WP(C) 634/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Ms. D Borgohain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B J Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate representing the official respondents. 2. The petitioner who was selected for appointment as Gaonburha of Saaje Vi llage of Korora Mouza under Kamalpur Revenue Circle has moved this Court to chal lenge the order dated 8.12.2006 (Annexure-6) of the Commissioner, Lower Assam Di vision, whereby the petitioner’s selection has been set aside and a fresh select ion exercise has been ordered for the post of Gaonburha. The selection is held t o be vitiated by the Appellate Authority as the claim of the family of the late Gaonburha was not considered and secondly the view of the Mouzadar was not secur ed before the selection was made. 3. Mr. B J Ghosh, learned Govt. Advocate has referred to the averments made in Para.14 of the writ petition to show that the report from the Mouzadar was o btained on 15.7.2005 only after the selection was made on 23.6.2005. Secondly it is contended by the learned Govt. Advocate that the claim of the family of the previous Gaonburha is also required to be considered and since the claim of the respondent No.5 who is the son of the deceased Gaonburha late Phanidhar Sarma wa s not considered, the impugned order was rightly issued ordering for a fresh sel ection exercise. 4. Ms. Borgohain has tried to support the selection of the petitioner by co ntending that the candidature of the respondent No.5 was considered. But it is c learly seen that his candidature was not considered in accordance with the provi sions of Rule 162(A) of the Executive Instructions under the Assam Land and Reve nue Regulation (hereinafter after referred to as ’the Regulation’). The Regulati on clearly prescribes that in the matter of appointment of Gaonburhas, the follo wing 3 (three) factors are to be taken into consideration: (1) The claims of the family of the Gaonburha, (2) The views of the Mouzadar and (3) The suitability of the person for the post. 5. But in the instant case, only the suitability of the person was consider ed and the selection exercise did not taken into account the claim of the family of the previous Gaonburha and the views of Mouzadar was obtained only after the selection was over. 6. In such circumstance, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned i nterference has rightly been made by the Appellant Authority. Since his order is consistent with the provisions of Rule 162(A) of the Regulation, I see no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly the case is dismissed. 7. Since a fresh selection is to be made as per the impugned order, it is m ade clear that dismissal of the writ petition will not disable the consideration of the petitioner’s candidature along with other candidates, as per the provisi on of Rule 162(A) of the Regulations.