Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010179552016 2026:GAU-AS:8646 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6207/2016 MD. SAMED ALI S/O MD. MONTAJ ALI, VILL. CHAKARAGAON, P.O. and P.S. DALGAON, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, LAND and REVENUE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DY. COMMISSIONER DARRANG MANGALDOI ASSAM 3:THE CIRCLE OFFICER DALGAON REVENUE CIRCLE P.O. DALGAON DIST- DARRANG ASSAM 4:KHAIRUL ISLAM LT. USMAN ALI R/O DALGAON TOWN P.O. DALGAON MOUZA- PUB-DALGAON PS. DALGAON DIST- DARRANG ASSAM 5:THE SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAMSEBA GUWAHATI-78102 Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M KHATUN, MR.M ALI,MR.A ALI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SEBA,MR.D K ROY BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 15/06/2026 Heard Mr. T K Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. A Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S Baruah, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. D K Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 3. This Court also finds that there is no representation on behalf of the respondent No. 4, although, the present matter was restored on a review of the order passed, herein, disposing of the present writ petition at the behest of the respondent No. 4. However, considering the nature of the order that is being passed in the present proceeding, presence of the respondent No. 4, is not considered to be necessary by this Court. 5. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 18.01.2016, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldai, appointing the respondent No. 4, as the Gaonburha of Chakara Village. 6. The petitioner in the present writ petition has projected that in pursuance to an advertisement dated 17.07.2010, issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Darrang, Mangaldai, inviting applications amongst others for the post of Page No.# 3/5 Gaonburha of Chakara Gaon, three candidates, including the respondent No. 4 had submitted their applications for appointment against the post of Gaonburha of Chakara Gaon. 7. It is projected that the respondent No. 4, was a resident of Dalgaon Khuti and accordingly, he was outside the Lot, wherein, the appointment of the Gaonburha was to be so effected. It is further projected that the respondent No. 4 did not have a landed property at Chakara Gaon. 8. It is to be noted that the petitioner, although, projects himself to be eligible to apply for recruitment against the post of Gaonburha, had not submitted his candidature, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 17.07.2010. The petitioner further projects that he had approached this Court earlier by way of instituting a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 6349/2011, assailing an advertisement dated 22.06.2010. The said writ petition was given a final consideration by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 10.06.2013 and the same was disposed of, with a direction to the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner to issue a fresh advertisement for recruitment to the post of Gaonburha of Chakara Gaon. Thereafter, in pursuance to the fresh advertisement, the petitioner also submitted his candidature. After the selection process was completed, the respondent No. 4, was placed at serial No. 1, while the petitioner was so placed at serial No. 2 in the select list so prepared. Basing on the select list so prepared, the respondent No. 4 was appointed as the Gaonburha of Chakara Gaon. The petitioner by contending that the HSLC pass certificate as produced by the respondent No. 4, to be a forged one and that in the first application submitted on 01.07.2010 by the respondent No. 4, he had projected his age to be 24 years, but in the second application, which was Page No.# 4/5 submitted on 24.06.2015, the age of the respondent No. 4 was shown as 25 years. Accordingly, the appointment of the respondent No. 4 effected vide order dated 18.01.2016 is prayed to be set aside. 9. The present writ petition on a consideration being made was disposed of, vide order dated 02.12.2016, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, interfering with the appointment of the respondent No. 4. 10. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 4, had preferred a review petition and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on considering the contentions raised in the review petition, proceeded vide order dated 25.03.2019 to recall the order dated 02.12.2016, passed in the present proceedings. Accordingly, the present writ petition was restored to its file and was listed for hearing. 11. A perusal of the order dated 25.03.2019, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Review Petition No. 11/2018, would reveal that the respondent No. 4, in pursuance to the earlier advertisement issued in the year 2013, had submitted a provisional certificate, showing that he had passed HSLC examination as a private candidate of Pub Dalgaon High School, bearing Roll B09-174 No. 3010 and was placed in the 3rd Division. The said provisional certificate, on verification of the details contained therein, was found to be false. However, the selection process as initiated in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 2013, was cancelled and subsequently, a fresh advertisement dated 09.06.2015, was issued for appointment against the post of Gaonburha in question. 12. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the respondent No. 4, had submitted his application showing that he had passed class-IX only and no Page No.# 5/5 certificate was found to have been submitted showing him to have passed his HSLC examination. 13. Accordingly, in the present writ petition, the challenge primarily being on the ground that the respondent No. 4, had submitted a false matriculation certificate, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having found from the records that the respondent No. 4, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 09.06.2015, having declared his educational qualification to be Class-IX passed, cannot be said to have relied upon a false HSLC Certificate. Accordingly, the selection and appointment of the respondent No. 4, on the above ground would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 14. In view of the above position and also considering the long lapse occasioning in the matter after the appointment of the respondent No. 4, was effected against the post of Gaonburha of Chakara Gaon, this Court is of the considered view that the claims made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. 15. Accordingly, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there would be no order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant