Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010120652021 2026:GAU-AS:8653 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3962/2021 MD. NOMIK UDDIN S/O- NAZIR UDDIN, R/O- VILL AND P.O. MAHAKAL, P.S. BADARPUR, DIST.- KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN- 788806 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE COMMISSIONER PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. PANJABARI GHY-37 3:THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF KARIMGANJ DISTRICT P.O. P.S. AND DIST.- KARIMGANJ PIN- 788710 4:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788710 5:THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BADARPUR DEVELOPMENT BLOCK BADARPUR KARIMGANJ PIN- 788806 6:THE SECRETARY Page No.# 2/7 MAHAKAL GAON PANCHAYAT VILL- MAHAKAL P.O. MAHAKAL P.S. BADARPUR DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN- 788806 7:MD. ABDUL HASIB S/O- LATE ABDUL AZIZ VILL. AND P.O.- MAHAKAL P.S.- BADARPUR DIST.- KARIMGANJ ASSAM. PIN- 78880 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H R CHOUDHURY, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR K BISWAKARMA (r-7),MS B DEVI (r-7),MR. S P CHOUDHURY (r-7),SC, PNRD BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 15-06-2026 Heard Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, P&RD Department, Assam and Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for requiring the respondent authorities to explain as to why the name of the respondent No. 7, was forwarded against the post of the petitioner, denying the petitioner regularization of his service although he had rendered 16 (sixteen) years of service against the post of Peon in Mahakal Gaon Panchayat. The petitioner has also assailed the denial of a reply under the RTI Act against a RTI application made by the petitioner seeking information. Page No.# 3/7 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was engaged by the President of the Mahakal Gaon Panchayat vide order dated 10-05-2005. The petitioner projects that after such engagement, he has been continuing in the services of the Gaon Panchayat on fixed pay basis. 4. The petitioner, in support of such contention has brought on record certificates issued to him by the authorities of the said Gaon Panchayat. There being a move to regularize services of persons working on casual basis, the petitioner approached the respondent authorities by way of preferring a representation dated 26-12-2019 and therein, prayed for regularization of his services. The petitioner again vide a representation dated 30-12-2019 approached the authorities questioning the forwarding of the name of the respondent No. 7, in place of the petitioner for regularization of his services by contending that the respondent No. 7 was not an employee of Mahakal Gaon Panchayat and had not served in the said establishment even for a single day. 5. The petitioner projects that in the list of casual workers working in the Gaon Panchayat, the name of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 7 has been included while the respondent No. 7 was shown to have been working since 03-03-1997, the petitioner was shown to have been working since 10-05-2005. Accordingly, he submits that the such projection has been made only with a view to deny to the petitioner, regularization of his services. The RTI reply made by the petitioner seeking information not having been responded to in the manner required by the respondent authorities, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the facts noticed, Page No.# 4/7 hereinabove, and has submitted that the petitioner was continuously serving in the Gaon Panchayat since the date of his initial engagement effected vide order dated 10-05-2005. On a query made by this Court, as to how the petitioner could have been engaged by the President of the Mahakal Gaon Panchayat, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as there was a necessity existing, the President of the Gaon Panchayat had proceeded to engage the petitioner. 7. Mr. S. Dutta, learned standing counsel, P&RD Department, Assam has disputed the very engagement of the petitioner being effected in the said Gaon Panchayat vide order dated 10-05-2005. He submits that there is no order available on records of the Panchayat, towards engaging the petitioner in the Gaon Panchayat in any capacity issued on 10-05-2005. He submits that there is further no record available in the Gaon Panchayat, of the certificates issued to the petitioner, which are annexed along with the writ petition. It is submitted that there is also no material to show that the petitioner at any point of time had received any remuneration from the Gaon Panchayat. Mr. Dutta has further submitted that the certificates as produced are forged one. 8. As regards the services rendered by the respondent No. 7, Mr. Dutta has submitted that the respondent No. 7 was appointed as a Peon in pursuance to the death of his father, which had occasioned while his father was continuing as a Gr-IV employee of the Mahakal Gaon Panchayat. He submits that as there was no post available the respondent No. 7, was engaged on temporary basis. It is further projected that the petitioner was never engaged in the Gaon Panchayat but he was employed as a Gr-IV employee in the South East Badarpur Cooperative Society Ltd. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Page No.# 5/7 materials brought on record not having established the engagement of the petitioner, his case for regularization of his services would not be permissible to be so considered. It is further projected that both the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 7 having claimed to be appointees in the said Gaon Panchayat and the dates of appointment being post 01- 04-1993, the cases of neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 7 would mandated for regularization of their services. 9. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 has submitted that the respondent No. 7, was initially engaged as a casual worker by the authorities of the Gaon Panchayat in pursuance to the death of his father, which had occasioned while he was working as a Gr-IV employee in the said Gaon Panchayat. It is submitted that the petitioner although considered for appointment on compassionate ground, he was not so appointed against a regular sanctioned vacant post and was continued on casual basis and such engagement continues till date. It is submitted that the engagement date of the respondent No. 7 is 03-03-1997 and even if it is assumed that the petitioner was also serving in the said Gaon Panchayat, the date projected by the petitioner of his such engagement being only 10-05- 2005, the respondent No. 7 is senior to the petitioner in the said Gaon Panchayat. However, it is submitted that the petitioner was never engaged for any nature of works in the said Gaon Panchayat. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 11. The very engagement of the petitioner in the Gaon Panchayat is disputed by the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities have further questioned the Page No.# 6/7 certificates produced by the petitioner in the present writ petition. It is also the projection of the State respondents that the particulars with regard to the engagement of the petitioner in the Gaon Panchayat is not found available in the records of the Gaon Panchayat. This Court finds that the engagement of the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 7 was by the President of the Mahakal Gaon Panchayat. It is not spelt out as to under what powers the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, were so appointed by the President of the Mahakal Gaon Panchayat when the resolutions purportedly adopted in this connection were not placed on record. Further, this Court finds that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 are post 01-04-1993 appointees, even if it is assumed that the petitioner was so appointed on 10-05-2005, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 are not entitled to have their services regularized in terms of the policy holding the field in the State. 12. As noticed, hereinabove, the petitioner has only questioned in the present writ petition the placement of the name of the respondent No. 7 to be above him for the purpose of regularization of their services. As noticed, hereinabove, this Court has found that even if the appointment of the petitioner is assumed to have been effected on 10-05- 2005 and that of the respondent No. 7, on 03-03-1997 both the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 would not be entitled to have their cases considered for regularization of their services being post 01-04-1993 appointees. 13. Accordingly, the prayer made in the present writ petition would not mandate acceptance from this Court. Consequently, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order Page No.# 7/7 as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant