Supreme Court Allows Appeals in Head Gaonburah Appointment Dispute; Quashes High Court Direction Restoring Earlier Appointee. Uncommunicated Appointment Order Remains Provisional and Rescindable Before Communication Under Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945.

Case Note & Summary

The dispute concerned appointment to the post of Head Gaonburah of Simong village in East Siang district, Arunachal Pradesh, under the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945. In the North East Frontier Agency (now Arunachal Pradesh), the Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner formed the upper tier of administrative justice, while village authorities headed by Gaonburahs formed the lower tier. The village authority of Simong consisted of 24 Gaonburahs with a Head Gaonburah and Second Head Gaonburah. Following the deaths of the Head Gaonburah in 1993 and Second Head Gaonburah in 1990, the posts fell vacant. On January 17, 1994, a representation signed by five Gaon Panchayat members, two Anchal Samity members and eight Gaonburahs recommended Ojom Libang for Head Gaonburah and Atteng Sitek for Second Head Gaonburah based on seniority. Based on this, a note was put up before the Deputy Commissioner on January 27, 1994, and on January 31, 1994 the Deputy Commissioner approved the proposal and ordered issuance of appointment orders. A WT message dated February 15, 1994 was sent to the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Yingkiong, directing him to inform Ojom Libang and Atteng Sitek of their approval as Head Gaonburah and Second Head Gaonburah effective from January 31, 1994. Meanwhile, another representation dated January 27, 1994 signed by sixteen Gaonburahs and four panchayat members recommended Tagin Litin for Head Gaonburah based on his knowledge of customary law and social services. These representations were received by the Deputy Commissioner on January 31, 1994. After considering them, the Deputy Commissioner sent a WT message dated March 8, 1994 stating that no formal appointment orders had been issued and that the appointment of Ojom Libang and Atteng Sitek as per the February 15 message be kept in abeyance. Subsequently, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, after enquiries and merits assessment, recommended Tagin Litin for Head Gaonburah and Ojom Libang for Second Head Gaonburah. The Deputy Commissioner accepted this recommendation and by WT message dated April 19, 1994 informed that Tagin Litin and Ojom Libang had been appointed as Head Gaonburah and Second Head Gaonburah respectively. Feeling aggrieved by the April 19 order, Ojom Libang filed Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2035 of 1994 before the Gauhati High Court, seeking to quash the appointment of Tagin Litin and to continue as Head Gaonburah. The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the order dated January 31, 1994 and WT message February 15, 1994 constituted appointment of Ojom Libang as Head Gaonburah, and that he held a civil post from which he could not be removed without opportunity. The High Court quashed the April 19 order regarding Tagin Litin's appointment and directed that Ojom Libang continue as Head Gaonburah. Aggrieved, the State and Tagin Litin appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined whether Ojom Libang had been validly appointed as Head Gaonburah before the April 19 order. It reiterated the settled law that an order passed by the State or its functionaries must be communicated to the person affected to become effective; until communication, it remains provisional and can be rescinded. The Court stated that an appointment to a post postulates three conditions: (a) decision by competent authority to appoint a particular person; (b) incorporation of that decision in an order of appointment; and (c) communication of the order to the person being appointed. All three must be fulfilled for an effective appointment. The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner's order dated January 31, 1994 and the WT message dated February 15, 1994 satisfied conditions (a) and (b), treating the WT message as the order of appointment. However, there was no evidence that this order was actually communicated to Ojom Libang before the March 8 WT message keeping the appointment in abeyance. The petitioner's assertion of being informed was denied by the State in its affidavit, which stated that a letter from the Extra Assistant Commissioner dated February 5, 1994 had been received indicating rival claims and seeking advice, leading the Deputy Commissioner to keep the appointment in abeyance. The Supreme Court, applying the principle from Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, concluded that since the February 15 order was not communicated, it never became effective, and the Deputy Commissioner was free to reconsider the matter. Consequently, the April 19, 1994 appointment of Tagin Litin as Head Gaonburah was valid, and Ojom Libang could not claim to have been removed from a post he never effectively held. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment, and upheld the appointment of Tagin Litin as Head Gaonburah of Simong village.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Final Decision

The Supreme Court held that an order of appointment is effective only upon communication to the appointee; as the WT message dated February 15, 1994 was not proved to have been communicated to Ojom Libang before it was kept in abeyance on March 8, 1994, the appointment did not become effective; consequently, the Deputy Commissioner was free to reconsider and appoint Tagin Litin as Head Gaonburah by WT message dated April 19, 1994. The appeals were allowed and the High Court judgment was set aside.

Law Points