KESHAB BAISHYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 2 to 7, Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for respondent No. 8.

(2.) The selection of the respondent No. 8 as Gaon Pradhan vide the impugned Notice dtd. 25/5/2022 is challenged in this writ petition on four grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the respondent No. 8 was not a resident of the concerned village i.e. Sanpara Parbat, which is one of the eligibility criteria required of a candidate. Secondly, that the respondent No. 8 was a member of a Political Party at the time of his selection as the Gaon Pradhan. Thirdly, the petitioner, who was the son of the retired Gaon Pradhan of Sanpara Parbat should have been awarded marks out of 10 marks allotted for members of the family of the Gaon Pradhan in terms of Clause G of the Advertisement dtd. 1/12/2021, which had not been done. Fourthly, preference was to be given to the family member of a Gaon Pradhan and the view given by the Mouzadar considered, which was not done.

(3.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner and the respondent No. 8 took part in the selection process for appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan, in respect of the village Sanpara Parbat, pursuant to an Advertisement dtd. 1/12/2021. The terms and conditions in the Advertisement dtd. 1/12/2021 stipulated that a candidate should be a permanent resident of the area in which they sought appointment to the post of Gaon Pradhan. Preference should be given to the family members of the Gaon Pradhan and views of the Mouzadar should also be taken into consideration. Further, a candidate was not to be a member of any Political Party and marks were to be allotted to the family of the Gaon Pradhan.