Also heard Mrs v. L. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Depar tment, who has also produced th
Case Details
WP(C) 3519/2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R (ORAL) Subject matter of WP(C) Nos. 3519, 3578 and 3924 of 2013 being the same, the thr ee cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. a Mouza under Sarthebari Revenue Circle in the district of Barpeta. Matter relates to appointment of Gaonbura of Charge No. 8 of Pak 3. Challenge made in all the three writ petitions is the legality a nd validity of the order dated 07.03.2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commis sioner, Barpeta appointing Md. Mokshed Ali, respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 3519/2 013 and respondent No. 3 in the other two cases, as the Gaonbura of the aforesai d revenue village. 4. All the three petitioners were also applicants for the post of G aonbura, interview of which was held on 06.06.2012 pursuant to advertisement dat ed 09.02.2012. Following the selection, Md. Mokshed Ali has been appointed as th e Gaonbura. 5. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3519/2013 has contended that he had the highest educational qualification amongst the interviewed candidates, he being a higher secondary pass candidate. Therefore, he had a better claim. According to him, the selected candidate is an illiterate person and the educational certifi cate furnished by him is a forged one. 6. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3578/2013, Alep Hussain, has contended t hat as per the report of the Mouzadar, he was the best candidate for appointment as Gaonbura. Ignoring such report, Md. Mokshed Ali was selected in an arbitrary manner. Petitioner is a matriculate and his grandfather was a Gaonbura. He has all the qualities to be appointed as Gaonbura. Further, the local people also ex pressed their views that he should be appointed as Gaonbura. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3924/2013, Talebar Rahman, who is the f 7. ather of Alep Hussain i.e., the petitioner of WP(C) No. 3578/2013, has contended that as per the report of the Circle Officer, he is a fit person to be appointe d as Gaonbura. He is a better educated person than Md. Mokshed Ali and, therefor e, he has a better claim.
Legal Reasoning
8. Heard Mr. M. A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP (C) No. 3519/2013, Mr. B. Banerjee, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3578/2013 and Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3924/2013. Also heard Mrs. V. L. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Depar tment, who has also produced the record. Mr. M. H. Ahmed, learned counsel has en tered appearance for the selected candidate i.e., Md. Mokshed Ali by filing cave at. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced their argument s on pleaded lines and, therefore, a detailed reference to such submissions is c onsidered not necessary. Mrs. Singh, learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand submits that following a due selection process in which merit of the candidates were properly assessed, Md. Mokshed Ali was selected and subsequently appointed as Gaonbura. She, therefore, submits that there is no infirmity in the selectio n process. Mr. M. H. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for Md. Mokshed Ali, the s elected candidate, besides adopting the submission made by Mrs. Singh, learned S tanding Counsel, Revenue Department, further contends that as per the provision of Executive Instruction 162 C of the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886, there is adequate and efficacious alternative remedy by way of filing appeal and the petitioners without availing such alternative remedy have sought to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Writ petitions should therefore be dismisse d, he submits. 10. produced by the learned Standing Counsel. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the record 11. Instruction 162 of the Executive Instructions appended to the As sam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 provides for appointment of Gaonburas by the Deputy Commissioner. While filling up the post of Gaonbura, the Deputy Commi ssioner is required to take into consideration the following three factors: a) b) c) claim of the family of the late Gaonbura, wishes of the villagers, and views of the Mouzadar. and, thereafter, appoint the person who he may consider most suitable for the po st. Instruction 162 A provides that appointment, suspension and dismissal of Gao nburas in case of Sadar Sub-Division shall be made by the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer (Sadar) and in case of outlying Sub-Divisions by the Sub-Divisional Officers. Under Instruction 162 B, against an order of appointme nt, suspension or dismissal of a Gaonbura by the Sub-Divisional Officer, appeal lies to the Deputy Commissioner within a period of 60 days. Likewise, under Inst ruction 162 C, against an order of the Deputy Commissioner, appeal lies to the C ommissioner of Divisions. There is also a provision for review under Instruction 162D. 12. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate th at the Deputy Commissioner or the Sub-Divisional Officer, as the case may be, sh all make an assessment of suitability of the candidates for appointment as Gaonb urah. While making such assessment, he is required to take into consideration va rious factors, like, claim of the family of the late Gaonbura, wishes of the vil lagers and views of the Mouzadar. Thereafter, after making an objective assessme nt, he shall appoint the person, who he may consider most suitable for the post. There is also an elaborate system of grievance redressal by providing for appea ls and review. 13. Commenting on the various factors which are required to be taken into consideration while appointing a person as Gaonbura, a Division Bench of t his Court in Rajeswar Das Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in 2006 (4) GLT 9 25 after observing that the Executive Instructions mandate that in the matter of appointment of Gaonbura the claim of the family of the Gaonbura, the views of t he Mouzadar and the suitability of the person for the post are required to be ta ken into consideration by the appointing authority, held in clear terms that the office of the Gaonbura is not a hereditary one. No family member of the Gaonbur a can claim as a matter of right appointment as a Gaonbura. However, as per the Executive Instructions, such a factor is also one of the factors to be taken int o consideration alongwith other factors while making an assessment of suitabilit y by assigning some marks towards such claim. The Division Bench further opined that only when all other things are equal, the claim of the family members of th e Gaonbura may have to be preferred but not at the cost of suitability of the pe rson for the post. 14. Having noticed the legal provisions as indicated above, the reco rd produced by the learned Standing Counsel may now be looked into. The record i ndicates that there is a prepared format for evaluation of the candidature of ea ch of the candidates. Total marks assigned for the interview is 40. Under the he ading (cid:28)relationship with the previous Gaonbura (cid:29), 5 marks are allotted whereas un der the heading (cid:28)opinion of the Mouzadar (cid:29) another 5 marks are allotted. For (cid:28)sui tability of the candidate (cid:29), total marks allotted is 25, the breakup of which is, 10 for educational qualification, 5 for handwriting and spelling, 5 marks for p ersonality and 5 for general awareness. Additional 5 marks are allotted for expe rience. Thus the total adds upto 40. In the interview held on 06.06.2012, out of the six candidates who applied, four candidates had appeared i.e. the three pet itioners and respondent No. 3/respondent No. 4 (Md. Mokshed Ali). The Selection Committee comprised of three members. Mokshed Ali secured the highest marks in the individual evaluation of each of the three Selection Committee members. In t he final compilation sheet, he has secured a total of 77 marks (25+26+26) i.e., aggregate of marks awarded by the three members, and thus secured the highest ma rks. The final compilation sheet of interview is as under:- - 4 3 5 6 Name of Candidate/Father’s name with address Marks given by P. C. Dek Marks given by A. N. Hazarika, ACS, SDO (S) & Me Sl. No a, ACS, ADC fi & Chairman mber 1 1 - 2 25 3. 19 4 - 5 24 6 23 Marks given by concerned Circle Officer Total Marks 2 Sri Manas Bayan S/o Sri Ananda Ram Bayan Vill- Bamun Paka Mouza-Paka - Md. Mokshed Ali S/o Late Atar Ali Vill-Kayakuchi Pam Mouza-Paka 26 Mahammad Ali S/o Late Iman Ali Vill-Kayakuchi Pam Mouza-Paka 20 17 Sri Sushil Sarkar S/o Ananda Sarkar Vill-Bamun Paka Mouza-Paka - Alep Hussain S/o Talebar Rahman Vill-Kayakuchi Pam Mouza-Paka 22 Talebar Rahman S/o Mohan Ali Vill-Kayakuchi Pam Mouza-Paka 22 Remarks Absent Absent 56 26 77 24 23 68 70 7 - - 15. I have carefully perused the contents of the record and I do not find any infirmity in the selection carried out by the Selection Committee. Mar ks were awarded by the individual members of the Selection Committee on objectiv e criteria. On a comparative assessment of the individual merit of the candidate s, Md. Mokshed Ali was found to be the most suitable candidate. Selection of Md. Mokshad Ali is based on an objective assessment and this Court finds no good gr ound to interfere with such selection of Gaonbura. 16. g to alternative remedy need not be gone into. Since a decision has been arrived at on merit, the issue relatin 17. ions. Writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the writ petit 18. Record produced by Mrs. V. L. Singh is returned back.