Subject-matter of WP(C) Nos. 3519, 3578 and 3924 of 2013 being the same, the three cases were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. Matter relates to appointment of Gaonbura of Charge No. 8 of Paka Mouza under Sarthebari Revenue Circle in the district of Barpeta.

3. Challenge made in all the three writ petitions is the legality and validity of, the order dated 7.3.2013 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta appointing Md. Mokshed Ali, respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 3519/2013 and respondent No. 3 in the other two cases, as the Gaonbura of the aforesaid revenue village.

4. All the three petitioners were also applicants for the post of Gaonbura, interview of which was held on 6.6.2012 pursuant to advertisement dated 9.2.2012. Following the selection, Md. Mokshed Ali has been appointed as the 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 certificate furnished by him is a forged one.

6. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3578/2013, Alep Hussain, has contended that 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 expressed their views that he should be appointed as Gaonbura.

7. Petitioner in WP(C) No. 3924/2013, Talebar Rahman, who is the father 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 appointed as Gaonbura. He is a better educated person than Md. Mokshed Ali and, therefore, he has a better claim.

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 Department, who has also produced the record. Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel has entered appearance for the selected candidate, i.e., Md. Mokshed Ali by filing caveat.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have advanced their arguments on pleaded lines and, therefore, a detailed reference to such submissions is considered 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 selection process. Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for Md. Mokshed Ali, the selected candidate, besides adopting the submission made by Mrs. Singh, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, further contends that as per the provision of Executive Instruction 162C 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 dismissed, he submits.

10. Submissions made have been considered. Also perused the record produced by the learned standing counsel.

11. Instruction 162 of the Executive Instructions appended to the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886 provides for appointment of Gaonburas by the Deputy Commissioner. While filling up the post of Gaonbura, the Deputy Commissioner is required to take into consideration the following three factors:

(a) claim of the family of the late Gaonbura,

(b) wishes of the villagers, and

(c) views of the Mouzadar.

and,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document