IMPORTANT POINT
Candidates must be afforded due process and cannot be rejected based on mere suspicion, especially when they have secured higher marks than the last selected candidates.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. Challenging a selection process initiated by the respondents vide an advertisement notice dated February 27, 2011 inviting applications for the post of Constable in RPF and praying for issuance of appointment letters in favour of the petitioners, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The petitioners claim to be eligible candidates for the aforesaid posts of constable and participated in the selection process. After having successfully completed the written examination, the petitioners were permitted to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Measurement Test (PMT) at the second stage of the selection process. The petitioners having become successful at the second stage of the selection process were issued call letters by the authorities for them to appear in the viva voce. According to the petitioners, the petitioners participated in the viva voce and thereafter, the documents of the petitioners were verified by the authorities.

3. Upon completion of aforesaid procedure, the petitioners were required to proceed for medical examination. Accordingly, the medical examination of the petitioners was conducted by the designated medical doctors. Although, according to the petitioners, they had been declared medically fit and despite their names appearing in the panel of successful candidates, no appointment letters were issued. Being aggrieved thereby, the writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. Basu, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners, by drawing attention of this Court to the employment notice no.1 of 2011, submits that initially, 11952 vacancies under different categories were notified. Subsequently, however, during pendency of the selection process, additional vacancies were notified vide revised employment notice no.1 of 2011 wherein the total number of vacancies were increased to 17087 under different categories. By drawing attention of this Court to the original employment notice no.1 of 2011, which has been annexed to the report in the form of an affidavit affirmed on behalf of the respondents on 23rd July 2015, it is submitted that the said notice not only identifies the eligibility criteria but also categorises and provides for the methodology of recruitment.

5. According to Mr. Basu, recruitment is to be made based on written examination, PET, PMT, viva voce and document verification. The first stage of the aforesaid selection process is written examination and in General category, candidates must obtain at least 35% marks which is relaxed to 30% in case of SC/ST candidates. The petitioners not only succeeded in the written examination but also the PET and viva voce examination for which ultimately the petitioners were sent for medical examination test. According to Mr. Basu, once, the petitioners succeeded in medical examination test, the authorities are obliged to call the petitioners for training. Unfortunately, in this case, notwithstanding the names of the petitioners being published in the list of successful candidates, no appointment letters were issued inviting the petitioners for training.

6. Record reveals that when the writ petition was moved, by an order dated July 13, 2015, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had directed the Railway Protection Force to file a report in the form of an affidavit stating therein specifically as to whether the allegations made in the writ petition have any basis or not. Pursuant to the aforesaid, a report in the form of an affidavit has been filed by the respondents which had been affirmed on 23rd July, 2015. From the disclosure made in the said affidavit, it would be apparent that the respondents have contended that apart from the three petitioners, all other petitioners could not succeed in the selection process since they did not secure the cut off marks.

7. According to Mr. Basu, the candidature of Krishna Murari Kumar and Binod Kumar was rejected since, the LTIs’ of the concerned persons did not match with the