JUDGMENT :

MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for respondent No. 8.

2. The selection of the respondent No. 8 as Gaon Pradhan vide the impugned Notice dated 25.05.2022 is challenged in this writ petition on four grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the respondent No. 8 was not a resident of the concerned village i.e. Sanpara Parbat, which is one of the eligibility criteria required of a candidate. Secondly, that the respondent No. 8 was a member of a Political Party at the time of his selection as the Gaon Pradhan. Thirdly, the petitioner, who was the son of the retired Gaon Pradhan of Sanpara Parbat should have been awarded marks out of 10 marks allotted for members of the family of the Gaon Pradhan in terms of Clause G of the Advertisement dated 01.12.2021, which had not been done. Fourthly, preference was to be given to the family member of a Gaon Pradhan and the view given by the Mouzadar considered, which was not done.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner and the respondent No. 8 took part in the selection process for appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan, in respect of the village Sanpara Parbat, pursuant to an Advertisement dated 01.12.2021. The terms and conditions in the Advertisement dated 01.12.2021 stipulated that a candidate should be a permanent resident of the area in which they sought appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan. Preference should be given to the family members of the Gaon Pradhan and views of the Mouzadar should also be taken into consideration. Further, a candidate was not to be a member of any Political Party and marks were to be allotted to the family of the Gaon Pradhan.

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the respondent No. 8 was a member of the Bharatiya Jayanta Party (BJP) and a member of 4 No. Constituency under 87 No. Bongshar Gaon Panchayat, as the respondent No. 8 had been elected as a member of the said Gaon Panchayat on a BJP ticket. Further, the petitioner was not given any marks out of the 10 marks allotted for members of the family of a Gaon Pradhan. Preference was also to be given to the family of the Gaon Pradhan and the views of the Mouzadar which had been taken vide letter dated 21.12.2021, should have been considered. Further, the respondent No. 8 not being a resident of Sanpara Parbat village, the selection of the respondent No. 8 as Gaon Pradhan of Sanpara Parbat was illegal and in violation of the terms and conditions laid down in the Advertisement dated 01.12.2021. Thus, the said selection of the respondent No. 8 as Gaon Pradhan, made in terms of the impugned Notice dated 25.05.2022, issued by the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup, Amingaon, should be set aside.

5. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue (respondent No. 1) submits that a challenge can be made against the selection of the respondent No. 8 as Gaon Pradhan by the Deputy Commissioner, by filing an appeal before the office of the Commissioner Secretary/Principal Secretary of the General Administration Department in terms of the Amended Executive Instruction No. 162-C of the Assam Land Revenue Regulation, 1886 (Amendment), 2018 (herein referred to as the Amended Regulation, 2018) and the Notification No. 304149/1 dated 17.07.2023 issued by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam, General Administration Department. He also submits that the preference to be given to family members of the Gaon Pradhan in terms of the Advertisement dated 01.12.2021 can only be done, if the marks obtained by two candidates were equal. As the petitioner had obtained less marks than the respondent No. 8, the preference clause could not be applied in the case of the pe