JUDGMENT : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI Both these two writ petitions being on an identical cause of action, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The issue is with regard to the appointment of Gaonburah in various lots in the district of Goalpara. While in WP(C)/2395/2023, there are 55 numbers of petitioners, in WP(C)/2546/2023, there are 11 numbers of petitioners. 2. There is a chequered history, including history of writ petitions in these cases. As per the facts projected, there was an exercise to fill up the posts of honorary Gaonburah in the year 2000. After various communications and a recruitment process, the petitioners were appointed in various Lots as honorary Gaonburah sometime in the year 2005. Few of the appointment letters have also been annexed and there is no dispute with such appointments. 3. While discharging their duties, suddenly an order was passed on 16.02.2009 whereby the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled. The order however reflected that such cancellation was pursuant to certain orders passed by this Court in writ proceedings. It is the categorical case of the petitioners that they were not made parties in the said writ proceeding. In the meantime, few of the petitioners had filed WP(C)/1489/2009 in which this Court had passed an order on 06.04.2009 whereby notice was issued and an interim order was passed. This Court has also noted that a review application was filed against the earlier order passed in certain writ appeals arising out of WP(C)/6054/2005. Thereafter, vide an order dated 15.07.2010, the appointments of the petitioners were restored. The review application being Review.Pet./37/2013 by the petitioners before the Hon’ble Division Bench was allowed on 01.03.2013 whereby the order dated 12.11.2017 dismissing the writ appeals was recalled. Further, the writ petition, pursuant to which the cancellation order was made was restored with a direction that the petitioners in that case would file amended writ petition to implead the present petitioners within a period of a month. Since there was certain error in the order dated 01.03.2013, the Hon’ble Division Bench had passed a subsequent order on 29.07.2013 whereby the necessary correction was made pertaining to the number of the first writ petition which was actually WP(C)/6054/2005. Since there was certain error in the order dated 01.03.2013, the Hon’ble Division Bench had passed a subsequent order on 29.07.2013 whereby the necessary correction was made pertaining to the number of the first writ petition which was actually WP(C)/6054/2005. The said writ petition had come up for consideration on 09.12.2019 and this Court having noticed that there was no representation and even the amendment, as directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench on 01.03.2013 was not done, the writ petition was dismissed. The present petitioners accordingly continued in their service as honorary Gaonburah. However, it is contended that no remuneration of any kind have been paid to them. The grievance of the petitioners is presently against an advertisement dated 18/20.04.2023 for filling up posts of Gaon Pradhan in 360 Lots in the district of Goalpara. It is this recruitment process and the action to fill up the post of Gaon Pradhan which is the subject matter of challenge. 4. I have heard Shri H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/2395/2023 and Shri AR Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/2546/2023. I have also heard Shri TC Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam and Shri J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have also filed affidavit-in-opposition followed by rejoinder affidavit by the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that there is no shortcomings in the eligibility or qualification of the petitioners for being appointed as Gaonburah / Gaon Pradhan. It is submitted that the initial appointment of the petitioners in the year 2005 was after the validly held recruitment process, wherein all the factors including eligibility was taken into consideration. It is submitted that the petitioners were Matriculate which is the minimum requirement and this aspect was suppressed in the first round of litigation against the petitioners, namely, WP(C)/6054/2005 instituted by certain unsuccessful candidates. Though the writ petition was initially allowed and the connected writ appeals dismissed, the said aspect was clarified in the review petition and accordingly, the said order were recalled and the said writ petition was restored vide order dated 01.03.2013. It has also been pointed out that the writ petition was ultimately dismissed both for non-prosecution and for not complying with the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench. It has also been pointed out that the writ petition was ultimately dismissed both for non-prosecution and for not complying with the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench. It is submitted that when there is no complaints with regard to the eligibility of the petitioners and they had undergone a recruitment process before their appointment in the said posts, the fresh advertisement at least for those posts where the petitioners are working is not at all called for or justified. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also drawn the attention of this Court to the interim order dated 05.06.2023 passed in these cases whereby there is a restraint not to make fresh appointment in those Lots where the petitioners are working. It is categorically asserted that the petitioners are working in their respective posts of Gaonburah. However, the complaint is that no honorarium or remuneration have been paid. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners have also highlighted the aspect that till now there is no order of termination of the services of the petitioners and in fact, the initial order of 16.02.2009 whereby the appointment was cancelled was superseded by the order of 15.07.2010 whereby the appointments were restored and thereafter the petitioners are in continuous service. 8. On the other hand, Shri Chutia, learned State Counsel, by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition has submitted that the recruitment process initiated on 20.04.2023 is in the interest of public as the intention was to fill up the post of Gaon Pradhan in 360 Lots. He accordingly submits that the restraint order should be modified and the recruitment be allowed to be made. The learned State Counsel has however submitted that there is no instructions as to whether the other Lots where the petitioners are not affected have been filled up or not. 9. Shri Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, while endorsing the submission of the learned State Counsel, has however raised the issue of eligibility qua the age factor. By referring to the amended Executive Instructions under the Assam Land Revenue Regulations 1886 which were notified on 26.08.2021, learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention to the amended instruction No. 162A, as per which the upper age of Gaon Pradhan has been specified as 65 years. By referring to the amended Executive Instructions under the Assam Land Revenue Regulations 1886 which were notified on 26.08.2021, learned Standing Counsel has drawn the attention to the amended instruction No. 162A, as per which the upper age of Gaon Pradhan has been specified as 65 years. He submits that in case, any direction is passed for continuation of the petitioners in service in those Lots where they were appointed, the aforesaid age factor has to be taken into consideration as some of the petitioners appear to have crossed the age of 65. 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the material placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 11. The initial appointments of the petitioners were, without any dispute, through a validly held recruitment process. The said appointments were made in the year 2005 when the nomenclature of the post was honorary Gaonburah. Due to some orders passed by this Court, their appointments were cancelled which however was restored after clarificatory orders were passed by this Court in the review petition being Review.Pet./37/2013. This Court has also noticed that the initial writ petition WP(C)/6054/2005 which was instituted by certain unsuccessful candidates and was restored by the Hon’ble Division Bench vide the order dated 01.03.2013 by recalling the earlier was ultimately dismissed on 09.12.2019 for non-prosecution. The unsuccessful candidates did not even comply with the direction of the Hon’ble Division Bench to implead the successful candidates which include the present petitioners. 12. Be that as it may, the appointments of the petitioners were admittedly restored on 15.07.2010 and there is no order of discontinuation or termination of their services till now. The interim order passed by this Court on 05.06.2023 is also very categorical whereby a restriction was put so far as making appointments in those Lots where the petitioners are working. The only difference is the nomenclature in the present advertisement dated 18/20.04.2023 which is for Gaon Pradhan whereby certain remuneration is also contemplated by the present Rules. 13. This Court, on taking into account the facts and circumstances, is of the considered opinion that though there may not be any issue of legality with the fresh advertisement, while recruiting for the post of Gaon Pradhan, the Lots where the petitioners have been discharging their duties on the strength of their initial appointment as Gaonburah should not be made part of the said recruitment process. As a corollary, it is directed that the petitioners be continued to discharge their duties as Gaonburah / Gaon Pradhan in terms of the present Rules and as incorporated in the advertisement dated 18/20.04.2023. The aforesaid direction is however restricted to only the present petitioners, who are 66 in numbers for equal numbers of Lots. It is also made clear that there is no restriction whatsoever in filling up the in the remaining Lots advertised on 18/20.04.2023. 14. This Court has however taken note of the submission made on behalf of the respondents regarding the age bar. While allowing the petitioners to continue in their service, as Gaonburah / Gaon Pradhan, verification may be made regarding the age factor of the petitioners. The petitioners are accordingly directed to submit proof of their age to the authorities within a period of 15 days from today, based upon which, consequential action may be taken. In case, any of the petitioners are found to be over-aged to continue with the post, those Lots can be filled up by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. 15. Both the writ petitions stand allowed, in the manner indicated above. The interim order dated 05.06.2023 accordingly stands merged with this final order. 16. No order as to cost.