Disposed

Md. Abu Taleb v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC10 Apr 2023WP(C)/1570/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged his non-selections and the appointment of a rival for Gaon Pradhan, alleging ineligibility. The High Court directed him to pursue an alternative remedy by filing an appeal under Rule 162(c) of the Executive Instructions before the Divisional Commissioner within 10 days.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to prefer an appeal under Rule 162(c) of the Executive Instructions before the Divisional Commissioner within 10 days.

Md. Abu Taleb Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010057602023

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1570/2023

¶5

MD. ABU TALEB

¶6

S/O- MD. OSMAN GANI, R/O- VILLAGE- BARVITHA, P.O. JATRADIYA, DIST.BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 871305

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY ITS COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6

¶9

2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301

¶10

3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHENG REVENUE CIRCLE BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781301

¶11

4:MD. NABIRUL ISLAM S/O- LATE SHOUKAT ALI R/O- VILLAGE BARVITHA P.O. JATRADIYA DIST.- BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 87130

¶12

Page No.# 2/3

¶13

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SAIKIA

¶14

Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM

¶15

BEFORE

¶16

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM

¶17

ORDER

¶18

10.04.2023

¶19

Heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner was an aspirant for appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan of Charge No.15, village Borvitha under Chenga Revenue Circle of district Barpeta, Assam. However, he has not been selected. Assailing the selection and appointment of private respondent No.4 for appointment in the post of Gaon Pradhan, the instant writ petition has been filed inter-alia alleging that the respondent No.4 did not fulfil the eligibility requirement under the advertisement notice dated 03.09.2022. Mr. Saikia submits that the selection of respondent

¶21

No.4 is contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement notice. At this stage, Mr. J. K. Goswami, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam submits that since these orders are appealable under Rule 162(c) of the Executive Instructions framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, the petitioner should be directed to avail alternative remedy.

¶22

In view of the above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is being disposed of by granting leave to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Rule 162(c) before the jurisdictional Divisional Commissioner. If such an application is filed within 10 days from today along with a certified

¶23

copy of this order, the same be considered and disposed of by a reasoned order.

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management

¶26

Department, Assam is also present.

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Comparing Assistant

Md. Abu Taleb v. the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Abu Taleb 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Jain Vs the State of Assam

Nabajit Deka and Anr. Vs the State of Assam

Khairul Anam Khandakar and 3 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Rofiqul Hoque Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Lohit Das Vs Megha Nidhi Dahal

Kumud Thakuria @ Kumud Kumar Das Vs Pabindra Kumar Nath