Petitioner sought appointment in revenue post but faced delay due to residence eligibility query. Bench directed petitioner to approach Divisional Commissioner within three weeks to ventilate grievance and dispose the writ petition in the interim.
Three weeks time granted to petitioner to prefer appeal before Upper Assam Divisional Commissioner.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010018042022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/810/2022
RAJIB BAILUNG
S/O- DILIP BAILUNG, R/O- TENGAPANI GAON, P.O- MAKUM, P.S- BORDUBI, DIST- TINSUKIA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. PF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06
2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (GAONBURHA BRANCH) TINSUKIA ASSAM
3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER TINSUKIA REVENUE CIRCLE TINSUKIA ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P K GOGOI
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 13/03/2023
Page No.# 2/3
Heard Mr. P.K. Gogoi, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and DM Department, Assam, appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
Pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 02/09/2020 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia i.e. the respondent no. 2, the petitioner had submitted his application for appointment to the post of Gaon-Burah under the Tinsukia Revenue Circle, Tinsukia. On conclusion of the selection process, the petitioner’s name figured in the final select list. However, although the petitioner was selected for appointment in the post of Gaon-Bruah, no order of appointment has been issued in his favour till today.
Mr. Gogoi submits that the authorities have withheld the appointment of the petitioner allegedly on account of a complaint lodged by a third party questioning his place of residence by urging that the petitioner was not eligible under the advertisement notice dated 02/09/2020. According to Mr. Gogoi, those are completely false allegations inasmuch as, the petitioner has sufficient documentary proof to establish his place of residence but no authority has looked into his grievance till today.
The learned departmental counsel submits that under Rule 162(c) of the Executive Instructions issued under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, the grievance of the petitioner can be looked into by the Upper Assam Divisional Commissioner in an appropriate appeal, if preferred by him and, therefore, the writ petition can be disposed with such a direction. The petitioner’s counsel has also agreed to the recourse suggested by the respondents’ counsel.
In view of the above, this writ petition is being disposed of by granting 3(three) weeks time to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Upper Assam Divisional Commissioner, ventilating his grievance in the matter. If the petitioner preferred any such appeal as provided by this Court, the
Page No.# 3/3
Upper Assam Divisional Commissioner may look into the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of the appeal by a reasoned order, preferably within 4 (four) weeks thereafter.
With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
JUDGE
sukhamay
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner can claim appointment or grievance redressal since he was selected for the post of Gaon-Burah but no appointment order was issued raising eligibility doubts regarding his r
Rajib Bailung
State of Assam
Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt, PF Assam
Deputy Commissioner (Gaonburha Branch) Tinsukia
Circle Officer Tinsukia
Suman Shyam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
