Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 856 (GAU)

Takar Karlo v. State of A. P.

2025-05-22

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

body2025
JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. The issue which has been raised by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertains to the appointment of Head Gaon Bura. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is educationally qualified up to Class X and, being eligible, was appointed as Gaon Bura of Sido Village in the East Siang District on 22.04.2002. In the said village, the father of the respondent No. 3 was the Head Gaon Bura, who had passed away, and on his expiry, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Gaon Gura vide order dated 26.04.2012. According to the petitioner, being the seniormost amongst the Gaon Buras, he had submitted representation seeking his appointment as Head Gaon Bura, which post had fallen vacant on the death of the earlier incumbent. The representation submitted by the petitioner was finally taken into consideration and the Circle Officer, Kora, vide communication dated 30.08.2016, had forwarded the said representation by enclosing a seniority list. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the said list, he was stated to be the seniormost. The matter was forwarded to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nari inasmuch as per Clause 5 of the Guidelines governing the appointment of Gaon Buras in Arunachal Pradesh, the Additional Deputy Commissioner is the appointing authority. However, on the same date, i.e. on 30.08.2016, another representation was submitted by one Shri Tarik Kakki, who is also a Gaon Bura of the same village, wherein he enclosed the minutes of meeting dated 18.08.2016, which purportedly reflected that the respondent No. 3 was selected as the Head Gaon Bura. Consequently, an order dated 04.03.2019 was passed appointing the said respondent No. 3 as the Head Gaon Bura of Sido Village. It is this action which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 2. I have heard Shri R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh; and Shri V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3. 3. Shri Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Head Gaon Bura has not at all been done in accordance with the law and norms holding the field. 3. Shri Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Head Gaon Bura has not at all been done in accordance with the law and norms holding the field. He has submitted that apart from his client being senior in terms of length of service as Gaon Bura and also possessing higher qualification, but despite these credentials, the claim of the petitioner was overlooked, and respondent No. 3 was appointed to the post of Head Gaon Bura. He has submitted that such appointment has been done simply on the basis of a minutes of meeting held on 18.08.2016, which was forwarded by another Gaon Bura, who is none else but the brother-in-law of the respondent No. 3. The learned counsel argues that the impugned process lacks transparency and is vitiated by bias and procedural irregularities. 4. By drawing the attention of this Court to Clause 2 of the Guidelines governing the appointment of Gaon Buras/Head Gaon Buras, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prescribed mode of selection mandates that such appointments are to be made in a village meeting convened in the presence of an Administrative Officer with the requisite quorum being one third of the adult population. He has submitted that the bare perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 18.08.2016 reveal that the said meeting was not held in the presence of any Administrative Officer, thereby violating the mandatory requirement under Clause 2 of the Guidelines. He has also submitted that only one member of each household was present in the meeting and there was no proper representation of the adult members of the village, as envisaged by the Guidelines. He has also informed that initially the minutes of meeting dated 18.08.2016 were not acted upon by the authorities as there was apparent violation of the Guidelines. However, due to certain extraneous consideration and political interference, the appointment was finally made on 04.03.2019, by which the respondent No. 3 was appointed as the Head Gaon Bura. The learned counsel submits that there is total violation of the norms holding the field whereby the petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity for his consideration for appointment as Head Gaon Bura. 5. The learned counsel submits that there is total violation of the norms holding the field whereby the petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity for his consideration for appointment as Head Gaon Bura. 5. Shri Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, in his usual fairness, has submitted that from a plain reading of the minutes of meeting dated 18.08.2016, it is evident that the procedural requirements and the guidelines holding the field were not adhered to. He has accordingly submitted that the matter may be remanded back for making a fresh selection in accordance with law. He has however hastened to submit that so far as the eligibility and suitability of the petitioner, vis-à-vis the respondent No. 3, is concerned, the same is to be considered in accordance with law and he is not making any submission on the said issue. 6. Shri Jamoh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, has however defended the impugned action. He has submitted that the father of the respondent No. 3 was the Head Gaon Bura who had passed away and on his passing away, the respondent No. 3 was initially appointed as a Gaon Bura on 26.04.2012. He has also submitted that the educational qualification is not a relevant material and what is relevant is to have knowledge about the customary laws and practices, which his client possess. 7. The rival contentions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 8. The challenge, as would reflect from the preceding discussion is on the aspect of the appointment of the respondent No. 3 as Head Gaon Bura of Sido Village vide order dated 04.03.2019. The basis of passing the said order was a minute of meeting dated 18.08.2016 which was forwarded by one of the existing Gaon Buras. It is alleged that the said Gaon Bura, who had forwarded the minutes, is the brother-in-law of the respondent No. 3. 9. The guidelines holding the field, which has been noted above, prescribe the procedure to be followed for the appointment of both Head Gaon Buras and Gaon Buras. Such appointments are governed by the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945. 9. The guidelines holding the field, which has been noted above, prescribe the procedure to be followed for the appointment of both Head Gaon Buras and Gaon Buras. Such appointments are governed by the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation Act, 1945. As regards the mode of selection, though the expression of “Gaon Bura” is only used in the context of selection, the preceding clause makes it clear that the procedure for appointment of both the Head Gaon Buras and Gaon Buras are construed to be on the basis of same mode of selection and to be uniformly applied. As per the said Guidelines, such appointment is to be done in a meeting of the village which is to be attended by all the adult members. What is more important is that the meeting should be done in the presence of an Administrative Officer and the quorum has also been fixed to be one third of the persons above 18 years of age. 10. A bare perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 18.08.2016 reveal that none of the aforesaid conditions were adhered to while holding the meeting. The aspect of delay of about 3 years in acting on the said minutes of meeting would itself raise serious doubts on the legality and ultimately the respondent authorities had taken a decision to make such appointment in spite of the fact that the minutes of meeting dated 18.08.2016 were in apparent violation of the Guidelines. Though the petitioner has also raised the issue of bias inasmuch as the forwarding letter dated 30.08.2016 was issued by a Gaon Bura, who is the brother-in-law of the respondent No. 3, this Court would not embark upon the said issue inasmuch as it is also been held that the meeting was not held in accordance with the Guidelines holding the field. 11. It is a settled principle of law that when a particular method is prescribed to do an act, such act must be done in the prescribed method only and not otherwise. In this connection, one can gainfully refer and rely upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Privy Council in the case of Nazir Ahmed Vs. 11. It is a settled principle of law that when a particular method is prescribed to do an act, such act must be done in the prescribed method only and not otherwise. In this connection, one can gainfully refer and rely upon the observations made by the Hon’ble Privy Council in the case of Nazir Ahmed Vs. King Emperor , AIR 1936 PC 253 (2) , wherein it has been observed as under: “…rule which applies is a different and not less well recognized rule, namely, that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden.” 12. In view of the aforesaid discussion and taking into account the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned action is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the minutes of the meeting dated 18.08.2016, as well as the consequential order of appointment of respondent No. 3 dated 04.03.2019, are hereby set aside. The matter is accordingly remanded back to the competent authority for undertaking a fresh process for appointment of the Head Gaon Bura of the concerned village, which however has to be done strictly in accordance with law and in conformity with applicable guidelines holding the field. It is however clarified that no opinion of any nature has been expressed by this Court on the eligibility of the rival parties which is to be assessed in the said meeting to be held in the prescribed procedure during the fresh selection process. 13. At this stage, the learned State Counsel, Shri Tapin, has informed this Court that presently the Guidelines of 2005 are in operation. It is needless to say that it is the existing Guidelines which are to be taken into consideration for carrying out the process of appointment of Head Gaon Bura/Gaon Bura. 14. The writ petition is accordingly allowed to the manner indicated above. 15. No order as to cost(s).