Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010122302025 2026:GAU-AS:13095 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3298/2025 EKRAMUL HUSSAIN S/O LATE ABDUL BAREQUE VILL- BHEHUGURI P.S. MIKIRBHETA DIST.MORIGAON, ASSAM PIN-782123 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (L.R.) DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ETC. ASSAM RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI-32. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER MORIGAON P.O.AND DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER MIKIRBHETA REVENUE CIRCLE DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/10 5:RASIDUL HOQUE S/O ABDUL JALIL VILL- BHEHUGURI P.O. AND P.S. MIKIRBHETA DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782123 6:THE BRANCH MANAGER ASSAM GRAMIN BANK HABIBARANGBARI BRANCH P.O. HABIBARANGBARI DIST- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-78210 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. H ALI, B BARMAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. A DHANUKA(R6),MR. A GANGULY(R6),A KASHYAP (R-5),MR SISHIR DUTTA(R-5),MR S DUTTA(R-5),MR. U DUTTA (R-5),SC, REVENUE BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 07/09/2026 Heard Mr. H Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. R Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4, Mr. U Dutta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. A Ganguly, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 6, Bank. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5, against the post of Gaon Pradhan, Bhehuguri Gaon under Mikirbheta Revenue Circle. The petitioner has also assailed an order dated Page No.# 3/10 05.03.2025, passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 98/2024, rejecting the appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the selection and appointment of respondent No. 5. 3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the present writ petition, is noticed as under. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner, vide an advertisement dated 07.07.2022, invited applications from eligible candidates for recruitment against the post of Gaon Pradhan, Bhehuguri Gaon under Mikirbheta Revenue Circle. In the said advertisement, it was stipulated that the intending candidates amongst others, must not be a defaulter in connection with loan(s) taken by him. The petitioner, along with the respondent No. 5 and others, had submitted their respective applications for recruitment against the post of Gaon Pradhan, so advertised vide the advertisement dated 07.07.2022. The petitioner and the respondent No. 5 are found to have appeared in the selection process and basing on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, the respondent No. 5, herein, was included in the select list, so published on 06.04.2023. The respondent No. 5 was, thereafter, appointed as a Gaon Pradhan in Bhehuguri Gaon under Mikirbheta Revenue Circle by the jurisdictional District Commissioner. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5, had instituted an appeal in the matter before the Director of Land Records & Surveys, Assam, which was registered as Appeal No. 98/2024. The petitioner in the said appeal, amongst others, had contended that the respondent No. 5, was not eligible for being selected and appointed as a Gaon Pradhan, inasmuch as, on the last date of submission of his application, the respondent No. 5 was a defaulter in connection with a loan taken by him from the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Habibarangabari Branch and in support of his such submissions, the petitioner has brought on record notices issued to the respondent No. 5, for repayment of the Page No.# 4/10 installments defaulted by him. The petitioner had also placed on record a Certificate dated 15.07.2023, issued by the Branch Manager of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Habibarangabari Branch, wherein, it was stipulated that the loan availed by the respondent No. 5 was cleared by him and the loan account was closed on 11.05.2023. On receipt of notice, the respondent No. 5, had entered appearance in the said appeal and had projected that the loan account of the respondent No. 5, was closed as of 10.05.2022 and in support of his such contention, he had placed reliance on a Certificate dated 10.05.2022, issued by the Branch Manager of the said Bank, wherein, it was stipulated that the loan account was closed and there was no outstanding balance as on 10.05.2022. The Appellate Authority on examining the grounds taken by the petitioner, including the ground of the respondent No. 5, being a defaulter, drawing satisfaction from the certificate dated 10.05.2022, furnished by the respondent No. 5, proceeded to dismiss the said appeal, thereby, affirming the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. H Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the respondent No. 5, admittedly, was a defaulter in connection with repayment of the loan taken by him from the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Habibarangabari Branch. 4.1 In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a notice issued to the respondent No. 5 by the Bank authorities on 11.04.2023, along with certificate dated 11.05.2023, wherein, it was notified that the loan account of the respondent No. 5 was closed on 11.05.2023, only. 4.2 Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the advertisement Page No.# 5/10 dated 07.07.2022, has submitted that the last date for submission of the application in pursuance, thereto, was on 08.08.2022 and accordingly, the respondent No. 5, on the last date of submission of the application, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.07.2022, being a defaulter of a loan taken by him from the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Habibarangabari Branch, was clearly ineligible for having his case considered for selection and appointment as Gaon Pradhan. 4.3 Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner, has seriously disputed the certificate dated 10.05.2022, issued by the Branch Manager of the said Bank, relied upon by the respondent No. 5. 5. Mr. S Dutta, learned Standing counsel, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, has submitted that the Appellate Authority, while considering the appeal submitted by the petitioner, herein, had rejected the contention of the petitioner with regard to the respondent No. 5, being a defaulter of a loan taken by him, only by relying upon the certificate dated 10.05.2022, produced by the respondent No. 5, before the Appellate Authority in the said appeal. Accordingly, he submits that the Appellate Authority had not committed any error in drawing its conclusions in the matter. 6. Mr. U Dutta, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 5, at the outset, has submitted that although, in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, reliance was so placed on the certificate dated 10.05.2022, he, fairly submits that he would not press the said contention, inasmuch as, it is now clear from the affidavit filed by the Bank authorities that the said certificate dated 10.05.2022, relied upon by the respondent No. 5, was a forged and/or doubtful one. He submits that the materials now coming on record having demonstrated the respondent No. 5, to be a defaulter in connection with the loan taken by him from the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Habibarangabari Branch, he was clearly ineligible for being considered against the post of Gaon Pradhan. Page No.# 6/10 7. At this stage, this Court would like to note that there being a dispute with regard to the certificates produced by the petitioner as well as by the respondent No. 5, in the present matter with regard to the date on which the loan taken by the respondent No. 5 was so closed, this Court had directed for impleading the respondent Bank as a party respondent in the matter. Accordingly, on being impleaded as party respondent No. 6, the respondent Bank had filed an affidavit in the matter. 8. Mr. A Ganguly, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 6, Bank, by referring to the affidavit filed in the matter as well as the statement of accounts of the loan account opened in favour of the respondent No. 5, has submitted that the said loan account was closed on deposit of the balance amount remaining therein, by the respondent No. 5, only on 11.05.2023. 8.1 Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 6, Bank, by referring to the affidavit filed in the matter by the Bank authorities, has submitted that the certificate dated 10.05.2022, relied upon by the respondent No. 5, was found to have not been issued by the authority of the Bank. He submits that on an enquiry being made, the then Branch Manager of the Bank, had categorically denied issuance of the said certificate and had further projected that he would be ready to face any enquiry in this connection. Accordingly, Mr. Ganguly, submits that the loan account of the respondent No. 5 was actually closed on 11.05.2023 and not on 10.05.2022, as projected by the respondent No. 5. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 10. The facts noticed hereinabove, are not in dispute. 11. The last date for submission of applications for recruitment against the post of Gaon Pradhan, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.07.2022, was fixed on 08.08.2022. The advertisement had further stipulated that a candidate, intending to Page No.# 7/10 submit his application in pursuance to the said advertisement for recruitment against the post of Gaon Pradhan, must not be a defaulter of a loan taken by him. 12. This Court finds that the respondent No. 5, herein, was issued with a notice dated 11.04.2023, inter-alia, contending therein, that a default was committed by the respondent No. 5, in clearing the installments on the due dates as per the loan agreement. 13. From the contentions raised by the respondent No. 6, Bank, in the affidavit filed by them in the matter, this Court also finds that the loan account of the respondent No. 5, was closed only on 11.05.2023. Admittedly, in view of the said notice dated 11.04.2023 and the contentions of the Bank authorities that the loan was closed only on 11.05.2023, this Court finds that on the date, when the respondent No. 5, had submitted his application against the said advertisement dated 07.07.2022, for recruitment against the post of Gaon Pradhan, Bhehuguri Gaon under Mikirbheta Revenue Circle, the respondent No. 5 was a defaulter with regard to the repayment of a loan obtained by him from the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Habibarangabari Branch. 14. Accordingly, it is to be held that the respondent No. 5 was not eligible for being considered for recruitment against the post of Gaon Pradhan. The said position is also fairly admitted to by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, who has also basing on the materials coming on record in the present proceeding, submitted that the certificate dated 10.05.2022, relied upon by the respondent No. 5 would be of no consequence and it would not be erroneous to hold the respondent No. 5 to be ineligible for applying against the post of Gaon Pradhan, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.07.2022, inasmuch as, he admittedly was a defaulter of a loan taken by him from the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank, Habibarangabari Branch. 15. This Court finds that the respondent No. 5, had misled the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 98/2024, by relying upon the said certificate dated 10.05.2022 and such Page No.# 8/10 misrepresentation was continued in the present writ petition, inasmuch as, in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5, a categorical statement to the effect that the loan was closed on 10.05.2022, was made with further justification that the notice dated 11.04.2023, was so issued on the basis of a misunderstanding and accordingly, the certificate dated 11.05.2023, was so issued to clarify the respondent No. 5’s loan account to be closed and that the Bank authorities had tendered an apology to the respondent No. 5 in this connection. However, the said position is not supported by the contentions raised by the Bank authorities in the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 5. 16. Be that as it may, it is evident that the respondent No. 5, basing on a forged document, had secured his appointment against the post of Gaon Pradhan, Bhehuguri Gaon under Mikirbheta Revenue Circle. 17. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court, the appointment of the respondent No. 5 as the Gaon Pradhan, Bhehuguri Gaon under Mikirbheta Revenue Circle cannot be sustained and would mandate an interference from this Court. 18. In view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, the following directions are being issued: (i) The appointment of the respondent No. 5 as Gaon Pradhan, Bhehuguri Gaon under Mikirbheta Revenue Circle stands set aside. (ii) The order dated 05.03.2025, passed by the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 98/2024 also stands set aside. (iii) The District Commissioner, Morigaon shall now examine as to whether the petitioner, herein, was placed in the selection held in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.07.2022, just below the respondent No. 5. (iv) In the event, if it is found that the petitioner, herein, was placed just Page No.# 9/10 below the respondent No. 5, considering that the matter was in litigation since the publication of select list in pursuance to the select list dated 06.04.2023 initially before the Appellate Authority, thereafter, in the present proceedings, it is directed that the District Commissioner, Morigaon shall process the matter for appointing the petitioner against the post of Gaon Pradhan, Bhehuguri Gaon under Mikirbheta Revenue Circle. The exercise involved be initiated and concluded by the District Commissioner, Morigaon, within a period of 1 (one) month, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (v) Considering the misrepresentation made by the respondent No. 5 in the matter, which has the effect of rendering his appointment as Gaon Pradhan, Bhehuguri Gaon under Mikirbheta Revenue Circle to be void ab initio, this Court directs the District Commissioner, Morigaon to initiate steps for recovery of the salaries paid to the respondent No. 5, as arrears of land revenue. Further, considering the fact that the respondent No. 5, on account of his misrepresentation, had dragged the present petitioner into litigation, up to this Court, it is directed that the respondent No. 5 shall pay a cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) to the petitioner. (vi) In the event, the cost is not so paid within a period of 1 (one) month from today, the same shall be recovered by the petitioner by the District Commissioner, Morigaon, as arrears of land revenue and released to the petitioner. (vii) It is further made clear that the continuance of the respondent No. 5 against the post of Gaon Pradhan, Bhehuguri Gaon under Mikirbheta Revenue Circle, shall not enure any benefit to the respondent No. 5, the appointment being void in law from its inception on account of a misrepresentation made in the matter. Page No.# 10/10 19. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant