9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Petitioner was holding a civil post under the State of Assam. 2. Whether the Petitioner was dismissed or removed from his position in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the appointment of Respondent 5 as permanent 'Mouzadar' was made 'mala fide'. 4. Whether the Deputy Commissioner's decision was subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Whether the Petitioner was holding a civil post under the State of Assam The Petitioner argued that he was a public officer holding a civil post under the State of Assam, governed by the Assam Land Revenue Manual and a 'Kabuliyat'. He claimed that he was entitled to a legitimate expectation of not being removed without lawful grounds and a reasonable opportunity to show cause against any proposed action, as required by Article 311 of the Constitution. However, the court refrained from expressing an opinion on whether the Petitioner held a civil post, as it was deemed unnecessary for the resolution of the case. Issue 2: Whether the Petitioner was dismissed or removed from his position in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution The Petitioner contended that the appointment of Respondent 5 as permanent 'Mouzadar' amounted to his dismissal or removal without a reasonable opportunity to show cause, violating Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The court, however, concluded that it was not a case of dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311. The Petitioner was initially appointed to officiate as 'Mouzadar' on the security and responsibility of the permanent 'Mouzadar' and was allowed to continue temporarily until a permanent appointment was made. The court emphasized that the Petitioner was aware of the temporary nature of his appointment and had applied for the permanent position, indicating his understanding of the situation. The termination of his service upon the appointment of a permanent 'Mouzadar' was not considered a dismissal or removal but rather a natural conclusion of his temporary appointment. Issue 3: Whether the appointment of Respondent 5 as permanent 'Mouzadar' was made 'mala fide' The Petitioner alleged that the appointment of Respondent 5 was made 'mala fide' due to the influence of recommendations from prominent individuals. However, the court found no evidence to support this allegation. It was noted that the Petitioner himself had produced similar certificates to substantiate his qualifications. The court concluded that the certificates were merely evidence of the candidates' qualifications and did not prove 'mala fides'. The Deputy Commissioner's decision was based on the assessment of the candidates' qualifications and was within his discretion. Issue 4: Whether the Deputy Commissioner's decision was subject to judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution The court held that the Deputy Commissioner's decision to appoint Respondent 5 was not subject to judicial review under Article 226. The appointment was made in accordance with executive instructions and within the Deputy Commissioner's jurisdiction. The court emphasized that it does not act as a court of appeal under Article 226, particularly when the law confers no right of appeal. The Deputy Commissioner's decision was final, and there was no infringement of any legal right warranting interference by the court. Conclusion: The petitions were dismissed with costs, and the rules were discharged. The court found no violation of Article 311 or any 'mala fides' in the appointment of Respondent 5. The Deputy Commissioner's decision was final and not subject to judicial review under Article 226.
|
