JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. AM Barbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. PK Deka, the learned counsel for the respondent No.8. Also heard Mr. A Chakraborthy, the learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.1 to 7. 2. The case has a checkered history and it pertains to the appointment of Muslim Marriage Registrar (MMR) at Buraburi in the district of Morigaon. Brief facts may be narrated at the outset The Inspector General of Registration, Assam vide communication dated 19.01.2009 (Annexure-10) informed the Deputy Commissioner-cum- District Registrar of Morigaon to advertise the post of MMR for the district and submit a list of candidates with his view for final selection by the Permanent Committee (PC). After the advertisement was made, the District Registrar forwarded the nominees to the PC comprising of as many as 6 candidates. Although respondent No.8 scored the higher marks as per the nomination with 22 marks out of 30 marks. The PC vide its meeting held on 24.05.2011 (Annexure-12) selected the petitioner and the Chairman was a request to move the Government accordingly. 3. The respondent No.8 being aggrieved filed WP(C) No.5359 of 2011 challenging the selection of the petitioner herein who was arrayed as respondent No. 8 in the said writ petition. The writ petition finally came to be considered and disposed of vide Judgment and order dated 18.05.2012 by setting aside the impugned resolution of the PC dated 24.05.2011 so far as the appointment of MMR of Buraburi was concerned and the matter was remanded back for fresh consideration. The present writ petitioner being aggrieved filed Writ Appeal No.170 of 2012 which came to be considered and disposed on 18.9.2012 upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. 4. Pursuant to the disposal of the writ appeal, the PC held its meeting on 22.12.2016 for reconsideration of the selection of MMR of Buraburi and consequently recommended the respondent No.8 herein to be appointed against the post in question. The petitioner being aggrieved has filed the instant writ petition. 5. It may be noticed at this stage that although no direction was passed in the present proceeding restraining the respondent authorities from filling up the post as recommended by the PC on 22.12.2016, the post in question has not been filled up till date. 6. Appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. 5. It may be noticed at this stage that although no direction was passed in the present proceeding restraining the respondent authorities from filling up the post as recommended by the PC on 22.12.2016, the post in question has not been filled up till date. 6. Appearing for the writ petitioner, Mr. AM Barbhuiya, the learned counsel submits that the PC in its meeting held on 24.05.2011 had carefully examined the educational qualification of the respective candidates, experience as well as their place of residence and thereafter had recommended the petitioner to be appointed against the post. However, on the challenge made by the respondent No.8 in his WP(C) No. 5359 of 2011, Court was of the view that the PC having not assigned any reason for non-acceptance of the nomination of the District Registrar could not have selected the writ petitioner. It further observed that as per Rule 6 of the Assam Muslim Marriages Divorce Registrar Rules, 1935 (Registration Rules), in the event the nomination of the District Registrar is not accepted by the PC, the PC would be required to request the District Registrar to furnish fresh nomination. The same not having been done, a direction was given for fresh consideration. Likewise, when the said verdict of the learned Single Judge was put to challenge in the Writ Appeal, the Appellate Court also accepted the finding that no reason had been assigned by the PC to reject the candidature of the petitioner therein while selecting the present writ petitioner and further that if the recommendation of the District Registrar was not accepted, the same ought to have been referred back to the District Registrar by the PC. Mr. AM Barbhuiya therefore submits that while the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed with such observation, the PC without considering the case of the writ petitioner could not have been simply recommended the respondent No.8 as per the marks given by the District Registrar as was observed in the earlier proceedings. In fact as per Rule 6 of the Registration Rules, the PC ought to have referred the matter back to District Registrar for submitting fresh nomination. Mr. AM Barbhuiya further submits that as per the Registration Rules, the District Registrar is to submit nominations to the PC after scrutinizing the credentials of the applicants. In fact as per Rule 6 of the Registration Rules, the PC ought to have referred the matter back to District Registrar for submitting fresh nomination. Mr. AM Barbhuiya further submits that as per the Registration Rules, the District Registrar is to submit nominations to the PC after scrutinizing the credentials of the applicants. The PC thereafter upon examining each of the nominations would give its approval. In case the nomination of the District Registrar was disapproved, the PC would be required to request the District Registrar to submit fresh nomination. He therefore submits that the PC having selected the petitioner on 24.05.2011 cannot subsequently take a different view by recommending the respondent No.8 simply based on the marks given in the District Registrar’s nomination. 7. Mr. AM Barbhuiya further submits that while the petitioner is duly qualified as per the Registration Rules, the respondent No.8 do not possess the qualification of Madrassa FM Final Examination. All that he posesses is a provisional certificate of Fazil-e-Hadis issued by the Government Oriental College Rampur in Uttar Pradesh which cannot be equated with the qualification of Madrassa Final as provided in the Registration Rules. He further submits that the credential of the respondent No.8 upon proper examination appears to be contradictory and untrustworthy. Referring to the Certificate of Equivalence issued to the respondent No.8 on 23.11.2009 (Annexure-5) by the Secretary of the State Madrassa Board where the date of birth of the petitioner has been shown as 01.03.1971 he submits that same cannot be accepted since in the provisional certificate issued to the son of the respondent No.8 on 25.08.2010 (Annexure-6) indicates that date of birth of his son to be 28.10.1978. He therefore submits that considering his credentials, the respondent No.8 could not have been recommended by the PC. Mr. AM Barbhuiya lastly submits that the PC in its meeting held on 22.12.2016 while accepting the educational qualification produced by the respondent No.8 from a different institute other than under the Assam State Madrassa Education Board had rejected the certificate produced by one Shahid Ahmed Mazumdar by observing that the preference is to be given to the certificate holder of Assam Higher Secondary Madrassa. Thus as the respondent No.8 do not possess the Certificate issued by the Assam Madrassa Final Examination, the recommendation made in favour of respondent No.8 cannot be sustained and the resolution selecting the respondent No.8 be set aside and the petitioner be selected instead. 8. Mr. A Chakraborthy, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 7 by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that pursuant to the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the writ Appellate Court, candidates including the petitioner as well as the respondent No.8 were asked to attend the meeting scheduled on 22.12.2016 for selection of MMR. While the petitioner could not produce the original document on his educational qualification, the respondent No.8 on the other hand produced all his original documents and based upon the examination of the documents as well as the marks obtained by the candidates in terms of the nomination made by the District Registrar, the respondent No. 8 was found fit and thus recommended. 9. Appearing for the respondent No.8, Mr. PK Deka, the learned counsel submits that the resolution adopted by the PC vide its meeting minutes dated 22.12.2016 does not suffer from any defect and the same should be upheld. He submits that respondent No.8 despite having been given the highest marks, the District Registrar while making the nomination was not selected by the PC in its meeting held on 24.05.2011 and therefore, the respondent No.8 approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.5359 of 2011 wherein upon carefully examining the reasons assigned by the PC, Court was of the view that the writ petitioner who was arrayed as respondent No.8 therein was selected by the PC without assigning any reason. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.8 was allowed and a further challenge made by the respondent No.8 therein, the writ appellate court examined the matter in its totality. Therefore, the writ petition filed by the respondent No.8 was allowed and a further challenge made by the respondent No.8 therein, the writ appellate court examined the matter in its totality. He submits that the Division Bench while coming to the finding that no reason was assigned by the PC in rejecting the case of the respondent No.8 while recommending the writ petitioner was also of the view that the distance of the residence of the rival parties from the Office of MMR could not be the reason for selecting the respondent No.8 in as much as there was hardly much difference in the location of the residence of the parties from the office of the MMR. The case of Abdul Latif Barbhuiya –vs- State of Assam & Ors reported in 2005(2) GLT 178 referred to by the petitioner was also not accepted in as much as in that case no select list was prepared by the District Registrar whereas in the present case the Selection Committee had allotted marks to the respective candidates. Therefore, the Select list prepared by the Selection Committee or the District Registrar having not been disputed or challenged, the claim of the writ appellant was found to be without any merit. He therefore contends that the PC upon considering the records available and the marks obtained by the candidates as per the District Registrar’s nomination, have rightly recommended the respondent No.8. Since the nomination of the District Registrar in favour of the respondent No.8 has been accepted, there is no reason for the same to be referred back for fresh nomination to the District Registrar by the PC. 10. Mr. PK Deka further submits that the educational qualification obtained by the respondent No.8 has been examined by the competent authority and who upon such examination has issued a Certificate of equivalence. In short Fazil-e-Hadis examination undertaken by the respondent No. 8 has been declared equivalent to the Assam Madrassa Final (FM) Examination for all purpose. As regards the Certificate showing the date of birth of the son of the respondent No.8, Mr. PK Deka submits that the same is of no relevance to the instant selection process in as much as the respondent No.8 is qualified in all respect to be appointed as MMR. As regards the Certificate showing the date of birth of the son of the respondent No.8, Mr. PK Deka submits that the same is of no relevance to the instant selection process in as much as the respondent No.8 is qualified in all respect to be appointed as MMR. He submits that the date of birth of the son of the respondent No.8 has only been reflected incorrectly and therefore the same cannot be a ground to calculate the age of the respondent No.8. He submits that as can be seen, the nomination made by the District Registrar clearly shows that respondent No.8 has been awarded higher marks over the marks awarded to the petitioner and the same having not put to challenge by the writ petitioner in any manner, the petitioner cannot have any legitimate grievance. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have also perused the relevant materials available on records. 12. Although the rival parties have raised their respective grievances in many ways, what needs to be considered is as to whether the resolution adopted by the PC in favour of the respondent No.8 on 22.12.2016 is sustainable or not. In the earlier round of litigation i.e. WP(C) No.5359 of 2011, it was held by this Court that since no reason was assigned as to why the petitioner was selected and also why he was preferred over the other candidates, the case was remanded back for fresh consideration. The Appellate Court against the appeal filed by the petitioner also did not find any reason to deviate from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It was therefore incumbent upon the part of the PC to consider the candidature of all candidates afresh. From the materials available on record, it can be seen that out of the four candidates, only two candidates i.e. the writ petitioner and the respondent No.8 appeared before the PC on 22.12.2016 with their respective documents and testimonials. The PC upon examining their respective documents as well as the marks obtained by them as per the District Registrar‘s nomination selected the respondent No.8 for appointment to the post. 13. The decision referred to by the parties has also been considered. The PC upon examining their respective documents as well as the marks obtained by them as per the District Registrar‘s nomination selected the respondent No.8 for appointment to the post. 13. The decision referred to by the parties has also been considered. In the case of Abdul Latif Barbhuiyan(supra), this Court held that the provisions of the Registration Rules did not contemplate preparation of a merit list by the District Registrar and the power of selection of the candidates is vested on the PC. The private respondent therein having been preferred over the petitioners, although the petitioners were placed above the private respondents in the merit list prepared by the District Registrar, was thus not interfered with. Further, the private respondents having been selected on the ground of being more qualified, the claim of the petitioner for giving him preference on account of his residency was also negated. 14. It can be seen that although the Registration Rules do not specifically provide the preparation of a merit list by the District Registrar but even if the same is prepared, the same would not be binding upon the PC as can be seen from the Rule 6 of the Registration Rules. As may be noticed, the petitioner has also not made a challenge to the merit list wherein the respondent No.8 admittedly has been awarded more marks. Although the PC is not bound by the merit list prepared by the District Registrar, but it cannot be said that it acted arbitrarily if the select list was taken into consideration amongst other factors. The PC in arriving in its conclusion vide the meeting minutes dated 22.12.2016 have examined the records submitted and produced before it including the marks obtained by the petitioner and the private respondent No.8 and consequently recommended the respondent No.8 for appointment against the post in question. Such finding in my considered opinion cannot be held to be illegal and arbitrary. Since the matter was remanded back to the PC for fresh consideration, the submission of the petitioner that the PC ought to have requested the District Registrar to submit fresh nomination also cannot be accepted. A perusal of the Registration Rules also do not preclude consideration of a Certificate other than one issued by the Assam Madrassa Board. Since the matter was remanded back to the PC for fresh consideration, the submission of the petitioner that the PC ought to have requested the District Registrar to submit fresh nomination also cannot be accepted. A perusal of the Registration Rules also do not preclude consideration of a Certificate other than one issued by the Assam Madrassa Board. All that it provides is that a preference would be given to those who have passed the Assam Senior Madrassa Final Examination. The Division Bench in WA No.170 of 2012 with regard to the preference to be given on the basis of distance of the residence from the Muslim Marriage Registrar’s office held that preference cannot be given at the cost of merit. Similarly, I am also of the considered opinion that such preference whether it be the distance of the residence or educational certificate from the Assam Madrassa Board shall only come into play when things are equal on merit. Therefore, upon coming to a finding that the marks allotted by the District Registrar was not the sole basis which persuaded the PC to recommend the respondent No.8 for the post, I am also of the considered opinion that the case of Abdul Latif Barbhuiya (supra) as observed by the writ appellate Court as well would not be applicable to the instant case. 15. Having opined thus, I do not find the necessity to dwell upon the other issues raised by the writ petitioner. In the result, the writ petition having been found to be without merit, the same is accordingly dismissed. The respondent authorities shall now proceed to appoint respondent No.8 as the MMR of Buraburi under the Morigaon district in terms of the resolution made by the PC on 22.12.2016.