Allowed

Nazmul Hoque v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC6 Sept 2019WP(C)/3638/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court directed respondents to complete the selection process for the post of Gaonburah by treating petitioners as eligible based on age, following a reduction in the minimum age limit. The Court ordered results to be declared in order of merit within six weeks and disposed of the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed to declare the result of the selection process in order of merit within six weeks, treating petitioners as eligible regarding age.

Nazmul Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2019)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010134422018

¶3

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

¶4

WP(C) 3638/2018

¶5

1:NAZMUL HOQUE S/O- LT HASHEM ALI R/O- VILL- JAWKATADIA PO- DEKACHANG PS- BOKO DIST- KAMRUP (R) ASSAM PIN-781136

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY REVENUE AND D.M. (LR) DEPTT.. ASSAM SECRETARIAT (CIVIL) DISPUR GHY-6

¶8

2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP (R) ASSAM PIN-781031

¶9

3:THE SELECTION BOARD FOR THE SELECTION OF GAONBURA OF JAWKATA DIA LAT UNDER CHAMARIA REVENUE CIRCLE OF KAMRUP DISTRICT REP. BY THE DY. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP DISTRICT AMINGAON PIN-781031 i) THE DY. COMMISSIONER ii) THE ADDL. DY. COMMISSIONER (REVENUE) iii) THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHAMARIA

¶10

Page No.# 2/3

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M A SHEIKH Advocate for the Respondent : GA ASSAM

¶12

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Date : 06-09-2019

¶15

Heard Mr. M.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department and Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Government Advocate, Assam.

¶16

Matter relates to selection and appointment to the post of Gaonburah in respect of Jawkatadia Lat under Chamaria Revenue Circle, Kamrup pursuant to advertisement dated 18.05.2018.

¶17

Grievance of the petitioner at the time of filing the writ petition was that minimum age for the post of Gaonburah was fixed at 35 years vide notification dated 10.04.2018.

¶18

Notice in this case was issued on 08.06.2018 with an interim order to the effect that petitioner should be allowed to participate in the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 18.05.2018 but result should not be finalized.

¶19

During pendency of the writ petition, a fresh notification dated 19.07.2019 has been issued whereby minimum age for the post of Gaonburah has been reduced to 25 years.

¶20

This Court in the case of Sujita Kalita Deka Vs. State of Assam (WP(C) No.5876/2018) , decided on 01.08.2019 held that upper age limit of 25 years would be understood to be effective from the date of notification dated 10.04.2018 because subsequent notification is by way of substitution.

¶21

Mr. Sheikh submits that in terms of the interim order, petitioners had appeared in the selection test. However, result has not been declared.

¶22

In view of above position, respondents should now bring the selection process to its logical conclusion by treating the petitioners as eligible candidates in so far age is concerned

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

and thereafter declare the result in order of merit. This should be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Comparing Assistant

Nazmul Hoque v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nazmul Hoque v. the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Union of India and 4 Ors. Vs Rajib Kumar Dholua and 11 Ors.

Arup Jyoti Karmakar Vs Union of India and 5 Ors.

Sri Bhaben Roy Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Debajit Nath Vs Union of India and 3 Ors.

Jayanta Kumar Banik Vs Sanjeeb Kr. Das and 3 Ors.

Ajmol Hoque Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.