BIJOY CHANDRA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Rules Nos. 17/53 and 54/53.

(2.) RULE No. 17/53 was issued on a petition of Bijoy Chandra Talukdar under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which a writ in the nature of mandamus or other appropriate writ was prayed for. Petitioner's case as disclosed in the petition was that one Profulla Chandra Barua of village Kamarkuchi, Mouza Upper Borbhag, District Kamrup was the Mouzadar of Upper Borbhag Mouza. Petitioner's father remained his sole surety for about 12 years. The 'Mouzadar' applied for one year's leave in April 1949. Leave was allowed. The Petitioner was appointed to officiate as 'Mouzadar' on 11 -4 -1949 by order conveyed to him by Memo No. 244 -R dated 11 -4 -49 from the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup. The order was to the following effect:

(3.) IN para 8 of the petition it was alleged that the Petitioner as 'Mouzadar' was a public officer and was holding a civil post under the State of Assam & the terms of his appointment and the conditions of his service were governed by the provisions of the Assam Land Revenue Manual and a 'Kabuliyat' executed by him as therein prescribed. He having acted as officiating 'Mouzadar' of the 'Mouza' in question for several years, was entitled to a legitimate expectation that he will not be removed from that office except on lawful grounds. It was further pleaded that he was not liable to be removed from his office of 'Mouzadar' till a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him had been offered to him as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. The correctness of certain observations bearing on the fitness of the Petitioner to act as 'Mouzadar' was also challenged and it was urged that if the Deputy Commissioner had given the Petitioner a chance he could have satisfied him on these matters.