LAKSHYA MEDHI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the writ petitions raising the issue relating to appointment as Mandal under the Deputy Commissioner, Sonitpur have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. Both the petitioners are desirous of appointment as Mandal on the basis of the selection that was conducted in 2009. As would be evident from the minutes of the Selection Board, both the petitioners were provisionally recommended as in their case a clarification in reference to a WT message dated 04/02/2009 was sought for. Both the petitioners are holders of certificate of Survey under Rule 13 of the Assam Land Records Manual. Be it stated here that the provisions thereof are only executive instructions and not statutory rules. As per the said executive instructions (Rule 13), if a person who has not secured a Certificate of Survey, without assistance of any other person in the course of survey actually surveys independently 500 bighas of land and an Officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer checks the said survey and finds the same correct then on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner or the Settlement Officer the Director of Land Records may grant Survey Certificate. Such Certificate holder Mandal is to be sent within two years for training to Survey School.

(2.) It appears that pursuant to the process initiated towards derecognition of the aforesaid provisions entitling the person to get certificate of Survey, a WT message dated 04/02/2009 was issued by all the Deputy Commissioners of the Districts and also to the Director, Land Records, Assam and Settlement Officers throughout the State by the Government of Assam in the Revenue and DM (LR) Department. By the said WT message, the Government decision to fill up the vacant posts of Mandals only through those candidates who had passed RCCC Certificate Training Course from the Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre was conveyed. By the said WT message, the certificates which used to be issued in reference to the provision of earlier Rule 13 had been done away with. In fact, in the advertisement that was issued on 08/02/2009 inviting candidatures for six posts of Mandals, the qualification laid down was HSLC passed along with the RCCC training from Assam Survey and Settlement Training Centre, Guwahati. Thus, the qualification of the petitioners as regard the certificate of Survey for which they had been issued with the certificates by the Director of Land Records in reference to earlier Rule 13 was expressly excluded. However, it is the case of the petitioners that since their candidatures were accepted and were also recommended form appointment. The said WT message followed by the subsequent clarifications, more particularly, the clarification vide letter dated 02/04/2009 could not have been made applicable to their case as by the time the clarification dated 02/04/2009 had come to be issued, the selection was already over. Thus in a nutshell, it is the case of the petitioners that the amendment to Rule 13 referred to above cannot have retrospective application so as to exclude the petitioners from the purview of the selection and appointment.

(3.) I have heard Mr. K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions. I have also heard Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State Counsel and so also Mr. M. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, DLR. I have also perused the entire materials on record.