GAUHATI HIGH COURT ISSUES ORDER ON AMZAD HUSSAIN V/S THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 24 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 25:

1. Heard Mr. M. U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 5. Also heard Mr. D. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 and Mr. M. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

2. The appellant has put to challenge the order dated 11.05.2023, by which he was removed from the post of President of the School Management and Development Committee (SMDC) of Shawrachara M.K. High School, on the ground that he had crossed the age of 66 years on the date he was appointed, i.e., 09.01.2023.

3. The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant was nominated as President of the SMDC of the said school, vide order dated 09.01.2023. However, by the impugned order dated 11.05.2023, the appellant was removed as President of the SMDC, on the ground that he had crossed 66 years of age.

4. The appellant's counsel submits that though the appellant had crossed 66 years of age as on 09.01.2023, the appellant could not be made to suffer due to bureaucratic delay in appointing him as President of the SMDC, as he was selected as the President on 04.10.2021.

5. The guideline for appointment of the President of the SMDC requires that a person should not be 65 years of age on the date of his appointment. The letter dated 04.10.2021, issued by the Principal of the said school, shows that the appellant's age as on 01.01.2021 was 64 years of age. As such, on 09.01.2023, when the appellant was appointed as the President of the SMDC, the appellant had already crossed 66 years of age. As such, there was no infirmity with the removal of the President as the President of the SMDC, vide the impugned order dated 11.05.2023. Though the appellant's counsel has tried to make out a case that the appellant should not be made to suffer due to the delay in making appointment of the appellant as the President of the SMDC, vide the order dated 09.01.2023, we have noticed that no challenge has been made to the order dated 09.01.2023 by the appellant. In fact, no pleading had been made by the appellant with regard to the alleged illegality of the order dated 09.01.2023.

6. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 29.01.2024 passed in WP(C) 3310/2023.

7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.