ORDER

(A.D.Choudhury, J).

1. We have heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. R. Barua, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. S. K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam.

2. This intra-court Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 26-09-2023, passed in WP(C) No. 4451/2022, as well as the Order dated 09-01-2025, passed in Review Petition No. 1/2024 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, both of which arise out of the same selection process to the post of Gaon Pradhan of Sanpara Parbat Village.

3. The dispute originates from the advertisement dated 01-12-2021, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan.

4. The writ petitioner and the present appellant were the rival candidates. Upon completion of the selection process, the appellant came to be selected. The unsuccessful candidate approached the learned single judge contending, inter alia, that the selected candidate was ineligible as he continued to be a member of a political party; that he was not a resident of the concerned village; that earmarks under the notified criteria for family member of the earlier Gaon Pradhan and few of the Mouzadar were not accorded; and that the process was vitiated by non-observation of declared norms.

5. By the judgment dated 26-09-2023, the learned Single Judge accepted the challenge principally on the grounds of ineligibility and non-adherence to the prescribed criteria, set aside the selection and directed consequential action.

6. Thereafter, the selected candidate filed Review Petition No. 1/2024, relying on documents said to have been subsequently traced, including a letter dated 25-11-2021 allegedly evidencing resignation from political party membership. The Review Petition was dismissed on 09-1-2025.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal.

8. It is contended that the resignation from membership of Gaon Panchayat sufficiently established severance from political affiliation and that insistence upon a separate resignation from the political party was hyper-technical.

9. It is further argued that the Selection Committee substantially complied with the evaluation criteria and that the court erred in drawing adverse interference from the format of the mark sheet. It is also submitted that the consequential direction in favour of the writ petitioner exceeded the permissible limit of judicial review.

10. Insofar as the review order is concerned, it is urged that the subsequently traced resignation letter constituted material evidence which could not earlier be produced despite bona fide inability and therefore ought to have been considered by the learned single judge.

11. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent supporting the impugned order submits that the advertisement made non-membership of any political party an express eligibility condition. It is urged that resignation from the elected office of Gaon Panchayat is wholly distinct from resignation from party membership and that the appellant, having contested the earlier election on a party ticket, was bound to place cogent evidence of cessation of party affiliation.

12. It is further contended that where marks are allotted under published heads, the record must disclose due consideration of such heads; and the absence of such reflection justified judicial interference.

13. As regards alternative remedy, it is submitted that the rule is one of discretion and not compulsion, particularly where illegality is demonstrable on the admitted record.

14. On review, it is argued that a document allegedly authored by the respondent himself cannot be treated as newly discovered evidence unavailable despite due diligence.

15. Having heard the