MAHAMMAD ALI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three writ petitions were filed challenging the appointment of one Md. Mokshed Ali as Gaonbura of Charge No. 8 of Paka Mouza under Sarthebari Revenue Circle in the district of Barpeta. Md. Mokshed Ali was arrayed as a private respondent in all the three cases. By common Judgment & Order dated 07.08.2013 all the three writ petitions were dismissed. The present appeal is filed by the writ petitioner in WP(C) 3519/2013. As such, adjudication is made on the facts and circumstances involved in WP(C) 3519/2013.

(2.) An Advertisement dated 09.02012 was issued for filing up the post of Gaonbura in Charge No. 8 of Paka Mouza. Interview was held on 06.06.2012 and on the basis of marks awarded under different categories individually by the three-Member Selection Committee, Md. Mokshed Ali was adjudged as the most suitable candidate. Consequently, appointment order dated 07.03.2013 was issued under the hand of the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta.

(3.) Learned Single Judge while rendering the Judgment & Order dated 07.08.2013 took into consideration the Executive Instructions under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulations, 1886, which governs the manner and method of appointment of Gaonburas. The record produced by the State Respondents was also looked into to test the manner of the award of individual marks by the three-Member Selection Committee. On such appreciation, the learned Single Judge found that Md. Mokshed Ali had secured the highest marks in each of the individual evaluation, securing a total of 77 marks. No infirmity having been found in the selection process and being satisfied that marks had been awarded by the individual Members of the Selection Committee on an objective criteria, reached the conclusion that Md. Mokshed Ali was the most suitable candidate on a comparative assessment of the individual merit of all the candidates. Countering the plea taken by the writ petitioners as regards the availability of alternative remedy, the same was not gone into since the learned Single Judge rendered decision on the merit of the case. The writ petitions, including WP(C) 3519/2013, were accordingly dismissed.