Allowed

Abdul Matlib Laskar and 5 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC9 Dec 2020WP(C)/5231/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by Additional Patwary candidates challenging their disqualification due to age. Held that impugned orders by Settlement Officer were incompetent and Director failed independent consideration. Directions issued for independent review and re-evaluation under relevant Government Notification.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned orders. Directed Director to give independent consideration within 10 days per Government Notification dated 03.05.1951. Results of written test held on 01.11.2020 to be withheld.

Abdul Matlib Laskar and 5 Ors. Vs the State of Assam… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2020)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010178242020

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/5231/2020

¶5

ABDUL MATLIB LASKAR AND 5 ORS

¶6

S/O ASADDAR ALI LASKAR, R/O GOBINDAPUR, P.O. GOBINDAPUR, P.S. SILCHA, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM

¶7

2: AMINUL ISLAM MAJUMDAR S/O LT. FARID ALI MAJUMDAR R/O VILL. SIBPUR PART-II P.O. HAZARIGRAM BAZAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 3: UTTAM KUMAR NATH S/O LT. ABANTI MOHAN NATH R/O VILL. MOHANPUR P.O. KATRAIL DIST. CACHAR ASSAM

¶8

4: SULTAN AHMED LASKAR S/O KHALILUDDIN LASKAR R/O DAKHIN MOHANPUR PART-VII P.O. SWADIN BAZAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 5: KSH. DHARMENDRA SINGHA S/O LT. KSH. JUGENDRA SINGHA R/O KAZIDAR PART-II P.O. AND P.S. SONAI DIST CACHAR ASSAM

¶9

6: JAKIR HUSSAIN BARBHUIYA S/O SUNAHAR ALI BARBHUIYA

¶10

Page No.# 2/5

¶11

R/O VILL. CHANGURTOL P.O. SONAIMUKH P.S. SONAI DIST. CACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS TO BY REP. BY THE SECRETARY LAND AND REVENUE DEPTT. DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ETC. ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-78132 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-788001 4:THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER CACHAR AND HAILAKANDI DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN-78800

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : SC. REVENUE

¶14

:: BEFORE ::

¶15

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJIT BHUYAN

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

09.12.2020

¶18

Heard Dr. B. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel representing respondent nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Roy, learned counsel appears

¶19

Page No.# 3/5

¶20

for respondent nos.3 and 4.

¶21

Having regard to the facts emerging, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the Motion stage itself.

¶22

This is the third occasion when the petitioners are before this Court. Matter pertains to eligibility and participation of the writ petitioners in the selection process for appointment as Additional Patwaries, following Advertisement dated 16.03.2020. Embargo in respect of the petitioners is with regard to their overage, inasmuch as, in terms of the said Advertisement the maximum age limit is 38 years as on 01.01.2020, relaxable in respect of candidates from reserved category and persons with disability, as specified in the Advertisement. Apparently, the petitioners do not belong to either of the categories where relaxation is provided. To overcome the disqualification criteria, that is, with regard to their age, the petitioners had earlier instituted WP(C)/2114/2020 for a direction to the respondents concerned to accept their candidature by granting relaxation of their upper age and also by giving due weightage to the experience gained by them. Having noticed that a Government Notification dated 03.05.1951 is holding the field with regard to relaxation of age limit, this Court made a direction requiring the petitioners to submit representations before the Head of the Department, being the appropriate authority. A direction was also made that the Head of the Department will give due consideration to the representations of the petitioners in strict regard to the provisions of the Government Notification dated 03.05.1951. Following the aforesaid directions made in the order dated 20.03.2020 in WP(C)/2114/2020, representation was made by the petitioners on the same date i.e. 20.03.2020 before the Director of Land Records & Surveys etc., Assam. However, the representations not having been disposed of in terms of the order of the Court, prompted the petitioners to file Cont. Cas(C)/488/2020, wherein notice was issued to the respondents on 20.10.2020. Meantime, a notice came to be issued under the hand of the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi Districts declaring that the written test, in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 16.03.2020, will be held on 01.11.2020. As the matter with regard to relaxation of the upper age limit of the petitioners did not come by until then, they instituted the second writ petition, being WP(C)/4581/2020. By order dated 09.11.2020 a direction was made to the Director of Land Revenue Records, Assam to forthwith give consideration to the representation of the petitioners within a period

¶23

Page No.# 4/5

¶24

of two days.

¶25

Petitioners are now aggrieved of the orders dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-9); 13.11.2020 (Annexure-10) and the order dated 16.11.2020, all issued under the hand of the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi Districts. In respect of the order dated 21.09.2020, which is shown to have been passed prior to the date when order in the second writ petition i.e. WP(C)/4581/2020 was rendered, it is submitted that the same was never brought to the knowledge of the petitioners and, in all probability, the same has been back-dated. It is submitted that observation is also made in the impugned orders that in view of the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2020 there was no room for considering relaxation of the age of the petitioners. Also, under challenge is the order dated 21.11.2020 passed under the hand of the Director of Land Records & Surveys etc., Assam, whereby it was observed that the petitioners have already attained the maximum age limit of 45 years as on 16.03.2020 i.e. the date of the Advertisement.

¶26

It is clear from the emerging facts that whereas direction made by this Court in WP(C)/2114/2020 and WP(C)/4581/2020 required the Head of the Department i.e. the Director of Land Records & Surveys etc., Assam to consider the representations in strict terms of the provisions of the Government Notification dated 03.05.1951, the impugned orders dated 21.09.2020, 13.11.2020 and 16.11.2020 were rendered by the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi district, who is apparently not the Head of the Department. In the opinion of this Court on this ground alone the said impugned orders, passed by the Settlement Officer, Cachar and Hailakandi Districts, cannot stand scrutiny of law and are liable to be interfered with, which is accordingly done. In so far as the order dated 21.11.2020 passed by the Director of Land Records and Surveys Etc., Assam is concerned, although the said authority is the Head of the Department, however, a bare perusal of the contents of the said order would clearly go to show that the observations made therein are mere reiteration of the observations made by the Settlement Officer. It is seen that there was no independent consideration of the claim of the petitioners by the Director of Land Records & Surveys etc., Assam. It is also seen that the Director of Land Records & Surveys etc., Assam only made reference to the Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2020 without considering the applicability/non-applicability of the Government Notification 03.05.1951 in so far the

¶27

Page No.# 5/5

¶28

petitioners are concerned.

¶29

Without further ado, this writ petition stands allowed. The impugned orders are set aside, with direction to the Director of Land Records & Surveys etc., Assam to now give independent consideration to the representation of the petitioners, having regard to the Government Notification dated 03.05.1951. Let the required exercise be completed within 10(ten) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Depending upon the outcome of the consideration and in the event the age of the petitioners are condoned, necessary steps shall be taken by the respondent for conducting written test, confined to the petitioners herein, following the Advertisement dated 16.03.2020.

¶30

Petitioners are permitted to furnish a copy of this order to the Director of Land Records & Surveys etc., Assam for his doing the needful in terms of the directions above.

¶31

A copy of this order be also furnished to Mr. J. Handique during the course of the day for onward transmission to the Director of Land Records & Surveys etc., Assam.

¶32

The results of the written test held on 01.11.2020 shall not be declared until representation of the petitioners are considered and answered in terms of the directions above.

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Comparing Assistant

Abdul Matlib Laskar and 5 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Matlib Laskar and 5 Ors. v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Sahida Begum Laskar Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Jadu Ram Saharia Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Md. Hafazuddin Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Chintamoni Das Vs the State of Assam and 23 Ors.

Jagadish Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 7 Ors.

Mainul Haque Choudhury and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 11 Ors.