MD MAINUL HOQUE CHOUDHURY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Rahman, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mrs. Kalyani Devi, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.

(2.) The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 5.1.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.5343 of 2008. The appellant herein was before the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition assailing the order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon. Through the said order, the learned Additional Deputy Commissioner had put on hold the process pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 5.9.2008 and had permitted the private respondent herein to continue as Gaon Burah in respect of Lat No.6 Singia Pathar under Juria Mouza, Nagaon District. The reason assigned was that the health of the private respondent had improved and, therefore, he would be in a position to continue as Gaon Burah. The appellant herein, who on the resignation of the private respondent herein, had responded to the advertisement notice dated 5.9.2008 inviting the candidature of the eligible persons to fill up the vacant post of Gaon Burah was, therefore, aggrieved by such order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner dated 21.11.2008. It is in that view, the said order impugned at Annexure-F to the writ petition was assailed.

(3.) The learned Single Judge while taking note of the contentions put forth had recorded a categorical finding that the private respondent herein had submitted his resignation to the post of Gaon Burah and the same was accepted and, in that light, was of the opinion that the order dated 21.11.2008 passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner was not justified. The order dated 21.11.2008 was, therefore, held as unsustainable and set aside. However, the learned Single Judge has allowed liberty to the official Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 of issuing a fresh advertisement for regular selection of a candidate to the post of Gaon Burah. The appellant, in fact, is aggrieved by only the said portion of the order directing a fresh advertisement since according to the appellant, the appellant having participated in the process pursuant to the advertisement notice dated 5.9.2008 would be prejudiced if a fresh advertisement is issued.