ORDER

Date : 07/02/2022 Heard Mr. F. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam, appearing for the respondent no. 1 and Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Government Advocate, Assam, appearing for the respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4. Mr. M.K. Hussain, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent no. 5.

The petitioner herein was one of the applicants for appointment to the post of Government Gaon Burah for the No. 3 Borghuli Kisamat under Pubthoria Mouza in the district of Nagaon. The said psot was advertised on 26/09/2018. Eventually, the respondent no. 5 was selected for appointment as Government Gaon Burah. Assailing the selection and appointment of the respondent no.5, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition, inter-alia, contending that the respondent no. 5 is a member of a political party (AGP) and, therefore, he is not eligible to take part in the selection process as per the conditions laid down in the advertisement notice.

Opposing the statements made in the writ petition, Mr. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam, submits that the minimum age of the candidate on the date of the advertisement was laid down as 35 years but the petitioner did not meet the age criteria. In that view of the matter, submit Mr. Handique, the petitioner was not eligible to apply for the post of Gaon Burah on the date of issuance of the advertisement notice. As such, submits Mr. Handique, the writ petition is not maintainable. Similar is the submission of Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent no.

5, who has categorically denied the allegations made against his client.

As per the advertisement notice dated 26/09/2018, the minimum age of a candidate must be 35 years. From a careful reading of the materials available on record, I find that the petitioner has annexed a copy of the High Madrassa School Examination Certificate (Annexure-1) issued by the concerned authority. According to the said certificate, petitioner’s date of birth is 28/11/1989. If that be so, the petitioner was around 30 years old on the date of issuance of the advertisement dated 26/09/2018 and, therefore, he was evidently not eligible to participate in the selection process for appointment to the post of Gaon Burah of No. 3 Borghuli Kisamat under Pubthoria Mouza. The learned counsel for the petitioner also could not dispute the said factual position.

Since the petitioner himself was ineligible to take part in the selection process, he could not have been selected for appointment to the post of Gaon Burah. As such, the petitioner does not have any locus standi to assail the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 5.

Since the petitioner himself did not meet the eligibility norms laid down in the advertisement notie dated 26/09/2018, I am of the opinion that it would be a futile exercise to examine the validity of the selection and appointment of the respondent no. 5 at the instance of the writ petitioner.

For the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly dismissed.

Petitioner to bear the cost.

JUDGE sukhamay Comparing Assistant