Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010071952025 2026:GAU-AS:5668 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/323/2025 KANDARPA BAISHYA S/O- LATE BANTI RAM BAISHYA, VILL- SANPARA PARBAT GAON, BONGSHAR, PS SULAKUCHI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM, PIN- 781103 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPTT, ASSAM SECRETARIAT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER LOWER ASSAM DIVISION PANBAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 ASSAM. 3:THE SELECTION BOARD FOR SELECTION OF GAON PRADHAN UNDER KAMRUP DIST. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AT KAMRUP AMINGAON ASSAM. 4:THE DIST. COMMISSIONER KAMRUP DIST. AMINGAON ASSAM. 5:THE ADDITIONAL DIST. COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/8 KAMRUP DIST. KARMUP (R) AMINGAON ASSAM. 6:THE CIRCLE OFFICER HAJO REVENUE CIRCLE DIST. KAMRUP(R) ASSAM. 7:THE MOUZADAR PUB BONGSHAR MOUZA SUWALKUCHI P.O. BONGSHAR DISST. KAMRUP(R) ASSAM PIN 781103 8:KESHAB BAISHYA S/O SRI LAL MOHAN BAISHYA VILL. SANPARA PARBAT BONGSHAR MOUZA-PUB BONGSHAR P.O. BONGSHAR P.S. SUALKUCHI DIST. KAMRUP(R) ASSAM PIN 78110 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.RUKMINI BARUA, MS. PADMINI BARUA,MS. RUKMINI BARUA,MS. P BHATTACHARYA Advocate for the Respondent : , MR. S K ROY (R-8),MRS. M M ROY(R-8),S MEDHI(R-8) For the Appellant(s) : Mr. T. J. Mahanta, Sr. Advocate. assisted by Ms. R. Barua, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. K. Roy, Advocate for respondent No. 8. Mr. S. Dutta, Standing Counsel, Revenue & D.M. Department. Page No.# 3/8 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 24.04.2026 (A.D.Choudhury, J). 1. We have heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. R. Barua, learned counsel for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. S. K. Roy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 8 and Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, Government of Assam. 2. This intra-court Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 26-09-2023, passed in WP(C) No. 4451/2022, as well as the Order dated 09-01-2025, passed in Review Petition No. 1/2024 by a learned Single Judge of this Court, both of which arise out of the same selection process to the post of Gaon Pradhan of Sanpara Parbat Village. 3. The dispute originates from the advertisement dated 01-12- 2021, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan. 4. The writ petitioner and the present appellant were the rival candidates. Upon completion of the selection process, the appellant came to be selected. The unsuccessful candidate Page No.# 4/8 approached the learned single judge contending, inter alia, that the selected candidate was ineligible as he continued to be a member of a political party; that he was not a resident of the concerned village; that earmarks under the notified criteria for family member of the earlier Gaon Pradhan and few of the Mouzadar were not accorded; and that the process was vitiated by non-observation of declared norms. 5. By the judgment dated 26-09-2023, the learned Single Judge accepted the challenge principally on the grounds of ineligibility and non-adherence to the prescribed criteria, set aside the selection and directed consequential action. 6. Thereafter, the selected candidate filed Review Petition No. 1/2024, relying on documents said to have been subsequently traced, including a letter dated 25-11-2021 allegedly evidencing resignation from political party membership. The Review Petition was dismissed on 09-1-2025. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition in view of the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal. 8. It is contended that the resignation from membership of Gaon Panchayat sufficiently established severance from political affiliation and that insistence upon a separate resignation from the political party was hyper-technical. 9. It is further argued that the Selection Committee substantially Page No.# 5/8 complied with the evaluation criteria and that the court erred in drawing adverse interference from the format of the mark sheet. It is also submitted that the consequential direction in favour of the writ petitioner exceeded the permissible limit of judicial review. 10. Insofar as the review order is concerned, it is urged that the subsequently traced resignation letter constituted material evidence which could not earlier be produced despite bona fide inability and therefore ought to have been considered by the learned single judge. 11. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent supporting the impugned order submits that the advertisement made non- membership of any political party an express eligibility condition. It is urged that resignation from the elected office of Gaon Panchayat is wholly distinct from resignation from party membership and that the appellant, having contested the earlier election on a party ticket, was bound to place cogent evidence of cessation of party affiliation. 12. It is further contended that where marks are allotted under published heads, the record must disclose due consideration of such heads; and the absence of such reflection justified judicial interference. 13. As regards alternative remedy, it is submitted that the rule is one of discretion and not compulsion, particularly where illegality is demonstrable on the admitted record. 14. On review, it is argued that a document allegedly authored by Page No.# 6/8 the respondent himself cannot be treated as newly discovered evidence unavailable despite due diligence. 15. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the materials on record, we are unable to persuade ourselves that any case of interference is made up. 16. The objection to the maintainability of the writ petition does not merit acceptance. It is settled that though the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy ordinarily dissuades the writ court from exercising jurisdiction, the rule is one of self-imposed restraint and not an absolute bar. 17. The learned Single Judge noted that the pleadings were complete, affidavits had been exchanged, and all necessary documents were available for adjudication. In our opinion, the decision to proceed with the writ petition was, therefore, in accordance with settled principle. 18. The principal issue concerns the eligibility of the appellant. 19. The advertisement prescribed that the candidate should not be a member of any political party. This was a threshold requirement and not a matter of form. A person who does not satisfy an essential eligibility condition cannot claim consideration for appointment. 20. Admittedly, the appellant had earlier held an elected office on a political party ticket. It was, therefore, incumbent upon him to establish by clear and cogent material that he had ceased to be a member of such political party before the relevant cut-off date. Page No.# 7/8 21. The materials relied upon before the learned Single Judge demonstrated resignation from the elected office of Gaon Panchayat, however, it did not conclusively establish resignation from political party membership. 22. That distinction is real and substantial. Public office and party affiliation are separate legal relationships; resignation from one does not, by automatic operation, terminate the other. 23. The burden of proving eligibility lies on the candidate who asserts it. In the face of ambiguity, the appointing authority could not presume compliance with an essential condition. The learned Single Judge therefore rightly concluded that the appellant failed to establish fulfilment of the eligibility criteria. 24. The submission that the consequential relief granted was excessive is also without substance. 25. Relief must be moulded to suit the facts of the case and to restore legality rather than perpetuate an invalid result. Where the selected candidate is found to be ineligible, and the field of competition is limited, the court is not powerless to issue consequential directions. We do not find any legal infirmity in the course adopted by the learned Single Judge. 26. Turning to the order passed in review, the foundation of the review petition was a letter dated 25-11-2021, allegedly evidencing resignation from the political party membership. The learned Single Judge rightly noticed that the document was one said to have been emanated from the review petitioner himself. If such a Page No.# 8/8 document existed, its existence was necessarily within his knowledge. If it had indeed been misplaced, the fact would have been pleaded during the writ proceeding. No such plea was taken. Its production only after an adverse verdict was, therefore, legitimately viewed with circumspection by the learned Single Judge. 27. The requirement of due diligence is not satisfied by a bare assertion of later discovery. 28. An Appellate Court does not interfere merely because another view is possible. Interference is warranted where findings are perverse, where relevant evidence is ignored, where irrelevant considerations prevail, where legal principles are misapplied, or where the conclusion is such as no reasonable judicial mind could reach. None of these vitiating elements is present in the case. 29. The learned Single Judge has considered the pleadings, evaluated the record, addressed the rival submissions and applied settled principles of law. The impugned orders are reasoned, lawful and just. 30. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed. 31. Parties to bear their own cost. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant