COMMISSIONER SIBSAGAR Vs. NURUL ISLAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Respondent was appointed as a temporary Mondal on 11-6-1956 and thereafter on May 27, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner of Sibsagar appointed him permanently as a Mondal for Morongi Mauza in Golaghat Circle, in the very Mauza where he was previously working as a temporary hand. He was fully qualified to be appointed as a permanent Mondal. He was not living within that circle. He was living within two miles from that circle. Therefore, while appointing him permanently, the Deputy Commissioner granted him exemption under Rule 6 (2) of the Appointment and Qualifications Rules in the Land Records Manual. The Second Respondent Debo Kanta Bora appealed against the order of appointment of the first Respondent to the Director of Land Records. The Director set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and appointed Bora as a Mondal on the sole ground that he resided within the Mauza. As mentioned earlier, the first Respondent was working as a temporary Mondal for nearly 8 years in that very Mauza. This aspect was totally ignored by the Director.

(2.) Aggrieved by the Order of the Director, the first Respondent moved the High Court of Assam under Article 226 of the Constitution. At the hearing of the petition, it was conceded on behalf of the Government that there were no rules providing for an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner. On the basis of that concession, the High Court quashed the order of the Director of Land Records.

(3.) Thereafter the State of Assam moved the High Court to review its order on the ground that the concession made at the hearing of the Writ Petition that there are no rules providing for an appeal was an erroneous concession. It was said that there were rules providing for appeal to the Director of Land Records as against the order of appointment made by any Deputy Commissioner. The High Court dismissed the Review Petition, but granted certificate to the State of Assam to appeal to this Court.