Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 545 (GAU)

Talebar Rahman v. State of Assam and Ors.

2013-08-07

UJJAL BHUYAN

body2013
Subject-matter of WP(C) Nos. 3519, 3578 and 3924 of 2013 being the same, the three cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Matter relates to appointment of Gaonbura of Charge No. 8 of Paka Mouza under Sarthebari Revenue Circle in the district of Barpeta. 3. Challenge made in all the three writ petitions is the legality and validity of, the order dated 7.3.2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta appointing Md. Mokshed Ali, respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 3519/2013 and respondent No. 3 in the other two cases, as the Gaonbura of the aforesaid revenue village. 4. All the three petitioners were also applicants for the post of Gaonbura, interview of which was held on 6.6.2012 pursuant to advertisement dated 9.2.2012. Following the selection, Md. Mokshed Ali has been appointed as the Gaonbura. 5. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3519/2013 has contended that he had the highest educational qualification amongst the interviewed candidates, he being a higher secondary pass candidate. Therefore, he had a better claim. According to him, the selected candidate is an illiterate person and the educational certificate furnished by him is a forged one. 6. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3578/2013, Alep Hussain, has contended that as per the report of the Mouzadar, he was the best candidate for appointment as Gaonbura. Ignoring such report, Md. Mokshed Ali was selected in an arbitrary manner. Petitioner is a matriculate and his grandfather was a Gaonbura. He has all the qualities to be appointed as Gaonbura. Further, the local people also expressed their views that he should be appointed as Gaonbura. 7. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3924/2013, Talebar Rahman, who is the father of Alep Hussain, i.e., the petitioner of WP(C) No. 3578/2013, has contended that as per the report of the Circle Officer, he is a fit person to be appointed as Gaonbura. He is a better educated person than Md. Mokshed Ali and, therefore, he has a better claim. 8. Heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3519/2013, Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3578/2013 and Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3924/2013. Also heard Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, who has also produced the record. Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel has entered appearance for the selected candidate, i.e., Md. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3578/2013 and Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3924/2013. Also heard Mrs. V.L. Singh, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, who has also produced the record. Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel has entered appearance for the selected candidate, i.e., Md. Mokshed Ali by filing caveat. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced their arguments on pleaded lines and, therefore, a detailed reference to such submissions is considered not necessary. Mrs. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand submits that following a due selection process in which merit of the candidates were properly assessed, Md. Mokshed Ali was selected and subsequently appointed as Gaonbura. She, therefore, submits that there is no infirmity in the selection process. Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for Md. Mokshed Ali, the selected candidate, besides adopting the submission made by Mrs. Singh, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, further contends that as per the provision of Executive Instruction 162C of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886, there is adequate and efficacious alternative remedy by way of filing appeal and the petitioners without availing such alternative remedy have sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this court. Writ petitions should, therefore, be dismissed, he submits. 10. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the record produced by the learned standing counsel. 11. Instruction 162 of the Executive Instructions appended to the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 provides for appointment of Gaonburas by the Deputy Commissioner. While filling up the post of Gaonbura, the Deputy Commissioner is required to take into consideration the following three factors: (a) claim of the family of the late Gaonbura, (b) wishes of the villagers, and (c) views of the Mouzadar. and, thereafter, appoint the person who he may consider most suitable for the post. Instruction 162A provides that appointment, suspension and dismissal of Gaonburas in case of Sadar Sub-Division shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) and in case of outlying Sub-Divisions by the Sub-Divisional Officers. Under Instruction 162B, against an order of appointment, suspension or dismissal of a Gaonbura by the Sub-Divisional Officer, appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner within a period of 60 days. Likewise, under Instruction 162C, against an order of the Deputy Commissioner, appeal lies to the Commissioner of Divisions. Under Instruction 162B, against an order of appointment, suspension or dismissal of a Gaonbura by the Sub-Divisional Officer, appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner within a period of 60 days. Likewise, under Instruction 162C, against an order of the Deputy Commissioner, appeal lies to the Commissioner of Divisions. There is also a provision for review under Instruction 162D. 12. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, shall make an assessment of suitability of the candidates for appointment as Gaonburah. While making such assessment, he is required to take into consideration various factors, like, claim of the family of the late Gaonbura, wishes of the villagers and views of the Mouzadar. Thereafter, after making an objective assessment, he shall appoint the person, who he may consider most suitable for the post. There is also an elaborate system of grievance redressal by providing for appeals and review. 13. Commenting on the various factors which are required to be taken into consideration while appointing a person as Gaonbura, a Division Bench of this court in Rajeswar Das v. State of Assam and Ors., 2006 (4) GLT 925 after observing that the Executive Instructions mandate that in the matter of appointment of Gaonbura the claim of the family of the Gaonbura, the views of the Mouzadar and the suitability of the person for the post are required to be taken into consideration by the appointing authority, held in clear terms that the office of the Gaonbura is not a hereditary one. No family member of the Gaonbura can claim as a matter of right appointment as a Gaonbura. However, as per the Executive Instructions, such a factor is also one of the factors to be taken into consideration along with other factors while making an assessment of suitability by assigning some marks towards such claim. The Division Bench further opined that only when all other things are equal, the claim of the family members of the Gaonbura may have to be preferred but not at the cost of suitability of the person for the post. 14. Having noticed the legal provisions as indicated above, the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel may now be looked into. The record indicates that there is a prepared format for evaluation of the candidature of each of the candidates. 14. Having noticed the legal provisions as indicated above, the record produced by the learned Standing Counsel may now be looked into. The record indicates that there is a prepared format for evaluation of the candidature of each of the candidates. Total marks assigned for the interview is 40. Under the heading "relationship with the previous Gaonbura", 5 marks are allotted whereas under the heading "opinion of the Mouzadar" another 5 marks are allotted. For "suitability of the candidate", total marks allotted is 25, the breakup of which is, 10 for educational qualification, 5 for handwriting and spelling, 5 marks for personality and 5 for general awareness. Additional 5 marks are allotted for experience. Thus the total adds up to 40. In the interview held on 6.6.2012, out of the six candidates who applied, four candidates had appeared, i.e., the three petitioners and respondent No. 3/respondent No. 4 (Md. Mokshed Ali). The Selection Committee comprised of three members. Mokshed Ali secured the highest marks in the individual evaluation of each of the three Selection Committee members. In the final compilation sheet, he has secured a total of 77 marks (25+26+26) i.e., aggregate of marks awarded by the three members, and, thus, secured the highest marks. The final compilation sheet of interview is as under : SI. No.Name of Candidate/Father's name with addressMarks given by P.C. Deka, ACS, ADC ® & Chair-manMarks given by A.N. Hazarika, ACS, SDO (S) & MemberMarks given by concerned Circle OfficerTotal MarksRemarks 1234567 1. Sri Manas Bayan S/o Sri Ananda Ram Bayan, Vill. Bamun Paka Mouza-Paka----Absent 2. Md. Mokshed Ali S/o Late Atar Ali, Vill. Kayakuchi Pam Mouza-Paka25262677 3. Mahammad Ali S/o Late Iman Ali, Vill. Kayakuchi Pam Mouza -Paka20191756 4. Sri Sushil Sarkar S/o Ananda Sarkar, Vill. Bamun Paka Mouza-Paka----Absent 5. Alep Hussain S/o Talebar Rahman, Vill. Kayakuchi Pam Mouza-Paka 24242270 6. Talebar Rahman S/o Mohan Ali. Vill. Kayakuchi Pam Mouza-Paka 23232268 15. I have carefully perused the contents of the record and I do not find any infirmity in the selection carried out by the Selection Committee. Marks were awarded by the individual members of the Selection Committee on objective criteria. On a comparative assessment of the individual merit of the candidates, Md. Mokshed Ali was found to be the most suitable candidate. Selection of Md. Marks were awarded by the individual members of the Selection Committee on objective criteria. On a comparative assessment of the individual merit of the candidates, Md. Mokshed Ali was found to be the most suitable candidate. Selection of Md. Mokshad Ali is based on an objective assessment and this court finds no good ground to interfere with such selection of Gaonbura. 16. Since a decision has been arrived at on merit, the issue relating to alternative remedy need not be gone into. 17. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the writ petitions. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. 18. Record produced by Mrs. V. L. Singh is returned back.