Judgment · High Court · 2012

Both the writ petitions being inter connected, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. I have heard Mr. M.J. Kadir, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.( C) No. 6305/2011 as well as Mr. B.C. Das, learned Sr. counsel appearing for in W.P.(C) No. 1832/2011. I have also head Mr. M. Choudhury, learned SC, DLR as wel l as Mr. D. Borah, learned SC, Revenue Department. While in the first writ petition, the petitioner who has been temporaril y authorised to act as MMR, Sonai, Cachar has challenged Annexure-9 notice dated 05.12.2011 inviting the applications for the post of MMR, in the second writ pe tition the challenge made is the resolution No. 4 of permanent committee adopted by its meeting held on 31.03.2012 by which the petitioner involved in the first writ petition have been allowed to continue as MMR. While according to the pet itioner involved in the first writ petition, the impugned advertisement is not s ustainable in law in view of the Govt. decision to process the matter through pe rmanent committee as envisaged under Assam Muslim Marriage and Divorce Registrat ion Act, 1935, it is the stand of the petitioner involved in the second writ pet ition that in the name of temporary appointment of the petitioner in the first w rit petition, no permanency can be attached to the same.

In other words, selecti on should be held in accordance with law and not by way of regularisation of the temporary appointment of the petitioner in the first writ petition. In an earlier round of litigation in the form of W.P.(C) No. 414/2004, t he appointment of one Md. Jamil Ahmed Mazumdar as MMR was challenged and by jud gment and order dated 10.01.2006, the said appointment was set aside and quashed . The respondents involved in the said writ petition preferred an appeal being W A No. 30/2006 which was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 08.06.2007. After the aforesaid developments, the petitioner involved in the first w rit petition was authorised to act as MMR on temporary basis. Thereafter by a co mmunication dated 11.09.2007 Govt. of Assam in the Registration Department direc ted the Inspector General of Registration and Chairman, Permanent Committee to c onvene a meeting for selection of suitable candidates for appointment of MMR, So nai in the District of Cachar.

The view of the judicial department was also obta ined in the matter when it was found that the Permanent Committee in a subsequen t meeting again selected the same very respondent whose selection was interfered by this court in the aforesaid proceeding. The judicial department opined that such a selection of the same very respondent was not tenable in law. Accordingly , a decision was conveyed to hold the fresh selection by convening a meeting of the Permanent Committee as envisaged in the aforesaid Act. It appears that the petitioner involved in the second writ petition had filed W.P.(C) No. 4607/2007 which was disposed by order dated 10.11.2009 directi ng the said authority to initiate selection process for appointment of regular M MR. It was pursuant to the aforesaid developments, the District Registrar, C achar issued Anenxure-9 notice inviting fresh applications from the suitable can didates.

Such a course of action was adopted pursuant to the resolution adopted by the Permanent Committee in its meeting held on 21.09.2011 deciding to go for fresh selection by fresh advertisement. The resolution further specifies that th e candidates who had applied in response to the earlier advertisement in respect of which earlier proceeding has arisen, would also be entitled to be considered for selection. It has further been provided that if in the meantime any one of them has become over aged, same will be condoned. While according to the petitioner involved in the first writ petition, t he advertisement ought not have been issued for fresh selection, but the selecti on should have been confined amongst the candidates who had applied in response to the earlier advertisement in respect of which earlier proceeding has arisen, it is the case of the petitioner in the second writ petition that fresh selectio n should be made and temporary appointment of the petitioner involved in the fir st writ petition should not be continued.

In this connection, the aforesaid reso lution towards continuation of the said petitioner has been put to challenge. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the pa rties and have also perused the entire materials on records. As noted above, ear lier selection of the particular candidate was set aside. The judgment in questi on has been affirmed by the Division Bench. Thereafter, a decision was taken to place the matter before the Permanent Committee for fresh selection. If the Perm anent Committee in turn has decided to invite fresh candidatures considering the fact that considerable time has been elapsed in between, no fault can be attrib uted to it. As per the resolution of the Permanent Committee, all the candidates involved in the earlier round of litigation and who had responded to the earlie r advertisement are also entitled to participate the selection in condonation of age etc.