Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Vijay Bishnoi, CJ., N. Unni Krishnan Nair
Nurul Amin, Son of Late Amir Uddin Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
Kashem Ali Ahmed, Son of Late Abul Hussain – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of gaonburah selection process. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. legal justification for secretary's guidelines. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. appeal filed against selection. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's analysis of selection legality. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's final ruling and dismissal of the petition. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT :
Vijay Bishnoi, CJ.
This writ appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment & order dated 20.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.4883/2018, whereby the learned Single Judge has set aside the selection and appointment of the appellant as Gaonburah of Charge No.17, Mouza - Barpeta under Barpeta Revenue Circle, District – Barpeta and has directed the State authorities to initiate a fresh process of selection for appointment of Gaonburah of Charge No.17 as expeditiously as possible on the basis of the qualifications laid down by the Notification bearing No.RLR.187/2007/39 dated 10.04.2018 or any amendment made thereafter, as the case may be, clarifying that the selection process should proceed on the basis of the qualification prevailing on the relevant date.
2. The facts necessary for adjudication of the issue involved in this writ appeal are th
Appointment processes should adhere to operative guidelines at selection time; when such guidelines are abeyant, precedent norms applicable prior to them may be followed.
Procedures for official appointments must be strictly followed to ensure legality; failure to comply invalidates such appointments.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appointment of public officials must adhere to the relevant Executive Instructions and regulations, and legitimate expectations cannot be ....
The court established that validly appointed officials cannot be removed without due process, and that age regulations must be adhered to in public service appointments.
The Court established that the selection process for public appointments must strictly follow the prescribed legal framework to ensure fairness and transparency.
The court ruled that a writ of quo warranto is not maintainable if the respondent is not holding a public office at the time of filing the petition.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
