Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010018012026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2484/2026 JELIMONI DEVI W/O SRI DILIP SARMA, R/O VILL. NIZ CHAMATA, MOUZA- DHARMAPUR, CHAMATA LAT NO. 3, P.O.- NIZ CHAMATA, P.S.- BELSOR, PIN- 781306, DISTRICT- NALBARI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT (LAND REVENUE) DEPARTMENT, JANATA BHAWAN, E-BLOCK, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NALBARI DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781335 3:THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (GAON PRADHAN) NALBARI DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781335 4:THE CIRCLE OFFICER PASCHIM NALBARI REVENUE CIRCLE DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 781335 5:THE DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS AND SURVEYS ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 RUPNAGAR GUWAHATI- 781032 6:SMTI RINKU MONI DUTTA BARMAN W/O SRI DIPJYOTI BARMAN R/O VILLAGE- NIZ CHAMATA MOUZA- DHARMAPUR P.O. AND P.S.- BELSOR DISTRICT- NALBARI ASSAM PIN- 78130 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A PAUL, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, REVENUE AND DISASTER MANAGEMENT DEPT BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 22.05. 2026 Heard Mr. A. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue, Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, questioning the selection of the writ petitioner. The petitioner had applied for and was selected as a Gaon Pradhan at Chamata Lat No. 3, Nalbari by an order dated 02.09.2024. This selection was assailed by the Private Respondent No. 6 before the Appellate Authority/ Respondent No. 5. By the impugned order dated 02.09.2025, the respondent No. 5 allowed the appeal, interfering with the selection of the writ petitioner. Being aggrieved the present writ petition has been filed. Page No.# 3/5 3. It is submitted that the appellate authority did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the selection in as much as the petitioner was merely selected and no appointment order was issued, therefore his order has been assailed before the writ court. 4. Mr. S. Dutta, learned Standing Counsel, Revenue refers to a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court being Writ Appeal No. 227/2022, whereby the conclusions of the coordinate bench was upheld that selection and appointment are interchangeable and when there is an alternative remedy specified, ordinarily the aggrieved person is required to approach the appropriate forum prescribed under the Rules or the Statutes unless it concerns an issue which cannot be decided by the said forum prescribed. 5. The judgment cited has been carefully perused and it is seen that the said judgment was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. Accordingly, the said judgment had upheld the findings of the Coordinate Bench. The relevant extracts of the said judgment is given below:- “The scheme of the Executive Instructions and the materials available on record clearly postulate that the respondent authority gave an advertisement for filling up the posts of Gaon Pradhan and after conducting viva voce the respondent No.4 has been appointed as Gaon Pradhan of Trilochan Village under Chamaria Revenue Circle. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants that it is not an appointment but a selection runs contrary to the provisions of Executive Instruction No. 162A as the same speaks of appointment. Similarly, the provisions of Executive Instruction No. 162B also speak of an appeal against an order of Page No.# 4/5 appointment. Only because the word “selection” is used, the same does not mean that no appeal would lie, inasmuch as the words “selection” and “appointment” are interchangeable and thus an alternative remedy is available as provided under Executive Instruction No. 162B. The provisions of Executive Instruction No. 162C provide for a second appeal and the provisions of Executive Instruction No. 162D provide for review of the order of the Commissioner. Thus, a full fledged alternative remedy and machinery is provided by the Executive Instructions and in such an event when the appellants have an efficacious alternative remedy which is required to be exhausted before exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly in the facts of the present case, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants are baseless and deserve to be negated. It cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has misinterpreted the provisions of law and has wrongly applied Executive Instruction No. 162B to the facts of the present case. As far as other contentions are concerned, the same are on merits and it would be open for the appellants to raise them before the appropriate forum. Resultantly, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with cost quantified at Rs. 5000/- to be paid by the appellants to the Assam State Legal Services Authority within a period of seven days from today. 6. As per the said judgment extracted above, a full-fledged alternative remedy and machinery is provided by the Executive Instructions and in such an event when the appellants have an efficacious alternative remedy which is required to be exhausted before taking recourse to the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court respectfully agrees with the conclusions and findings arrived at by the Division Bench in Page No.# 5/5 judgment and order dated 30.07.2022. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. 8. However, the petitioner is permitted to ventilate his grievances before the appropriate forum as provided under Clause 162 D of the Executive Instructions appended to the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886. 9. Since the petitioner is before the Court pursuing his remedy, the period of limitation shall be condoned by the concerned authority upon a review petition being filed within a period of 2 (two) weeks from today. 10. Needless to say, the Authority will hear the review petition in terms of Regulation 162 D, and will dispose of the said review petition as expeditiously as possible. JUDGE Comparing Assistant