ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the Gauhati High Court on 17.11.2006 allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no. 1 whereby the learned Division Bench set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

3. The respondent State issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Gaonburah of Tikka Garia Gaon, Mouza: Sariha in the District of Barpeta. The appellant as also respondent no. 1 along with others submitted their candidature as against the aforesaid advertisement which was issued on 11.11.1998 by the Sub-Divisional Office, Balaji Sub Division. After submission of the applications by the various candidates, the circle officer submitted a report along with other records regarding suitability of the candidates which was considered by the Selection Committee consisting of the Sub-Divisional Officer Balaji Sub Division,, the Circle Officer and the Election Officer. The said selection committee considered the records and found the appellant as the most suitable candidate and appointed him as the Gaonburah.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order of appointment issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, respondent no. 1 filed an appeal in terms of paragraph 162(B) of the Executive Instructions which was entertained. The aforesaid appeal was heard by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and upon consideration he set aside the order of appointment of the appellant and also issued a direction to appoint respondent no. 1 as the Gaonburah in place of the appellant. The said decision of the First Appellate Authority was challenged by the appellant herein in Second Appeal as provided for under paragraph 162(C) of the Executive Instructions.

5. The aforesaid Second Appeal was dismissed consequent upon which the appellant herein filed a Writ Petition before the High Court which was registered as Writ Petition (C ) No. 8019/2001. The learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 11.5.2004 allowed the writ petition and directed that the appellant be allowed to continue as Gaonburah of Tikka Garia Gaon, Mouza: Sariha in the District of Barpeta.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, respondent no. 1 filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court which was registered as Writ Appeal No. 228 of 2004. The Division Bench, after hearing the counsel appearing for the parties on 15.11.2006 allowed the appeal by its judgment and order dated 17.11.2006 whereby the Division Bench not only set aside the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge but it also restored the order passed by the Second Appellate Authority directing appointment of respondent no. 1 as Gaonburah. By virtue of the aforesaid order, respondent no. 1 assumed charge of the office and he, as of today, continues to hold the post of Gaonburah.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Division Bench, the appellant herein filed the present appeal on which we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

8. Mr. P.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that the Division Bench committed manifest error in holding that the expression ‘family’ used in the Executive Instructions should receive an extended meaning so as to include ‘nephew’ within the expression ‘family’. He has also submitted before us that the selection committee after taking into consideration all the factors found the appellant as the best candidate for the post and the said decision being based on records should not have been interfered with by the Appellate Authority as also by the Division Bench of the High Court on extraneous consideration and also by wrongly reading the documents particularly when the learned Single Judge has upheld the aforesaid order of the selection committee. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decisi