Rafiqul Islam Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Heard Mr. B Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J Handique, learned Standing counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. None has appeared for the respondent No. 6.

¶25

2. As consented to by the learned counsels for the parties, the present writ petition was taken for final consideration and is being disposed of by the present order.

¶26

3. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 as the Gaonburha/Gaon Pradhan of Lot Nos. 4 & 5, Kaliadinga Pam, Kaliadinga Gaon and Kathalguti Kisamat under Juria Mouza in the District of Nagaon. The petitioner in response to an advertisement dated 05.09.2022 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, presently, District Commissioner, Nagaon, inviting applications for appointment as Gaon Pradhan, amongst others, for village Lot No. 4/5, consisting of Kaliadinga Pam, Kaliadinga Village and Kathalguti Village, had submitted his application along with the

¶27

Page No.# 3/8

¶28

requisite documents.

¶29

4. The petitioner projects that he belongs to a family of Gaonburhas and his father was the appointed Gaonburha of the said Lot Nos. 4 & 5 and had retired on 30.04.2022. It is also projected that before the father of the petitioner, his grandfather was functioning as the Gaonburha/Gaon Pradhan of the said two Lots.

¶30

The petitioner submits that being found to be suitable, he was permitted to appear in the selection process, however, on conclusion of the selection process, the respondent authorities published a select list, wherein, the respondent No. 6 was selected for appointment as Gaonburha/Gaon Pradhan.

¶31

Being aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Gaonburha/Gaon Pradhan, the petitioner assailed the same before this Court by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 1611/2023. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.03.2023, noticing that the statutory remedy was available to the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 162(C) of the Executive Instructions, framed under the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886, to prefer an appeal in the matter, disposed of the said writ petition by requiring the petitioner to file an appeal assailing the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 as Gaon Pradhan.

¶32

The petitioner, accordingly, submitted an appeal before the Commissioner, Central Assam Division, Guwahati. The said appeal was, thereafter, considered by the Director of land Records & Surveys, Assam and on conclusion of the hearing in the matter, the Appellate Authority vide a speaking order dated 11.06.2025, proceeded to reject the appeal preferred by the petitioner in the matter.

¶33

Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings.

¶34

5. Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent No. 6 is not eligible for being selected and appointed as a Gaon Pradhan, inasmuch as, on the last date of submission of the application in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.09.2022, he was actively involved with a political party as its member.

¶35

Page No.# 4/8

¶36

5.1 Mr. Rahman learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said advertisement, it was clearly stipulated that an applicant should not be a member of any political party. Accordingly, by projecting that the respondent No. 6 was a member of a political party, i.e., All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), it is submitted that his such selection and appointment would mandate an interference from this Court.

¶37

5.2 Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provisions of the Notification dated 10.04.2018, notifying the amendments to the Executive Instructions under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, has submitted that the provisions of Rule 162(1) as coming into force, had required extension of preference to family members of Gaonburhas and for the purpose to take the view of the Mouzadar of the area, in question. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner’s father and grandfather, being engaged as Gaonburhas, the petitioner in the selection held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.09.2022 was to be given preference and accordingly, appointed as Gaon Pradhan against the Lot Nos. 4 & 5, as advertised, inasmuch as, none of the other applicants belonged to the family of Ex-Gaonburha. It was further projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not extended with the full marks as assigned for persons, whose family members were earlier appointed as Gaon Pradhan.

¶38

5.3 Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Appellate Authority, without considering the issues raised in the appeal had proceeded to dismiss the same, causing prejudice to the interest of the petitioner, herein.

¶39

5.4 In the above premises, Mr. Rahman, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6, herein, would mandate an interference from this Court.

¶40

6. Per contra, Mr. J Handique, learned Standing counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department and Ms. M Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate submit that the allegation that the respondent No. 6 belonged to a political party, was never raised by the petitioner during the selection process before the District Commissioner, Nagaon. It is submitted that it is only in the appeal filed by the petitioner that

¶41

Page No.# 5/8

¶42

the said plea was so taken.

¶43

6.1 The learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the order passed by the Appellate Authority has submitted that the said issue was duly considered by the Appellate Authority and had proceeded to reject the said plea of the petitioner by drawing a conclusion, basing on materials on record, that the respondent No. 6 was not a member of any political party at the time of submission of his application in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.09.2022.

¶44

6.2 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said plea of the petitioner in absence of any further material brought on record to dispute the conclusions arrived at in the matter by the Appellate Authority, would not mandate consideration by this Court.

¶45

6.3 With regard to the plea of the petitioner that he was required to be given a preference in the matter of selection of Gaon Pradhan, being a family member of earlier Gaonburhas, the learned counsels for the respondents have submitted that the preference as conceived in the Executive Instructions holding the field, is applicable only when the marks scored by such candidate and other candidates not being family members of earlier Gaonburhas, are found to be equal. It is submitted that the petitioner in the present writ petition in the selection process had scored 94 marks, out of 180 marks, while the respondent No. 6 had scored 100 marks, out of 180 marks.

¶46

6.4 With regard to the plea of the petitioner that the petitioner was not given full marks as required to be assigned to him being a relative of an Ex-Gaon Pradhan, the learned counsels for the respondents by referring to the appellate order has submitted that the said aspect of the matter was considered by the Appellate Authority and it was found that even if the additional marks are granted to the petitioner, he still would not score a mark over the respondent No. 6 on merits.

¶47

6.5 The learned counsels for the respondents in the above premises have submitted that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 would not mandate any interference by this Court.

¶48

Page No.# 6/8

¶49

7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

¶50

8. The challenge to the appointment of the respondent No. 6 in the present proceeding is basically on the ground that the respondent No. 6 at the time of submission of an application by him was a member of a political party, i.e., All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF). The provisions of Clause 162(1)(viii) of the Executive Instructions under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (as amended), mandates that an applicant for the post of Gaon Pradhan should not be a member of any political party. Although, the said plea is not found to have been raised by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner during the selection held in the matter in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.09.2022, the said plea was raised by the petitioner in the appeal preferred by him, assailing the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6. The Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.06.2025, had duly considered the said plea raised by the petitioner and on appreciating the communication dated 05.02.2022, which is a letter issued by the District President, AIUDF produced by the respondent No. 6 before the Appellate Authority during the hearing held in the appeal and it being certified, therein, that the respondent No. 6 is not a member of the said political party, the said plea of the petitioner came to be rejected.

¶51

9. The petitioner in the present writ petition has not brought on record any material to dispute the conclusions drawn on the issue by the Appellate Authority in the order dated 11.06.2025. Accordingly, this Court in absence of any cogent material being brought on record towards disputing the conclusions drawn by the Appellate Authority with regard to the allegation of the petitioner being a member of a political party at the time of his selection as Gaonburha, is not in a position to draw further conclusion contrary to the one drawn by the Appellate Authority in the matter.

¶52

10. The next plea taken by the petitioner in the appeal before the Appellate Authority is to the effect that the respondent No. 6, being a full time Head Teacher of a Venture School, was barred from applying for recruitment to the post of Gaon Pradhan in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.09.2022. The said plea was rejected by the Appellate Authority by holding that the provisions of Clause 162(1) of the Executive Instructions only bars a

¶53

Page No.# 7/8

¶54

Government employee from applying for selection and appointment as Gaonburha. The Appellate Authority, further, held that in the event the respondent No. 6 resigns from his previous private employment before joining of the post of Gaon Pradhan, the said bar would also not be applicable.

¶55

11. The conclusions drawn by the Appellate Authority with regard to eligibility of the petitioner to apply for recruitment against the post of Gaonburha, being in employment, on appreciation is found by this Court to be reasonable and in connosance with the provisions of the Executive Instructions. Accordingly, the said plea raised by the petitioner stands rejected.

¶56

12. Having drawn the above conclusions, this Court would now examine the plea raised by the petitioner that he was to be given a preference in the selection process and further that, he was not given the full 30 marks, as assigned for relatives of ex-Gaon Pradhan in the selection process. The preference as envisaged under the provisions of Clause 162(1)(v) of the Executive Instructions is in the considered view of this Court a preference required to be applied when a relative of an Ex- Gaonburha and a person not being a relative of the ExGaonburha participating in the selection process for the post of Gaonburha secures equal marks. Under such circumstances, the relative of the Ex-Gaonburha would be given a preference and he would be selected for appointment as Gaonburha. Accordingly, the petitioner being found to have scored less marks than the respondent No. 6 in the selection process, there would arise no occasion for grant of preference to the petitioner for appointing him as Gaonburha.

¶57

13. This Court also notices that in the selection process, the petitioner was given only 25 marks, out of 30 marks earmarked for the relatives of Ex-Gaon Pradhan and accordingly, he had scored 94 marks, out of 180 marks, while the respondent No. 6 had scored 100 marks, out of 180 marks. The appellate authority had considered the said issue and had drawn a conclusion that even if the additional 5 marks is granted, the petitioner’s marks would only be raised to 99 and he would still be below the respondent No. 6 in the merit list and accordingly, no prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the matter.

¶58

14. This Court has perused the said conclusions drawn by the Appellate Authority and

¶59

Page No.# 8/8

¶60

finds the same to be reasonable. Accordingly, on the said plea also, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 would not mandate any interference.

¶61

15. In view of the conclusions drawn, hereinabove, this Court is of the considered view that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 6 would not mandate an interference. Further, the speaking order dated 11.06.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority, being found to be a reasoned order, the same would also not mandate any interference.

¶62

16. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost.

¶63

JUDGE

¶64

Comparing Assistant

Rafiqul Islam v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rafiqul Islam v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Upendra Chouhan Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Abhijit Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Krishna Kanta Barman and Anr. Vs Nibedan Das Patowary, Acs and Anr.

Sri Naba Chutia and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam

Sri Satya Bhuyan Vs Sri Pritam Saikia

Smti Aruna Chutia Vs Sri Pritam Saikia