent authorities to ensure appointment of a better merited person, in
Page No.# 4/8
accordance with the current norms, granting liberty to the respondent No.1
herein and Jahurul Islam to participate in the said selection process. Certain
other ancillary directions were also given by the Writ Court in the order dated
31.05.2017.
In the meantime, the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam,
Revenue & Disaster Management (LR) Department issued an order dated
20.02.2017, whereby new guidelines dated 05.01.2016 issued for selection and
appointment of Gaonburahs were kept in abeyance until further orders with a
direction to the concerned authorities not to act on the Notification dated
05.01.2016. It appears that the order dated 20.02.2017 directing to keep the
new guidelines dated 05.01.2016 in abeyance was not brought to the
knowledge of the learned Single Judge at the time of disposal of WP(C)
No.4289/2015 vide order dated 31.05.2017.
4. Be that as it may, pursuant to the direction given by this Court vide
order dated 31.05.2017 in WP(C) No.4289/2015, the respondent State
authorities issued an advertisement on 13.11.2017 inviting applications from the
interested candidates to fill up the vacant post of Gaonburah for Charge No.17.
However, pursuant to the said advertisement, no one applied for the said post
till the last date of submission of application. Thereafter, again an advertisement
dated 29.12.2017 was issued and pursuant to that the appellant, respondent
No.1 and 4(four) other persons submitted applications for selection and
appointment on the post of Gaonburah of Charge No.17. The interview for
selection on the said post of Gaonburah was conducted on 03.04.2018, wherein
the appellant secured highest marks and was selected for the said post vide
order dated 12.04.2018.
Page No.# 5/8
5. Being aggrieved with the selection and appointment of the appellant
on the post of Gaonburah of Charge No.17, the respondent No.1 herein filed
WP(C) No.4883/2018, which came to be allowed vide the impugned judgment &
order.
6. The learned Single Judge has interfered with the selection and
appointment of the appellant for the post of Gaonburah of Charge No.17 mainly
on the ground that as per the guidelines dated 05.01.2016, the minimum
qualification for appointment on the post of Gaonburah was matriculation,
whereas the appellant herein is not possessing the said qualification, therefore,
his selection and appointment on the post of Gaonburah of Charge No.17
cannot be sustained. The learned Single Judge has recorded a finding to the
effect that though the new guidelines dated 05.01.2016, prescribing minimum
qualification as matriculation for appointment on the post of Gaonburah, were
kept in abeyance but the said guidelines cannot be said to have been cancelled,
recalled, revoked or set aside and, therefore, the said guidelines continued to
exist but were inoperative. The learned Single Judge has further observed that
the new guidelines dated 05.01.2016 were superseded by issuance of fresh
guidelines dated 10.04.2018, which also prescribed matriculation as the
minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Gaonburah and,
therefore, the selection and appointment of the appellant on the post of
Gaonburah of Charge No.17 is illegal.
7. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the material available on record.
8. The facts which are narrated above in the earlier part of this order are
not in dispute and the only question which arises for our consideration is
Page No.# 6/8
whether the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the selection and
appointment of the appellant as Gaonburah of Charge No.17 in the given facts
and circumstances of the case.
9. We are of the view that the interference by the learned Single Judge in
the selection and appointment of the appellant on the post of Gaonburah of
Charge No.17 is not justified for the following reasons:-
(i) When the advertisement dated 29.12.2017 inviting applications from
the interested candidates for filling up the post of Gaonburah of
Charge No.17 was issued, the guidelines dated 05.01.2016
prescribing matriculation as minimum qualification for selection and
appointment on the post of Gaonburah were kept in abeyance vide
order dated 20.02.2017 with a direction not to act on the said
notification. True it is that the new guidelines dated 05.01.2016 were
only kept in abeyance and were not cancelled or recalled but
certainly they were not in operation and, in such circumstances, the
authorities responsible for selecting the Gaonburahs were not
supposed to follow the said new guidelines.
(ii) In the interview conducted on 03.04.2018 for selection and
appointment for the post of Gaonburah of Charge No.17 pursuant to
the advertisement dated 29.12.2017, the appellant secured highest
marks as per the norms prevailing prior to issuance of the new
guidelines dated 05.01.2016. We may be in agreement with the
finding of the learned Single Judge to the effect that though the new
guidelines dated 05.01.2016 prescribing matriculation as minimum
qualification for selection and appointment of Gaonburah were kept
Page No.# 7/8
in abeyance but that did not mean that the earlier instructions issued
under the 1886 Regulations, where no minimum educational
qualification was prescribed, would stand revive, but it is to keep in
mind that with the issuance of the order dated 20.02.2017 passed
by the Joint Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue &
Disaster Management (LR) Department, whereby the new guidelines
were kept in abeyance, no instruction or guidelines were in vogue at
the time of selection of the appellant as Gaonburah and in such
circumstances, if the authorities concerned in their wisdom and
discretion has followed the criteria in vogue prior to issuance of the
new guidelines dated 05.01.2016, the same cannot said to be
unreasonable or unwarranted.
(iii) That the appellant was selected in the year 2018 and continued to
hold the said post till 08.12.2022, however, his appointment on the
post of Gaonburah of Charge No.17 was cancelled pursuant to the
impugned judgment & order passed by the learned Single Judge and
thereafter, again reinstated on the said post with the revocation of
the order dated 08.12.2022 pursuant to the interim order passed by
this Court on 28.04.2023. The long continuance of the appellant on
the post of Gaonburah of Charge No.17 entitles him for equitable
reliefs in the facts and circumstances of the case.
9. In view of the above reasons, the instant writ appeal is allowed. The
impugned judgment & order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WP(C) No.4883/2018 is set aside. Consequently, WP(C) No.4883/2018
filed by the respondent No.1 herein stands dismissed.
Page No.# 8/8
10. No orders as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
