Disputed questions of fact regarding appointment selection processes cannot be resolved by the High Court through writ jurisdiction on the basis of affidavits alone, necessitating a formal departmental inquiry by the concerned administrative authority to verify the facts.

ORDER

B E F O R E

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

02.04.2026

Heard Mr. M. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Revenue and Disaster and Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Mr. K. M. Hasan, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 30.11.2013, appointing the respondent No.4, as the gaonburah of Dalani-Juria Lat/Kisam under Mauza Juria, Circle, Rupahi Revenue Circle, District, Nagaon, Assam.

3. The projections made in the writ petition, reveals that in pursuance to an advertisement issued on 22.08.2013, applications were invited for filing up of a vacant post of gaonburah of Dalani Juria Lat/Kisam under Mauza Juria. The said post was earlier occupied by one Abdul Mannan, who is the grandfather of the petitioner, herein. The petitioner having fulfilled the eligibility criteria had submitted his application in pursuance to the said advertisement. Thereafter, a selection process was initiated and on conclusion of the said selection process, the respondent authorities vide an order dated 30.11.2013, had proceeded to appoint the respondent No.4, herein, as a Gaonburah of the Lot, which was earlier held by Abdul Mannan. In the order, it was specified that the engagement of the respondent No.4 as Gaonburah was so effected against Dalani-Juria Lat/Kisam under Mauza-Juria, earlier held by Abdul Mannan, who had since retired from his service. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said engagement effected in respect of the respondent No.4, has instituted the present writ petition.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the respondent No.4, herein, had not applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.08.2013. He submits that the respondent No. 4 had also not participated in the selection process, however, the respondent authorities had proceeded to engage the respondent No.4, as the gaonburah of the said Lat vide the order dated 30.11.2013. He further projects that the petitioner being a member of the family of an ex-gaonburah, he was entitled to be granted preferential treatment, however, such preferential treatment has not been extended to the petitioner, herein. On a query made by this Court as to the marks scored by the petitioner in the selection process, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same is not available with him and no contention in this connection has also been raised in the present writ petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the said grounds has prayed that the engagement as effected in respect of the respondent No.4, vide the order dated 30.11.2013, would mandate an interference.

6. Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, has submitted that in terms of the instructions furnished to her by the Additional District Commissioner, Revenue, Nagaon, it is one Md. Nazrul Islam, s/o- Md. Muhbub Ali, resident of Village- Telia Bebejia, P.S.- Juria, Mouza-Juria in the District of Nagaon, who was appointed against the Dalani-Juria Lat, vide an order dated 16.10.2017 and he is presently, working, therein and it is not the respondent No.4, who is so working against the said Lat.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4, has submitted that he was engaged as a gaonburah vide the order dated 30.11.2013 and has submitted that in the order such engagement was a