Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010155522018 2026:GAU-AS:1495 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4855/2018 JAHIRUL ISLAM S/O- MOYNUL HOQUE, VILL- SHIMULBARI, P.O- KACHUMARA, PIN- 781302, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT, GHY- 6 2:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 781304 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER CHENGA REVENUE CIRCLE BARPETA ASSAM PIN- 78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. I H SAIKIA, MR. K KALITA,MR. L M RAHMAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. R BORPUJARI (SC, REVENUE) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 05.02.2026 Heard Mr. K. Kashyap, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department for respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. Bora, learned State Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the advertisement dated 01.06.2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, whereby applications were invited from local people for filling up the vacant post of 07 No. charge Gaonburah of Baguribari Mouza under Chenga Revenue Circle, as regard the Clause 2, which provides the minimum qualification to the effect that the age of the applicant shall be 35 years or above as on 01.01.2018 and shall be HSLC passed, equivalent to the same from the Government of Assam recognized board/institution. 3. The petitioner claims that he passed Assam High Madrassa Examination in the year 2015 and his date of birth is 01.01.1999. The Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, vide advertisement dated 01.06.2018, invited an applications from local people to fill up the vacant post of 07 No. charge Gaonburah of Baguribari Mouza under Chenga Revenue Circle. The advertisement, inter alia, provides the minimum age of the applicant to be 35 years or above as on 01.01.2018. Page No.# 3/5 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that in earlier advertisements for appointment of Gaonburah, there was no prescription of age. However, in the subsequent earlier advertisements, the age was fixed to be 21 to 40 years. According to the petitioner, the prescription of minimum age of 35 years is arbitrary as there is no rational behind such prescription by departure from the earlier practice for appointment of Gaonburah. It is further contended that had the age of the applicant is not fixed to be 35 years or above, the petitioner would have been eligible in all other aspect. 5. Mr. J. Handique, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue Department, by placing the Notification dated 26.08.2021, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and D. M. Department, submits that after the impugned advertisement dated 01.06.2018, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, the State has amended the executive instruction by reducing the requirement of 35 years of age for appointment of Gaonburah to 30 years. Therefore, he submits that the authority will issue a fresh advertisement in terms of the said notification wherein the age of 35 years has been brought down to 30 years. However, in any case, the petitioner would not be eligible as he has not completed 30 years of age. 6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials on record, particularly the Notification dated 26.08.2021, issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Revenue and D. M. Department. 7. The challenge to the impugned advertisement dated 01.06.2018 is Page No.# 4/5 essentially with regard to the requirement of 35 years of age or above for appointment of Gaonburah in terms of the executive instructions issued by the State Government. At the time of filing of the writ petition challenging the impugned advertisement, the petitioner was about 20 years of age, which was far below the prescribed minimum age requirement and even today the petitioner has not completed 30 years of age. 8. This Court, while issuing the notice on 25.07.2018, suspended the impugned advertisement dated 01.06.2018, for which, perhaps, there might not have been any selection process undertaken pursuant to the impugned advertisement for filling up of the vacant post of 07 No. charge Gaonburah of Baguribari Mouza under Chenga Revenue Circle. As noted above, the State respondents issued the Notification dated 26.08.2021 amending the executive instruction, particularly the Instruction No. 162, clause (I), in sub-clause (ii), whereby the requirement of minimum age of 35 years for appointment of Gaonburah has been reduced to 30 years, which is in vogue. 9. In view of above, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference as even under the amended executive instructions, the petitioner does not satisfy the minimum age requirement. The sole ground canvassed by the petitioner is that there is no prescription of age in earlier advertisements. Other than the above, no other ground is urged by the petitioner for which there is no reason to interfere with. It is not the case of the petitioner that the authority has no power to prescribe qualification including the minimum age for appointment of Gaonburah under the law. Rather, the authority has power and authority under the law to prescribe qualification for Page No.# 5/5 appointment of public post by way of executive instructions in the absence of any statutory Rules. Thus, no interference is called for as regards the prescription of age for appointment of Gaonburah. 10. Having considered that the requirement of the applicant to be 35 years for appointment of Gaonburah having been reduced to 30 years vide Notification dated 26.08.2021 and no ground is made out by the petitioner to interfere with the prescription of age, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant