Procedures for official appointments must be strictly followed to ensure legality; failure to comply invalidates such appointments.

JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The issue which has been raised by means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India pertains to the appointment of Head Gaon Bura. As per the facts projected, the petitioner is educationally qualified up to Class X and, being eligible, was appointed as Gaon Bura of Sido Village in the East Siang District on 22.04.2002. In the said village, the father of the respondent No. 3 was the Head Gaon Bura, who had passed away, and on his expiry, the respondent No. 3 was appointed as Gaon Gura vide order dated 26.04.2012. According to the petitioner, being the seniormost amongst the Gaon Buras, he had submitted representation seeking his appointment as Head Gaon Bura, which post had fallen vacant on the death of the earlier incumbent. The representation submitted by the petitioner was finally taken into consideration and the Circle Officer, Kora, vide communication dated 30.08.2016, had forwarded the said representation by enclosing a seniority list. It is the contention of the petitioner that in the said list, he was stated to be the seniormost. The matter was forwarded to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nari inasmuch as per Clause 5 of the Guidelines governing the appointment of Gaon Buras in Arunachal Pradesh, the Additional Deputy Commissioner is the appointing authority. However, on the same date, i.e. on 30.08.2016, another representation was submitted by one Shri Tarik Kakki, who is also a Gaon Bura of the same village, wherein he enclosed the minutes of meeting dated 18.08.2016, which purportedly reflected that the respondent No. 3 was selected as the Head Gaon Bura. Consequently, an order dated 04.03.2019 was passed appointing the said respondent No. 3 as the Head Gaon Bura of Sido Village. It is this action which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

2. I have heard Shri R. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner; Shri S. Tapin, learned Senior Government Advocate, Arunachal Pradesh; and Shri V. Jamoh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

3. Shri Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Head Gaon Bura has not at all been done in accordance with the law and norms holding the field. He has submitted that apart from his client being senior in terms of length of service as Gaon Bura and also possessing higher qualification, but despite these credentials, the claim of the petitioner was overlooked, and respondent No. 3 was appointed to the post of Head Gaon Bura. He has submitted that such appointment has been done simply on the basis of a minutes of meeting held on 18.08.2016, which was forwarded by another Gaon Bura, who is none else but the brother-in-law of the respondent No. 3. The learned counsel argues that the impugned process lacks transparency and is vitiated by bias and procedural irregularities.

4. By drawing the attention of this Court to Clause 2 of the Guidelines governing the appointment of Gaon Buras/Head Gaon Buras, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prescribed mode of selection mandates that such appointments are to be made in a village meeting convened in the presence of an Administrative Officer with the requisite quorum being one third of the adult population. He has submitted that the bare perusal of the minutes of meeting dated 18.08.2016 reveal that the said meeting was not held in the presence of any Administrative Officer, thereby violating the mandatory requirement under Clause 2 of the Guidelines. He has also submitted that only one member of each household