WA 164/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. SARMA (Amitava Roy, J) The judgment and order dated 16.05.2011 passed in WP(C) No.453/2009 negating the challenge of the present appellant as writ petitioner therein to the selection of the Respondent No.5 as Moslem Marriage Registrar at Katigorah in the district of Cachar constitutes the subject matter of challenge in the instant writ appe al. We have heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. M. Choudhur y, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, Mr. R.K. Adhikary, l earned State Counsel and Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for Respon dent No.5. By notice dated 20.01.2007 , the District Registrar, Cachar invited applications from the candidates specifying the norms of eligibility as mentioned therein fo r the post of Moslem Marriage Registrar and Kazi at Katigorah in the district of Cachar. As admittedly, both the appellant and the Respondent No.5 had conforme d to such conditions of eligibility, it is inessential to dilate on that aspec t. The Permanent Committee contemplated by the Assam Moslem Marriage and Divorce R egistration Rules, 1935 (hereinafter for short referred to as the Rules), eventu ally, in its proceedings held on 20.12.2008 vide its resolution No.8, recommende d the Respondent No.5 to be the Moslem Marriage Registrar and Kazi (for short he reinafter referred to as the MMR) at Katigoarh in the district of Cachar. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant instituted the aforementioned writ petition wh ich by the judgment and order assailed herein, has been dismissed. Mr. Bhuyan has empathically urged with reference to Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules, a s well as the notice dated 20.01.2007 that the purported selection of the Respon dent No.5 being in utter disregard to the relevant factors bearing on the merit and suitability of the candidates for the post involved, it is non est in law. Drawing the attention of this Court to the testimonials of the appellant, more p articularly his superior academic achievements, the learned counsel has sought t o underline that as he (appellant) is more academically qualified than the Respo ndent No.5, the selection of the latter is patently arbitrary and in violation o f the letter and spirit of Rule 4 of the Rules and is thus null and void. Accor ding to Mr. Bhuyan, the Permanent Committee did neither examine the suitability of the candidates in the right perspective and mechanically hand picked the Resp ondent No.5, even without holding any interview to evaluate the comparative meri t and worth. In support of his contentions, Mr. Bhuyan has placed reliance on t he decision of this Court rendered in SAFIQUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY (MD) -VS- STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 1998 (2) GLT 255. The learned counsel for the official respondents have urged that it being appare nt from the proceedings of the Permanent Committee that the Selection of the Res pondent No.5 had been on the basis of relevant factors, in absence of any overw helming evidence of illegality vitiating the same, no interference is warranted. Mr. M. Choudhury, in particular, has underlined that the selection had been base d on the testimonials of the candidates as decided by the Permanent Committee an d that absence of interview has not vitiated the exercise in any manner. Accordi ng to him, neither the Assam Moslem Marriage and Divorce Registration Act, 1935 Act (for short referred to as the Act) nor the Rules prescribes any particular m ode of selection and in that premise the process undertaken by the Permanent Com mittee, by no means can be denounced as illegal and invalid. The learned Senior counsel for the Respondent No.5 while endorsing the above has submitted with reference to Rule 7 that as in any view of the matter, the selec tee as a probationer for being confirmed would have to appear and pass the test as contemplated therein, in absence of any vitiating factor vis-à-vis the select ion process, the instant challenge lacks in merit and thus the appeal ought to b e dismissed. The pleadings on record and the arguments advanced, have received the due consid eration of this Court. Rule 3 and Rule 4 which are of decisive bearing on the p resent adjudication are extracted hereinbelow: 3. Form of application. The District Registrar’s nominations shall be submitte d to the Inspector General of Registration to be placed before the Permanent Com mittee and shall be accompanied by the original application of the candidate in the following form, together with a certificate of good moral character, and eit her a certificate that he has passed the Assam Senior Madrassa Final Examination or a certificate that he possesses a sufficient acquaintance with the Arabic la nguage and the Moslem Law of Marriage and Divorce, signed by three Muhammadan ge ntlemen of respectability and position. 4. Who may be nominated. Candidates for permanent posts of Moslem Registrar wil l be preferred if they have passed the Assam Senior Madrassa Final Examination; and they must be of good moral character. In the selection of Moslem Registrar preference shall ordinarily be given to candidates who are native of or domicile d in Assam and who reside at a convenient place within the limits of the jurisdi ction proposed; but no person shall be nominated a Moslem Registrar merely by re ason of some supposed hereditary right. The fact that a person is a pensioner s hall not be a bar. A plain reading of the quotes referred to hereinabove would reveal that at the f irst instance, the District Registrar has to nominate a sufficient number of per sons possessing qualifications specified in Rule 3 to be licenced as Moslem Regi strar. The said nominations have to be thereafter submitted before the Inspector General of Registration to be placed before the Permanent Committee to be accom panied by the original applications of the candidates in the prescribed form. T he academic qualification of the candidates to be eligible has been spelt out in Rule 3. Rule 4 indicates that a selection of the Moslem Registrar would have t o be made by the Permanent Committee and in doing so preference would ordinarily be given to candidates who are natives of or domiciled in Assam and who reside at a convenient place within the limits of the jurisdiction proposed. Visibly t hough, a selection is essentially to be made by the Permanent Committee, as is apparent from a conjoint reading of Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the Rules, no procedure as such has been prescribed to be mandatorily followed by it (Permanent Committ ee). For that matter, there is no requirement as well to hold an interview of t he candidates under consideration. The call letter issued on 29.11.2008 to the candidates instructed them to appear in the Office of the Inspector General of Registration, Assam on 20.12.2008 alo ngwith their original certificates. The writ petition discloses that the petitio ner, accordingly, appeared on the aforementioned date with his testimonials. It is submitted at the Bar that the other candidates as well appeared on the very s ame date alongwith the original certificates, copies whereof had been appended t o their applications for the post. Resolution 8 of the Permanent Committee adopted in its meeting held on 20.12.200 8 for the selection of the M.M.R. and relevant for the instant proceeding is quo ted hereinbelow: Resolution No.8: Out of 13 (Thirteen) candidates for the post of MMR at Katigo rah, the Permanent Committee after threadbare discussion and examination of all testimonials in support of their candidature, the Permanent Committee recommende d the selection of Md. Abdul Khaleque to be the MMR at Katigorah in the district of Cachar. The Permanent Committee accordingly requested Chairman to take nece ssary steps on the matter as early as possible. It would appear from the contents of the resolution that the Permanent Committee selected the Respondent No.5 after a threadbare discussion and on a scrutiny of all testimonials of the candidates under consideration. The selection of the R espondent No.5 by the Permanent Committee, therefore, evidently had been on the basis of the scrutiny of the testimonials as demonstrated by the aforementioned resolution. In absence of any procedure statutorily prescribed, in our view the Permanent Committee had the authority to work out its own procedure/mode of sele ction. In that view of the matter, in absence of any obvious vitiating factor, t he procedure adopted by the Permanent Committee and its recommendation in favour of the Respondent No.5 cannot per se be faulted with. The plea based on superi or academic qualification of the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of t he case lacks persuasion. In SAFIQUL ISLAM CHOUDHURY (MD) -VS- STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. (Supra), the challeng e to the candidate selected was mounted on the plea that weightage to his qualif ication and local residence was misplaced and uncalled for vitiating his selecti on. This Court negated the challenge observing that those determinants were not irrelevant vis-à-vis the process of evaluation of a candidate for the post of M oslem Registrar. This in our opinion does not signify that non consideration of higher academic qualification ipso facto in a given selection would invalidate the selection. Apart therefrom, having regard to the materials on record as wel l as the resolution of the Permanent Committee, it is not possible as well to co nclude that the academic qualification of the appellant had gone unnoticed while recommending the Respondent No.5. In absence of any unimpeachable pointer to t hat effect, the selection of the Respondent No.5 cannot be interfered with on th is count as well. Before parting, it is worthwhile to note that a similar challenge laid before th is Court in WP (C) No.504/2009 however relating to a selection to the same post at Baghabazar in the district of Cachar had been dismissed taking note amongst others of the same procedure adopted by the permanent Committee in recommending the candidate involved therein. Though, the fronts of challenge to the selectio n therein were not identical to the one as posed in the instant appeal, the fact that the mode of selection was not disapproved is of consolidating relevance. On a totality of the considerations as hereinabove, this appeal lacks in merit a nd is dismissed. No costs.