Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010236792025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6066/2025 AMINUL ISLAM S/O- LATE MOHAMMAD ALI, R/O- VILLAGE AND P.O.- SHIMULBARI,P.S.- BAGUAN,DISTRICT- GOALPARA, ASSAM,PIN- 783101. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 6. 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER GOALPARA DISTRICT GOALPARA ASSAM 3:THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CUM SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICERS GOALPARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSAM. 4:THE SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (S) GOALPARA P.O. AND P.S.- GOALPARA DISTRICT- GOALPARA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H DAS, D BARUAH Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 27.10.2025 Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for the respondent No.1. The petitioner is a candidate who has responded to the selection process initiated by the respondent State by way of an advertisement dated 20.04.2023. The petitioner has applied for his candidature for selection of Gaon Pradhan for Village Simlabari under P.O.- Simlabari and P.S.- Baguan. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the executive instructions 162(v), appended to the Assam Land & Revenue Regulations 1886 preference is to be given to the son of Gaon Burah. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his father Late Mohammad Ali was a Gaon Burah of the same village. He has therefore, approached this Court for a direction to the respondent authorities to confer the benefit envisaged under the Executive Rule 162(v) as it is his apprehension that the authorities may not confer the said benefit under Executive Rule 162(v) as the same is not found to be mentioned in the advertisement dated 20.04.2023. It is also submitted that the interview is scheduled to be held today as per the call letter. Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department submits that this writ petition is premature as the interview will be held today as per the call letter received and therefore, as on date the petitioner has no grounds to be Page No.# 3/3 aggrieved. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. It is noticed that the writ petitioner has submitted his candidature in response to the advertisement dated 20.04.2023, wherein the requirements and the qualifications are mentioned in the said advertisement. Having submitted his candidature to the advertisement it was open to the writ petitioner to put a challenge to the advertisement, if the petitioner was of the view that the benefits specified under Rule 162(v) has not been followed in the ensuing selection and appointment of Gaon Burah. No such complaint had been raised by the petitioner so far. Under such circumstances, as the petitioner has already submitted his candidature to the advertisement and the interview has been scheduled for today as per the call letter received, it appears that the petitioner has approached this Court in attempt to tinker with the process of selection and interview, which scheduled to be held today, by attempting to obtain an order from this Court to seek additional benefits, which in the understanding of the petitioner are not reflected in the advertisement dated 20.04.2023. This Court depreciates such attempts made by the petitioner and is not inclined to grant prayers made by the petitioner. However, after addressing the Court for sometime the learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the writ petition. Although the Court was inclined to dismiss the matter and impose cost, however, on the prayers of the writ petitioner, this writ petition stands dismissed on withdrawal. JUDGE Comparing Assistant