Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010088042025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2356/2025 SMTI GEETA KAKATI PATHAK ALIAS SMTI GITA KAKAI PATHAK ASSAMW/O MRINAL KUMAR PATHAK R/O AMBARI HATI WARD NO 5 BARPETA TOWN PO AND PS BARPETA DIST BARPETA ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 2:THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPTT DISPUR GUWAHATI 6 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA DIST BARPETA ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAJALI DIST BAJALI ASSAM 5:THE SELECTION COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR SELECTION OF CANDIDATE FOR APPOINTMENT TO THE VACANT POST OF REVENUE SHERISTADAR IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARPETA REP BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPTT DISPUR GUWHATI 6 6:THE ADDL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BARETA DIST BARPETA ASSAM Page No.# 2/4 7:THE ADDL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAJALI DIST BARPETA ASSAM 8:MANMOHAN DAS S/O BAIKUNTHA DAS R/O GANAKKUCHI WARD NO 21 BARPETA TOWN PO AND PS BARPETA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J AHMED, MS A HUSSAIN,S AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 05.05 .2025 Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government advocate for the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the promotion of private respondent to the post of Revenue Sheristadar in the Office of the District Commissioner, Barpeta by order dated 09.04.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner has put to challenge the process of selection and the appointment given to the private responder on the ground that it is violative of Rule 11(v). It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is senior to the private respondent and therefore, it is his case that ought to have been considered. But the same was not done ignoring his seniority over the private respondent. Therefore, he has put to challenge the impugned order. Page No.# 3/4 During the course of the hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before the Court, the order dated 09.04.2025, which he could not procure at the time of filing the writ petition and by this order the private respondent has been promoted to the post of Revenue Sheristadar. Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate representing the respondents has pointed out that there is a statutory Appeal under Rule 12. The order has been passed by the Commissioner. The Service Rules provides that an appeal can be filed before the Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner ought to have file an appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that there is a provision for filing an appeal under Rule 12. The appeal may be filed before the Commissioner for the orders. Since the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 has been passed by the Commissioner appointing the private respondent to the post of Revenue Sheristadar, this order is an appealable order for which an appeal may be filed before the Commissioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner also fairly submits that he may be permitted to file an appeal before the Commissioner. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed permitting the petitioner to file an appeal before the Commissioner against the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 whereby the private respondent has been granted the appointment Page No.# 4/4 to the post of Revenue Sheristadar in the Office of the District Commissioner, Barpeta. If such an appeal is filed, the Commissioner will dispose of the appeal expeditiously by passing a speaking order and a copy thereof be served on the petitioner. This writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant