Pranjit Kakati vs State Of Assam And Ors

Heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J. Handique, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2, Mr.

G. Pegu, learned Govt. advocate appearing for respondents No. 3 and 4 and Mr. U.C. Rabha, learned counsel for the respondent No.5.

Owing to the nature of grievance raised in the present writ petition, this writ petition stands admitted for hearing by issuing rule returnable forthwith.

The matter has been heard at the instance of learned counsel appearing for all sides.

By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner projects that he is the son of ex-Gaonburah of Charge No. 4 of

Nagaon Mouza under Barpeta Revenue Circle. On the death of his father, the post of Gaonburah of the said charge fell vacant. Pursuant to

advertisement dated 03.05.2014, the petitioner along with two others including the respondent No.5 had applied for the said post. By issuing call letters,

the authorities asked the candidates to appear before the Interview Board on 05.11.2015. Accordingly, only the petitioner and respondent No.5 had

appeared before the Interview Board.

The case projected by the petitioner is that as there was no favourable report in respect of the candidature of the private respondent No.5, the

petitioner, who was the son of the previous Gaonburah, was expecting his selection and appointment as Gaonburah. However, with approval of the

Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta, the respondent No.4 i.e. the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, had appointed the respondent No.5 as the Gaonburah of

Charge No.4 Mouza Nagaon under Barpeta Revenue Circle vide order under Memo No. BRKG-32/2014/76 dated 25.11.2014. Aggrieved by the said

order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Lower Assam Division, Guwahati as provided under Instruction 162-B. The said

appeal was registered as case No. RR 298/2014 and the appellate authority by order under Memo No. RR 298/2014 dated 19.07.2016, upheld the

decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Barpeta to appoint the respondent No.5. The aggrieved petitioner has challenged the said two decisions before

this Court in the present writ petition.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied on the provisions of Instruction 162 of the Executive Instruction appended to the Part-III of

Assam Land Revenue Manual. The said instructions prescribe that in case of vacancy, the Deputy Commissioner shall take into consideration (a) the

claims of the family of the Late Gaonburah, (b) the wishes of the villagers, and (c) the views of the Mouzadar and shall appoint the person who he

considers most suitable for the post. The learned counsel for the petitioner also refers to the provisions of Instruction 162-A of the Executive

Instructions wherein the factors required to be taken into consideration in the matter of appointment of a Gaonburah are (i) the claims of the family of

the Gaonburah, (ii) the views of the Mouzadar, (iii) the suitability of the person for the post.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in order to demonstrate his suitability and the views of the villagers, the application

submitted by the petitioner for the post of Gaonburah was supported by a representation submitted by 245 villagers supporting his candidature. It is

also submitted that the views of the Mouzadar was heavily in his favour, thereby recommending his case for appointment as a Mouzadar. It is also

submitted that the Mouzadar had given his no objection for the appointment of the petitioner as Mouzadar justifying his reasons for such

recommendation and it is submitted that the Mouzadar has reported on 02.08.2014 that the other two candidates including the respondent No.5 are not

the members of the Gaonburah family and their names were not recommended by the Mouzadar. Hence, it is submitted that the appointment of the

respondent No. 5 was without considering the report of the Mouzadar and the suitability of person for the post in the absence of recommendation of

the villagers. Hence, it is submitted that the appointment of the respondent No.5 was taken without taken into consideration the requirements of

Instructions 162 and 162A insofar as it relates to (i) the claim of the family of Gaonburah, (ii) the views of the Mouzadar and in respect of the third

condition i.e. the suitability of the person, the recommendation of the villagers was not taken into account.

In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of (1) Pramod Chandra Roy Vs. State of Assam and Ors.,

2006 (2) GLJ 604 and (2) Fakar Uddin Vs. State of Assam and Ors., 2017 (4) GLT 1024, wherein this Court had interfered with the appointment of

Mouzadar on the ground that two out of three factors were not taken into consideration while making appointment in favour of the private respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in the writ petition, he has annexed the compilation of evaluation statement as

Annexure-9 series and it is submitted that the out of three Members of the Selection Board, the EAC, Barpeta who was one of the Members of the

Selection Board had made overwriting in respect of marks allotted to the respondent No.5 and it is submitted that thereby there was interpolation and

manipulation in the course of alloting of the marks of respondent No.5 and it is submitted that the selection of respondent No.5 stands vitiated because

of interpolations contained in the evaluation sheet.

The learned Govt. advocate has produced the records of appointment of Gaonburah of Charge No.4 of Nagaon Mouza under Barpeta Revenue

Circle and it is submitted that the selection process was carried out in a transparent manner and in the evaluation sheet appropriate marks were

awarded to the petitioner and to the respondent No.5, the only two candidates who had appeared before the Selection Board.

The learned standing counsel for the Revenue Department by referring to the provisions of the Executive Instruction No. 162-A submits that for

the purpose of selecting Gaonburah the only factors which are required to be taken into consideration are (i) the claims of the family of the

Gaonburah, (ii) the views of the Mouzadar, and (iii) the suitability of the person for the post. He also places reliance on the case of Pramod Chandra

Roy (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is submitted that even as per the said judgment of this Court, the views or opinion of

the villagers do not carry any weightage. By relying on the evaluation sheet, it is submitted that due marks were allotted under the broad parameters of

(i) relationship with the previous Gaonburah, (ii) opinion of the Mouzadar and (iii) suitability of the candidates. In respect of third factor i.e. suitability

of candidates, the marks were sub-classified into three heads, being educational qualification, personality and general awareness. It is further

submitted that the respondent No. 5 having found to have obtained marks higher than the petitioner was appointed as Gaonburah of Charge No.4 of

Nagaon Mouza under Barpeta Revenue Circle in accordance with the provisions of Executive Instruction No. 162-A. The learned standing counsel

for the Revenue Department had supported the appellate order dated 05.07.2016.

The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 has also reiterated the submissions made by the learned Govt. advocate and the learned

Standing Counsel for the Finance Department.

Having heard the learned counsel for all sides, the records produced by the learned Govt. advocate has been perused. The records reveal that the

Mouzadar, had given his opinion in favour of appointment of the petitioner and there was no recommendation for the appointment of the respondent

No. 5. It further appears that along with application submitted by the petitioner, the same was supported by the request of the villagers and others,

supporting the candidature of the petitioner. The claim of the respondent No. 5 was not supported by the recommendation from the villagers under

Charge No. 4 of Nagaon Mouza under Barpeta Revenue Circle. The records reveal that while the respondent No.5 was a graduate. The petitioner

was an HSLC pass candidate. On a query of this Court, the learned Govt. advocate submits that in the year 1997, the three years Bachelor course

consisted of two parts, the first and second year of decree course was covered by Part-I and the third year was termed as Part-II final examination.

This statement is not disputed at the Bar.

If that be so, as per records the respondent No.5 is a graduate. Therefore, the present dispute revolves around awarding of the marks by the three

Members of the Selection Board. The marks awarded separately by the three Members Selection Board are extracted below:

Evaluation sheet of interview for the post of Gaonburah Charge No.4, Village covered Batikuriha of Nagoan Mouza under Barpeta Revenue Circle

Held on 05.11.2014.

Name of Candidate/ Caste Relationship with Opinion of

Sl. Suitability of the Candidate Total Total

father’s name with Age with Sub the previous the Remarks

No. Mark- 20 Marks

address Caste Gaonburah Mouzadar

Education General

Personality

Qualification Awareness

Marks-5 Marks-10 Marks-5 Marks-5 Marks-10

A B C D E F G H I J

Pradip Kr. Patkak

1 S/o. Lt. Rajeshwar Pathak,44 GEN 0 3 9 4 4 20

Vill. Batikuriha, Mouza-

Nagaon

Hitesh Pathak

2 S/o. Lt. Rajeshwar Pathak, ABSENT

Vill. Batikuriha, Mouza-

Nagaon

Pranjit Kakati

3 S/o. Lt. Kumud Kakati, 28 GEN 5 4 7 2 1 19

Vill. Batikuriha, Mouza-

Nagaon

Evaluation sheet of interview for the post of Gaonburah Charge No.4, Village covered Batikuriha of Nagoan Mouza under Barpeta Revenue Circle

Held on 05.11.2014.

Name of Candidate/ Caste Relationship with Opinion of

Sl. Suitability of the Candidate Total Total

father’s name with Age with Sub the previous the Remarks

No. Mark- 20 Marks

address Caste Gaonburah Mouzadar

Education General

Personality

Qualification Awareness

Marks-5 Marks-10 Marks-5 Marks-5 Marks-10

A B C D E F G H I J

Pradip Kr. Patkak

1 S/o. Lt. Rajeshwar 44 GEN Nil 4 9 4 4 21

Pathak, Vill. Batikuriha,

Mouza- Nagaon

Hitesh Pathak

2 S/o. Lt. Rajeshwar ABSENT

Pathak, Vill. Batikuriha,

Mouza- Nagaon

Pranjit Kakati

S/o. Lt. Kumud Kakati,

3 28 5 4 7 2 2 20

Vill. Batikuriha, Mouza-

Nagaon

Evaluation sheet of interview for the post of Gaonburah Charge No.4, Village covered Batikuriha of Nagoan Mouza under Barpeta Revenue Circle

Held on 05.11.2014.

Name of Candidate/ Caste Relationship with Opinion of

Sl. Suitability of the Candidate Total Total

father’s name with Age with Sub the previous the Remarks

No. Mark- 20 Marks

address Caste Gaonburah Mouzadar

Education General

Personality

Qualification Awareness

Marks-5 Marks-10 Marks-5 Marks-5 Marks-10

A B C D E F G H I J

Pradip Kr. Patkak

1 S/o. Lt. Rajeshwar Pathak,44 GEN 0 3 9 4 4 20

Vill. Batikuriha, Mouza-

Nagaon

Hitesh Pathak

2 S/o. Lt. Rajeshwar Pathak,Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab Ab

Vill. Batikuriha, Mouza-

Nagaon

Pranjit Kakati

3 S/o. Lt. Kumud Kakati, 28 GEN 5 4 7 1 1 18

Vill. Batikuriha, Mouza-

Nagaon

It is further seen that in respect of marks awarded by Manas Saikia, EAC, Barpeta, there is an overwriting in respect of marks awarded to

respondent No.5, which is in respect of marks awarded on account of opinion of the Mouzadar, Educational Qualification and General Awareness.

The respective marks are now shown to be 3, 9 and 4 respectively. However, it is seen that in respect of the total marks awarded by the said

Selection Board Member, there was no overwriting. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, even if there was any

overwriting in the marks awarded, that was prior to the final marks of 20 awarded by the said Member of the Selection Board in respect of

respondent No.5.

From the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it appears that in the said cases, the Court had interfered with the selection process

on the ground that the three requisite factors were not considered while making selection for the appointment as Gaonburah. It would be relevant to

extract para 13 to 15 of the case of Pramod Chandra Roy (supra):

“13. It is evident from the records that factors namely, the claims of the family of the Gaonburah and view of the Mouzadar were not at all taken

into consideration while making such selection for appointment as Gaonburah.

As discussed above, as the Selection Committee required to take into consideration the aforesaid 3(three) factors while taking into consideration

such factors as provided under clause 162A of the Executive Instruction cannot be termed as legal and valid, the same being contrary of the said

Executive Instruction.

In view of the above, I set aside the order dated 06.04.2000, passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Revenue (LR)

Department and remit the matter to the Sub- Divisional Officer (Civil), Bajali Sub Division to conduct a fresh selection of the candidate from among

the persons who already submitted application for appointment as Gaonburah pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.12.1991 by taking into

consideration the requirements of clause 162A of the Executive Instruction and appoint the person so selected.â€​

Para 18 of the case of Fakar Uddin (supra) also reveals that in the said case, the records produced reflected that in all 30 marks were assigned on

three components i.e. (i) educational qualification, (ii) general knowledge, and (iii) experience and the 10 marks were allotted to each of the

components. In the present case in hand, the evaluation chart mentioned hereinbefore reflects that five marks were apportioned for opinion of the

Mouzadar and 20 marks were apportioned for suitability of the candidates with a break-up of 10 marks for educational qualification, 5 marks for

personality and 5 marks for general awareness. It is seen that as per final compilation in the below mentioned table show that a total of 61 marks was

obtained by the respondent No.5 and 57 marks was obtained by the petitioner herein.

Compilation of Evaluation Statement for appointment of Gaonburah in Charge No.4 Village covered Batikuriha of Nagoan Mouza under Barpeta

Revenue Circle.

Interview Held on 05.11.2014.

Name of Candidate/ Marks given by Marks given by Manas

Sl. Marks given by R.N. Sarma, Total

father’s name with concerned C.O. & Saikia, ACS, EAC & Remarks

No. ACS A.D.R. (R) & Chairman Marks

address member Member

A B C D E F F

Pradip Kr. Patkak

1 S/o. Lt. Rajeshwar Pathak, 20 21 20 61

Vill. Batikuriha, Mouza-

Nagaon

Hitesh Pathak

2 S/o. Lt. Rajeshwar Pathak, - - - - Absent

Vill. Batikuriha, Mouza-

Nagaon

Pranjit Kakati

3 19 20 18 57

S/o. Lt. Kumud Kakati, Vill.

Batikuriha, Mouza- Nagaon

Under such circumstances, this Court finds that while providing marks to the respondent No.5, none of the Committee Members gave any marks

to the respondent No.5 on account of relationship with previous Gaonburah, where the petitioner secure five marks out of total five marks allotted to

each of the members of the Selection Board. However, on a totality of the marks awarded, the respondent No. 5 is found to be selected.

This Court is of the considered view that save and except for the overwriting of marks by Manas Saikia, EAC, Barpeta, there is no material to

show that all the three parameters required under Executive Instruction 162-A were not considered by the Members of the Selection Board. In

respect of overwriting it is already indicated hereinbefore that the overwriting was done prior to the total marks being noted in the evaluation sheet.

Therefore, merely for said reasons, this Court is unable to set aside the selection process as the petitioner is not found to be prejudiced as the total

marks had not been corrected. In the further opinion of this Court, as marks were allotted to both the candidates in respect of the three components

prescribed in Executive Instruction No. 162-A, this Court would not direct a re-evaluation and to find out whether the awarding of marks was

justifiable or not. As the appellate authority had revisited the entire matter in appeal, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India would not carry out the exercise of re-evaluating the marks given by the 3 (three) Members of Selection Board. This Court finds

that the process of re-evaluation is not vitiated for not being in conformity to the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Pramod Chandra Roy

(supra) and Fakar Uddin (supra). Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection of the respondent No.5 as Gaonburah of Charge

No.4 of Nagaon Mouza in the Barpeta Revenue Circle.

Accordingly, the rules stands discharged without interfering with the selection process. As a result, this writ petition stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to cost.