He was number living within that circle.
Director set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and appointed Bora as a Mondal on the sole ground that he resided within the Mauza.
As mentioned earlier, the first Respondent was working as a temporary Mondal for nearly 8 years in that very Mauza.
This aspect was totally ignored by the Director.
On the basis of that companycession, the High Court quashed the order of the Director of Land Records.
Aggrieved by the Order of the Director, the first Respondent moved the High Court of Assam under Article 226 of the Constitution.
It was said that there were rules providing for appeal to the Director of Land Records as against the order of appointment made by any Deputy Commissioner.
He was living within two miles from that circle.
At the hearing of the petition, it was companyceded on behalf of the Government that there were numberrules providing for an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner.
The Second Respondent Debo Kanta Bora appealed against the order of appointment of the first Respondent to the Director of Land Records.
Thereafter, the State of Assam moved the High Court to review its order on the ground that the companycession made at the hearing of the Writ Petition that there are numberrules providing for an appeal was an erroneous companycession.
Therefore, while appointing him permanently, the Deputy Commissioner granted him exemption under Rule 6 2 of the Appointment and Qualifications Rules in the Land Records Manual.
He was fully qualified to be appointed as a permanent Mondal.
S. Hegde, J. The Respondent was appointed as a temporary Mondal on 11 6 1956 and thereafter on 27 5 1964, the Deputy Commissioner of Sibsagar appointed him permanently as a lytondal for Morongi Mauza in Golaghat Circle, in the very Mauza where he was previously working as a temporary hand.
