GAHC010262382023

2025:GAU-AS:308

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Review.Pet./1/2024

KANDARPA BAISHYA

S/O. LT. BANTI RAM BAISHYA, VILL.SANPARA PARBAT GAON,

BONGSHAR, BONGSHAR, MOUZA PUB NONGSHAR, P.O. BONGSHAR, P.S.

SUALKUCHI, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781103.

VERSUS

KESHAB BAISHYA AND 7 ORS

S/O. SRI LAL MOHAN BAISHYA, VILL. SANPARA PARBAT, BONGSHAR,

MOUZA- PUB BONGSHAR, P.O. BONGSHAR, P.S. SUALKUCHI, DIST.

KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781103.

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM

REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM

REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT.

ASSAM SECRETARIAT

DISPUR

GUWAHATI-06.

3:THE COMMISSIONER

LOWER ASSAM DIVISION

PANBAZAR

GUWAHATI01

ASSAM.

4:THE SELECTION BOARD FOR SELECTION OF GAON PRADHAN UNDER

KAMRUP DISTRICT

REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AT KAMRUP

AMINGAON

ASSAM.

5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP DIST. KAMRUP (R)

AMINGAON ASSAM.

6:THE ADDL. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KAMRUP DIST. KAMRUP (R)

AMINGAON ASSAM.

7:THE CIRCLE OFFICER HAJO REVENUE CIRCLE DIST. KAMRUP (R)

ASSAM.

8:THE MOUZADAR PUB BONGSHAR MOUZA SUWALKUCHI P.O. BONGSHAR DIST. KAMRUP (R)

ASSAM PIN-781103 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, N GAUTAM,MR. R M DEKA,MR. D J DAS,MR.

K N CHOUDHURY,MR. D BORAH,MS. S. BISWAS Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MRS. M M ROY,MR. S K ROY,SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA For the petitioner : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. R. Sarma, Advocate For the respondent No.1 : Mr. S.K. Roy, Advocate For the respondent No.2 : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate Date of hearing : 18.12.2024 Date of Judgment : 09.01.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. Counsel for the review petitioner assisted by Mr. R. Sarma. Also heard Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. The review petitioner has put to challenge the impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No.4451/2022, by which this Court has set aside the appointment of the review petitioner to the post of Gaon Pradhan of Sanpara Parbat Village, as he was found ineligible to have participated in the selection process, due to him being in a political party at the time of the selection process. Further, this Court had also found that the respondent No.1/writ petitioner, who was the son of the earlier Gaon Pradhan, had not been given marks at the time of interview in terms of Clause G of the Advertisement dated 01.12.2021.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that the review petitioner and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner had participated in the selection process for appointment as Gaon Pradhan. The review petitioner was selected as Gaon Pradhan of Sanpara Parbat Village on culmination of the selection process.

4. The respondent No.1/writ petitioner made a challenge to the appointment of the review petitioner vide WP(C) No.4451/2022, on the ground that the review petitioner being a member of a political party at the time of his selection as Gaon Pradhan, he could not have been selected as Gaon Pradhan under Clause C(3) of the advertisement. The respondent No.1 had also taken a stand that the respondent No.1 should have been awarded marks, being a family member of the earlier Gaon Pradhan, in terms of Clause G of the Advertisement dated 01.12.2021, which was not done. The other grounds taken in the writ petition by the respondent No.1, while challenging the selection of the review petitioner, was that the review petitioner was not a resident of Sanpara Parbat Village and that preference was to be given to the family member of the Gaon Pradhan for appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan.

5. This Court, vide judgment and order dated 26.09.2023 passed in WP(C) No. 4451/2022, held that the respondent No.1 being the son of the earlier Gaon Pradhan, it was incumbent on the part of the State respondents to have considered giving marks to the petitioner at the time of interview, in terms of Clause G of th