TAGIN LITIN ETC. versus STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 745 · Decided: 10-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

TAGIN LITIN ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH 
MAY 10, 1996 
[S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] 
B 
Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation. 1945-Clause 
5(1}-<Jaonburah (village authority )-Appointment-Requisites of-(1) 
decision by competent authority, (2) incorporation of decision in order, (3) 
communication of the order to appointee-Absence of communication of C 
appointment order to the appointe~eld, appointment not complete-The 
order remains provisional, until it is communicatecJ,..-All the requisites must 
be complete for an appointment to be effective. 
The dispute in the appeal is with regard to the appointment of Head D 
Gaonburah and Second Head Gaonburah in the village authorities of 
Simong village in Arunachal Pradesh who are appointed by Deputy Com-
missioner. The village authority consists of 24 Gaonburahs. On account of 
death of Head Gaonburah and Second Head Gaonbnrah of Simong village, 
the posts fell vacant and. a representation was sent to the Deputy Commis-
sioner (DC), recommending the name of '0' for Head Gaonburah and of E 
'A' for Second Head Gaon~urah. 
On January 31, 1994 'J;>C approved the said proposal and vide W.T. 
message dated February 5, l994 directed the Addi. Deputy Commissioner 
to inform '0' and 'A' about their respective appointments. In the meantime, 
other representations were received by the D.C. recommending the name of F 
'T' (the appellant) for Head Gaonburah and on March 5, 1994, Addi. 
. Deputy Commissioner informed the DC about the rival claims of 'O' and 
'T'. 
The DC, after considering the representations and the letter of Addi. G 
Deputy Commissioner, directed the Addi. Deputy Commissioner, to keep 
the appointment of '0' 'A' in abeyance vide WT message dated March 8, 
1994. 
Later, the Addi. Deputy Commissioner, after considering the relative 
merits, recommended the name of 'T' as Head Gaonburah and '0' as H 
745 
746 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS f1996J SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A Second Head Gaonburah which was accepted by the DC and vide WT 
message dated April 19, 1994, the Addi. Deputy Commissioner was in-
formed about the appointment of the appellant 'T' and '0', on the respec-
tive posts. 
'O' filed writ petition in High Court challenging the appointment of 
B 'T' which was allowed. Hence, this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : l.l. The order dated April 19, 1994, whereby 'T' was ap-
pointed as Head Gaonburah cannot be regarded as an order for removal 
C of the '0' as Head Gaonburah. [753-G-H] 
1.2. An appointment to a post or office postulates : 
(a) a decision by competent authority to appoint a particular person; 
D 
(b) incorporation of the said decision in an order of appointment to 
the person who is being appointed, and 
(c) communication of the order of appointment to the person who is 
being appointed. 
E 
All the three requirements must be fulfilled for an appointment to be 
F 
effective. [751-E-G] 
1.3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, conditions (a) 
and (b) were satisfied, but not (c). There was no communication of the 
order dated February 15, 1994 to '0' with regard to his appointment as 
Head Gaonburah. In the absence of any such communication, the order of 
appointment had not come into effect and thus, the order dated April 19, 
1994 cannot be regarded as the order of removal of '0'. [752-D; 753-G-H] 
1.4. In order to be effective, an order passed by the State or its 
G functionaries must be communicated to the person who would be affected 
by that order and until the order is ~o communicated,. the said order is only 
provisional in character and it Vt'ould be open to the concerned authority to 
reconsider the matter and alter or rescind the order. [751-C-D] 
Bachhittar Singh v. The State of Punjab, [1962] Suppl. 3 SCR 713, 
H referred to. 
-
TAGIN LITIN v. STATE [S.C. AGRAWAL,J.] 
747 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8247 of A 
1996 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order 27.9.94 of the Assam High Court in 
C. Rule No. 2035 of 1994. 
Shahid Rizvi and Sudhanshu Atreya for the Appellants. 
K.K. Venugopal, Ms. N. Saibia, Ms. Pratibha Jain Advs. with him for 
the Respondent in C.A. No. 8247/96. 
B 
Arun Jaitley, S.U.K. Sagar and Krishna Sharma for the Respondent C 
in C.A. No. 8248/96. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.C. AGRAWAL, J. Leave granted. 
These appeals arise out Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2035 of 1994 filed 
by Ojom Libang (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.