JUDGMENT :

(Sandeep Mehta, J.)

1. This intra-Court writ appeal is directed against the judgment & order dated 27.09.2022 whereby, WP(C) No.794/2022 preferred by the petitioners/appellants was dismissed and the challenge laid therein to the common Notification dated 26.08.2021 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue & Disaster Management Department notifying the upper age limit of Gaonburas was negated.

2. Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel representing the appellants/writ petitioners vehemently and fervently contended that the appellants/writ petitioners were appointed as Gaonburas (substituted by the word Gaon Pradhan) under the Notification, which did not provide for any upper age limit. Rule 162A of the Notification whereunder, the appellants/writ petitioners were appointed as Gaonburas, did not stipulate any upper age limit and thus, the appellants/writ petitioners were holding a reasonable expectation and a virtual assurance of lifetime service benefit/engagement by virtue of their appointment under the Notification. It was contended that the amendment Notification of 2021 whereby, an upper age limit of 65 years was imposed is ultra vires the constitutional mandate. In the alternative, it was submitted that as the amendment Notification was issued in the year 2021, the same cannot be given a retrospective effect.

3. It was thus contended that the learned Single Bench was unjustified in turning down the challenge made by the appellants/writ petitioners to be patently illegal Notification of 2021.

4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and urged that the impugned judgement lays down correct interpretation of law and, hence, the same is not liable to interference.

5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment and the materials placed on record.

6. For the purpose of adjudicating upon the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, it would be fruitful to quote the existing provision of the Notification dated 23.04.2018 on which, the learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners placed heavy reliance. Clause 162A of the said Notification reads as under:-

“162-A. Removal from the job:

(1) Gaonbura can continue to function till the time he is physically and mentally fit to carry out the duties and responsibilities assigned to him.

(2) He/She can be removed from the post by the Deputy Commissioner/Principal Secretaries of Autonomous Council areas on the following grounds-

(i) He/She is either physically or mentally unfit for the job;

(ii) Negligence or dereliction of duty;

(iii) Involvement in any financial wrong-doing;

(iv) Corrupt behaviours, as defined in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988;

(v) Moral turpitude;

(vi) Conviction in any court of law in criminal cases.

(3) Deputy Commissioner/Principal Secretaries of Autonomous Council areas may place a Gaonbura under suspension pending formal enquiry against him on any of the ground mentioned in sub-clause (2) above.

(4) The Deputy Commissioner/Principal Secretaries of Autonomous Council areas may dismiss a Gaonbura from office after giving opportunity of hearing and recording his reasons in writing.”

7. Apparently, on a plain reading of the said Notification/Executive Instruction, it is stipulated that the Gaonbura (now designated as a Gaon Pradhan) can continue to function till the time he is physically and mentally fit to carry out the duties and responsibilities assigned to him. Thus, even under the old Rule, the assignment of responsibility as Gaonburas/Gaon Pradhans was not absolute in nature. By virtue of the questioned amendment in the Executive Instruction, the following change has been introduced:-

“(1) The Gaon Pradhan shall hold his/her post up to the age of 65 years unless is removed from the post, before attaining the age of 65 years