High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 858/2006 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. R. Gog oi, learned State Counsel. Ms. M. Bhuiyan, learned counsel, who earlier represen ts the respondent No. 4 submits that she no longer represents the said responden t. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 22.9.2005 (Annexu re-7), by which, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order appoin ting the respondent No. 4 as Gaonburha of Village-Jamlai was dismissed. 3. The respondent No. 4 was appointed as Gaonburha of the village pursuant to a selection conducted by a Selection Board consisting of three members. In th e said selection, the petitioner along with others including the respondent No. 4 appeared. The selection was conducted pursuant to the advertisement issued on 12.8.2004. Upon acceptance of the candidatures, the candidates including the petiti 4. oner and the respondent No. 4 were directed to appear in the selection and there after the Selection Committee selected the respondent No. 4, pursuant to which, he was appointed as Gaonburha of Village-Jamlai by order dated 3.2.2005. Aggriev ed by such appointment of the respondent No. 4, the present petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Lower Assam Division. The said appeal havi ng been dismissed by order dated 22.9.2005, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition.
Facts
5. The only ground, on which, the appointment of the respondent No. 4 as Ga onburha has been challenged is that he is not a resident of the village-Jamlai. The fact of the matter is that the Selection Committee has selected the responde nt No. 4 as suitable for appointment as Gaonburha. The Commissioner of Lower Ass am Division while dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner by the impug ned order dated 22.9.2005 took into account the report submitted by the Deputy C ommissioner, Kamrup.
Legal Reasoning
6. There is no dispute that the respondent No. 4 is the son of the earlier Gaonburha of the same village. As recorded in the impugned order dated 22.9.2005 , the respondent No. 4 has landed property in Village-Jamlai and the villagers o f the Jamlai also submitted representation to the Circle Officer, Nagarbera reve nue Circle for appointment of the said respondent as Gaonburha. It was found tha t the respondent No. 4 enjoys the confidence of the villagers coupled with which the Mouzadar of Nagarbera Mouza also recommended the respondent No. 4 for appoi ntment as Gaonburha. 7. Considering all the above aspects of the matter, the Commissioner of Low er Assam Division rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. In the counte r affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 it has been stated thus:
Decision
(cid:28)4. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph-3 of the writ petition, the deponent states that they are not all correct. The father of the deponent w as a Gaonburha of village-Jamlai till his death. Then the deponent’s father shif ted beyond Garuhusia River. This river is the border line between Pijupara and J amlai. Even when the deponent’s father shifted to Pijupara Village he remained t he Gaonburha of Village-Jamlai. The distance between the villages 0 Jamlai and P ijupara is not 5 (five) Kilometers as stated by the petitioner. The distance bet ween this deponent house and Jamlai is only half Kilometer. 5. That with regard to the statmetns made in paragraph - 4 of the writ petition, the deponent states that the statements are not correct. The deponent has about 11 Bighas of land in Jamlai Village jointly and covered by Annual Patta No. 169 and 190 and Dag No. 110. This Jamlai village is also known as Non Ke Jamlai Vil lage. 7. That with regard to the statements made in paragraph - 7 of the writ petition , the deponent states that the allegations made against him are not correct. The deponent had landed property in village Jamlai and he is very much local candid ate. His case is also recommended by the Mouzadar in question. His case was also recommended by the Association of the Gaonburhas. The deponent believes that he is the best candidate for the post among all the candidates. 8. Along with the said counter affidavit, the respondent No. 4 has also ref erred to the Annexure-5 certificate of proficiency as Gaonburha issued by the Ch ief Minister of the State. The said certificate is dated 10.4.2005. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 4 on 8.6.2006, it h 9. as been stated that the distance of the house of the respondent No. 4 from Jamla i is only ‰ kilometer. It has also been stated that he has landed property (11 B ighas of land) in Jamlai village covered by periodic Patta No. 189 and 190 of Da g No. 110. 10. The petitioner has not denied the above stand of the respondent No. 4 in his counter affidavit filed on 8.6.2006 by filing any reply affidavit. As per t he Executive Instruction No. 162, Gaonburhas are appointed by the Deputy Commiss ioner and he is required to take into account - a) b) c) The claims of the family of the Gaonburha The wishes of the villagers The views of the Mouzadar He is to appoint person whom he considered more suitable for the post. For the p urpose, a selection was conducted, in which, the respondent No. 4 was found to b e suitable and accordingly he was appointed. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the Executive Instructio n No. 164 submits that since Gaonburha is the mouthpiece of the people of the vi llage, it is mandatory that a Gaonburha should reside in the village. To be the mouthpiece of the villagers does not require that the Gaonburha must reside with in the village. As stated in the counter affidavit and also finds mention in the impugned order, the respondent No. 4 has landed property in the village Jamlai and his house is situated only ‰ kilometer from the boundary of the village. It is on record that his father was the Gaonburha of the village and accordingly he was also entitled to get preference in the matter of appointment as Gaonburha. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order 12. dated 22.9.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division in appointing t he respondent No. 4 as Gaonburha of Jamlai village and accordingly the writ peti tion is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 13. this order to him immediately. Since the respondent No. 4 is unrepresented, Registry shall communicate 14. nsel. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Ms. R. Gogoi, learned State Cou