Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 372 (GAU)

Mahammad Ali v. State of Assam

2017-03-23

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2017
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. 1. Three writ petitions were filed challenging the appointment of one Md. Mokshed Ali as Gaonbura of Charge No. 8 of Paka Mouza under Sarthebari Revenue Circle in the district of Barpeta. Md. Mokshed Ali was arrayed as a private respondent in all the three cases. By common Judgment & Order dated 07.08.2013 all the three writ petitions were dismissed. The present appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in WP(C) 3519/2013. As such, adjudication is made on the facts and circumstances involved in WP(C) 3519/2013. 2. An Advertisement dated 09.02.2012 was issued for filing up the post of Gaonbura in Charge No. 8 of Paka Mouza. Interview was held on 06.06.2012 and on the basis of marks awarded under different categories individually by the three-Member Selection Committee, Md. Mokshed Ali was adjudged as the most suitable candidate. Consequently, appointment order dated 07.03.2013 was issued under the hand of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. 3. Learned Single Judge while rendering the Judgment & Order dated 07.08.2013 took into consideration the Executive Instructions under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886, which governs the manner and method of appointment of Gaonburas. The record produced by the State Respondents was also looked into to test the manner of the award of individual marks by the three-Member Selection Committee. On such appreciation, the learned Single Judge found that Md. Mokshed Ali had secured the highest marks in each of the individual evaluation, securing a total of 77 marks. No infirmity having been found in the selection process and being satisfied that marks had been awarded by the individual Members of the Selection Committee on an objective criteria, reached the conclusion that Md. Mokshed Ali was the most suitable candidate on a comparative assessment of the individual merit of all the candidates. Countering the plea taken by the writ petitioners as regards the availability of alternative remedy, the same was not gone into since the learned Single Judge rendered decision on the merit of the case. The writ petitions, including WP(C) 3519/2013, were accordingly dismissed. 4. Before this Court the appellant, who was the writ petitioner in WP(C) 3519/2013, submits that there being apparent error in the decision- making process while making selection, as such no appointment could have been extended to Md. Mokshed Ali. The writ petitions, including WP(C) 3519/2013, were accordingly dismissed. 4. Before this Court the appellant, who was the writ petitioner in WP(C) 3519/2013, submits that there being apparent error in the decision- making process while making selection, as such no appointment could have been extended to Md. Mokshed Ali. Reference is made to the individual marks given by the Members of the Selection Committee. Firstly, it is pointed out that under the heading “Opinion of the Mouzadar” the private respondent herein i.e. Md. Mokshed Ali was given higher marks than the appellant. It is submitted that marks so awarded suffered from want of application of mind and on extraneous consideration. To buttress this point, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant have made reference to the opinion given by the Mouzadar (page 60 of the appeal memo) which categorically showed that in the estimation of the Mouzadar, the private respondent herein was held to be not an eligible person for the post of Gaonbura. It is also submitted that the Mouzadar opined that the appellant by a dint of his qualification was eligible for the post. Submission made is that in view of the said opinion, there was apparent error in the award of higher marks to the private respondent under the aforesaid heading. Secondly, it is submitted that the private respondent being an illiterate person could not have been granted 5 marks under the sub-category “Educational Qualification”. Thirdly, whereas the private respondent has been awarded 5 marks under the heading “Experience”, no mark whatsoever was granted to the appellant. It is, therefore, contended that the selection fell in error and illegality in the selection process was rife and, as such, no appointment could have been offered to the private respondent on the basis of such illegal selection process. 5. Per contra, Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel representing the private respondent i.e. Md. Mokshed Ali, submits that selection was made in due compliance of the procedure prescribed under the relevant Executive Instructions. It is also submitted that the private respondent is not an illiterate person but had studied up to Class-VI, as would be evident from the document at page-49 of the appeal memo. It is also submitted that due marks had been awarded under the heading “Educational Qualification” commensurate to his educational qualification. It is also submitted that the private respondent is not an illiterate person but had studied up to Class-VI, as would be evident from the document at page-49 of the appeal memo. It is also submitted that due marks had been awarded under the heading “Educational Qualification” commensurate to his educational qualification. As regards marks secured under the “Opinion of the Mouzadar” and “Experience”, it is contended that the Selection Committee had awarded marks on an objective assessment of opinion rendered by the Mouzadar and his past experience of having held the post of Gaonbura. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials on record. The short point for decision is as to whether the selection fell in error and whether there had been any departure from the manner and method of making selection in terms of the Executive Instructions under the Assam Land Revenue Regulations, 1886. 7. Instruction-162 relates to nomination of Gaonburas by taking into consideration three factors i.e. (i) the claims of the family of Late Gaonbura (ii) the wishes of the villagers and (iii) the views of the Mouzadar. After names are nominated by considering the above parameters, appointment of Gaonbura proceeds in terms of Instruction 162-A. Appointment is required to be made by following three factors – (1) the claims of the family of the Gaonbura, (2) the views of the Mouzadar and (3) the suitability of the person for the post. 8. From the parameters envisaged under Instruction 162-A, it is seen that selection was made in strict terms thereof without any departure whatsoever. From an objective assessment of the opinion of the Mouzadar and considering the suitability of the candidate, the Selection Committee found the private respondent Md. Mokshed Ali as the most deserving candidate. It is seen from the Comparative Statement that total marks assigned for evaluating each of the candidates stood at 40. Under the heading “Relationship with the previous Gaonbura”, 5 marks was allotted and under the heading “Opinion of the Mouzadar” another 5 marks was allotted. Under the heading “Suitability of the candidate”, total marks allotted was 25 with marks broken up for Educational Qualification, Written Test, Personality and General Awareness. An additional 5 marks was allotted for experience. Individual marks were awarded by each of the Members and on a grand total, the private respondent secured the highest marks. 9. Under the heading “Suitability of the candidate”, total marks allotted was 25 with marks broken up for Educational Qualification, Written Test, Personality and General Awareness. An additional 5 marks was allotted for experience. Individual marks were awarded by each of the Members and on a grand total, the private respondent secured the highest marks. 9. An argument was advanced by Mr. Dutta that the document showing the private respondent of reading up to Class-VI is a forged document and the same was pleaded in the writ petition. Without delving further on the issue, it would be suffice to observe that mere statement would not render a document to be a forged one. We have perused the statement made in the writ petition and find that no material has been placed in support of the said contention. Counsel for the appellant have also not placed any material to demonstrate any finding by any appropriate forum indicating that such a document is a forged document. 10. Having regard to the factors required for making appointment of Gaonburas under the relevant Executive Instructions and also having regard to the manner and method adopted by the respondent authority in making selection, we find no good ground to disturb the findings and decision rendered by the learned Single Judge. We find no infirmity in the selection process and/or in the appointment of the private respondent Md. Mokshed Ali. In view thereof, this writ appeal being devoid of merit, stands accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.