Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010179122015 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6443/2015 UMED ALI AHMED S/O LT. MD. AHAMMAD ALI R/O VIL- PORAGAON, MOUZA- KHARIJA BIJNI, PO. BIJNI P.S. SORBHOG, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN - 781317 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT, ASSAM, SECRETIARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI - 781006. 2:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT ASSAM SECRETARIAT DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006. 3:THE COMMISSIONER LOWER ASSAM DIVISION PANBAZAR GUWAHATI- 781001. 4:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA P.O. and P.S. BARPETA ASSAM- 781301. 5:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/10 BARPETA DISTRICT BARPETA P.O. and P.S. BARPETA ASSAM- 781301 6:MD. HANIF ALI S/O LT. IDDRISH ALI R/O VILL- PORAGAON P.O. CHUKRUNGBARI P.S. SORBHOG DIST. BARPETA ASSAM- 78131 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.H ROHMAN, MR.D NAG,MR G ALAM,MR.P D NAIR,MR.A CHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : MR.A C RAYR-6, MR J K PARAJULI, (R4 & R5),MR P S DEKA, (R1, R2 & R3),MR. N N JHA(R-6),MR.M UDDIN(R-6),MR.N JHA(R-6),,GA, ASSAM(R1-5),MR. J HANDIQUE, REVENUE DEPTT. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 24-03-2026 Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Hazarika, learned standing counsel, Revenue Department, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and Mr. N.N. Jha, learned counsel representing respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed an order dated 29-07-2015 issued by the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as Gaonburah of Charge No. 12 of Poragaon Village under Kharija Bijni Mouza of Barnagar Revenue Circle in Barpeta district, basing on an appeal instituted assailing such appointment, by the respondent No. 6, herein. 3. As projected in the writ petition, in pursuance to an advertisement dated 25-05-2010, Page No.# 3/10 the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 and others, who were so eligible for recruitment as Gaonburah had submitted their respective applications. Thereafter, a viva-voce was held by the constituted Selection Committee and the petitioner, herein, was recommended for appointment as Gaonburah against the advertised post. The selection of the petitioner being approved by the Deputy Commissioner, he was appointed as Gaonburah of Charge No. 12 of Puragaon Village under Kharija Bijni Mouza of Barnagar Revenue Circle in Barpeta district vide order dated 17-12-2012, issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta. 4. The respondent No. 6 being aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, herein, as Gaonburah proceeded to institute an appeal in the matter before the appellate authority, i.e. the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Guwahati. The petitioner in the said appeal had, amongst others, raised a plea to the effect that two criminal cases being pending against the petitioner on the date the Selection Committee had considered his case, the petitioner could not have been held to be suitable by the Selection Committee for engagement as a Gaonburah. The appellate authority, basing on the said objection made by the respondent No. 6, herein, proceeded vide order dated 29-07-2015, to dispose of the said appeal by interfering with the appointment effected in respect of the petitioner, herein. Upon interfering with the appointment of the petitioner, the appellate authority directed the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to constitute a fresh Selection Committee for selecting a suitable candidate for appointment as Gaonburah against the post held by the petitioner. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 6. Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while it is admitted fact that two criminal cases stood instituted against the petitioner and the same were Page No.# 4/10 pending on the date of his selection, the petitioner was not found blameworthy in either of the two cases. Mr. Choudhury further submits that basing on an FIR dated 03-02-2007, a criminal proceeding came to be instituted against the petitioner under Section 407 IPC. The police on completion of the investigation had laid charge-sheet against the petitioner and others under Section 407 IPC. The Trial Court on conclusion of the trial vide judgment dated 22-07-2015 passed in G.R. Case No. 218/2007, proceeded to acquit the petitioner and other accused from the charges framed against them on the ground that nothing incriminating was brought on record against the any of the accused, including the petitioner. With regard to the other criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner, he submits that basing on a complaint lodged by one Abida Khatun, which was consequently transferred to the Sorbhog Police Station for investigation and registered as Sorbhog P.S. Case No. 262/2012 under Section 376/ 34 IPC, the police on investigation of the matter had laid the charge-sheet. However, therein, it was projected that the allegation against the petitioner not having been found to have been established, he was not sent up for trial. Mr. Choudhury submits that on the date when the appellate authority had passed the impugned order dated 29-07-2015, there was no criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner and accordingly, the conclusions drawn by the appellate authority is clearly perverse and would mandate interference from this Court. Mr. Choudhury submits that the application format did not mandate disclosure by the candidate concerned, about particulars of criminal/ civil proceeding pending against them. Accordingly, the petitioner was not called upon to furnish such information. He, however, submits that verification was carried out of the antecedents of the candidates in the fray and the respondents have not brought on record any material to demonstrate that some adverse material had come on record against the petitioner, herein, Page No.# 5/10 which would have mandated denial to him of the appointment in question. He submits that the appointment having been effected on 17-12-2012, the petitioner after interference of his such appointment by the appellate authority had approached this Court and in view of the interim directions passed in the present proceeding, the petitioner continues to hold the post of Gaonburah till this very date. Mr. Choudhury submits that there is no adverse material brought on record with regard to the services discharged by the petitioner after his appointment as Gaonburah. Mr. Choudhury has further by referring to the criminal cases instituted against the petitioner submitted that the same had contained frivolous allegations against him and the same was only with the motive to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner by the informants in the said cases. 7. In the above premises, Mr. Choudhury submits that the petitioner be permitted to continue in his services and the interim direction passed by this Court be made absolute. 8. Per contra, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam submits that the appellate authority in passing the impugned order had not committed any error, inasmuch as, it is an admitted position that on the day the Selection Committee had considered the case of the petitioner, there were two criminal cases pending against the petitioner and both the cases included allegation of moral turpitude against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner being under a cloud on the date, when his case was considered for appointment against the post of Gaonburah, considering the pendency of the said criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the order passed by the appellate authority was in conformity with the executive instruction holding the field pertaining to appointment of a Gaonburah and accordingly, he submits that the same would not mandate interference. Page No.# 6/10 9. Mr. N.N. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, at the outset by highlighting the nature of duties required to be discharged by a Gaonburah and also that the post of Gaonburah was a civil post, submitted that a candidate for the said post must be of impeccable character. He submits that the petitioner was involved in two criminal proceeding, wherein, allegations of serious nature came to be levelled against him. He submits that in one of the criminal cases, the allegation of the petitioner was of theft and misappropriation of Government property and in the other it was with regard to commission of offence under Section 376 IPC. Mr. Jha further submits that on the date when the Selection Committee had considered the case of the petitioner, both the criminal proceedings had not been taken to its logical conclusion and in view of the allegations existing against the petitioner the decision arrived at by the appellate authority that the petitioner was not found suitable for engagement as a Gaonburah is not erroneous and would not mandate interference from this Court. Mr. Jha by referring to the order passed by this appellate authority submits that the appellate authority had only directed after interference with the appointment of the petitioner to hold a fresh selection for the purpose of recruitment against the post of Gaonburah, held earlier by the petitioner. He submits that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner on account of such direction, inasmuch as, the criminal proceeding against the petitioner having ended there was no bar for considering the case of the petitioner for such engagement. Accordingly, he submits that the impugned order dated 29-07-2015 would not mandate interference from this Court. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 11. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The petitioner admittedly at the Page No.# 7/10 time when his case was considered for selection as Gaonburah in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25-05-2010, two criminal proceeding stood instituted against the petitioner. However, what is to be noticed in the advertisement dated 25-05-2010, is that the same did not require the intending candidates to also declare that there was criminal and or civil proceeding pending against them at the time when they had submitted their respective applications. The respondent authorities are found to have required the jurisdictional Circle Officer to carry out an enquiry with regard to the antecedents of the applicants, applying in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25-05-2010. However, there is no material brought on record as to the report submitted by the jurisdictional Circle Officer in respect of the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, the Selection Committee proceeded to consider the case of the applicants applying in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25-05-2010 for the post of Gaonburah in question. On such examination of the suitability of the candidates, the petitioner came to be recommended for appointment against the advertised post of Gaonburah and he resumed his services. 12. It is settled position of law that the post of Gaonburah is of seminal importance and the same is declared to be a civil post. Statutory duties are attached to the post of Gaonburah, under the provision of executive instruction framed under the Assam Land & Revenue Regulations. A Gaonburah is also to assist the police in preventing crime and to report any criminal acts, if committed within his village in addition of assisting the Mouzadar in the collection of land revenue and the jurisdictional Lat Mandal concerned in correction of village map and records and in the maintenance of survey marks. Section 45 of the Cr.P.C. also lays down certain duties to be discharged by Gaonburah. Accordingly, a person recruited to the post of Gaonbuah ought not be blameworthy in any manner. Page No.# 8/10 13. Having noticed the said position, with regard to the duties and status of the Gaonburah, this Court would now proceed to consider the order dated 29-07-2015 passed by the appellate authority, i.e. the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division. The said appeal was instituted at the instance of the respondent No. 6. The appellate authority noticed that the respondent No. 6 had claimed that he is the elder son of the earlier Gaonburah and was entitled to a preference in the matter. The appellate authority also noticed that there were two criminal cases pending before the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta vide GR Case No. 218/2007 under Section 407 IPC and GR Case No. 3305/2012 under Section 376 IPC against the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, only by noticing the pendency of the said proceeding, proceeded to draw the following conclusions:- “From the above discussion, it is clear that during the process of selection two criminal cases were pending against the private respondent No. 2. So, the appointment with the private respondent No. 2 is not in healthy conformity of the executive instruction 162(A).” 14. Basing on the said conclusion, the appellate authority proceeded to set aside the appointment of the petitioner, herein. 15. This Court has carefully perused the conclusion drawn by the appellate authority in the order dated 29-07-2015 and finds that the appellate authority while noticing the pendency of the criminal cases against the petitioner had not endeavored to find out as to whether the said criminal proceedings were infact pending against the petitioner on the date when the order dated 29-07-2015 was so passed. As noticed, hereinabove, candidates applying in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25-05-2010, were not required to disclose any particulars with regard to pendency of criminal or civil proceeding against them. Accordingly, the appellate authority ought to have directed for placing of information before it with regard Page No.# 9/10 to the status of the criminal proceeding instituted against the petitioner, herein. The appellate authority, thereafter, on perusal of the said status and in the event the proceeding had come to a logical conclusion to peruse the orders passed in the matter by the competent court of law, to determine as to whether, therefrom, the petitioner could be deemed to be suitable for appointment as a Gaonburah. As noticed, hereinabove, in the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner in GR Case No. 218/2007, the court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta vide judgment dated 22-07-2015, after the trial was held in the matter, proceeded to acquit the petitioner, therefrom, by holding that the prosecution witnesses had not brought on record anything incriminating against the accused persons including the petitioner, herein, about their involvement in commission of offence alleged against them. The learned Trial Court further held that there was no evidence on record to suggest that the accused including the petitioner, herein, did any act as alleged and held that they cannot said to have done anything as alleged. The said judgment dated 22-07-2015 was admittedly passed prior to passing of the impugned order dated 29-07-2015. With regard to the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner in GR Case No. 218/2007, it has been brought on record that the police on conclusion of the investigation in the matter had submitted a charge-sheet, however, the police had not sent up the petitioner for trial and had only submitted a charge-sheet against one of the co-accused, i.e. Md. Tafiz Ali. The materials on record reveals that the said position has attained its finality. 16. This Court on a close perusal of the judgment dated 22-07-2015 as well as the charge- sheet filed in GR Case No. 3305/2012, does not find that there is any material, therein, which can be held against the petitioner. Even if the suitability of the petitioner is viewed from the judgment and order dated 22-07-2015 passed in GR Case No. 218/2007, this Court does not Page No.# 10/10 find that any adverse material questioning the suitability of the petitioner for appointment as Gaonburah had come on record, which would have mandated the respondent authority to take a fresh look at the appointment effected in respect of the petitioner. However, the appellate authority had not even ventured to examine the matter in that line. 17. In view of the above conclusion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 29-07-2015 passed by the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, i.e. the appellate authority would mandate interference. Accordingly, the said order is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be continued in his engagement as Gaonburah, in terms of the appointment effected vide order dated 17-12-2012, passed by the Addl. District Commissioner, Barpeta. 18. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant