Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 as well as Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7.

2. As per the order dated 20.05.2016, notice to the respondent No. 5 has been deemed to be completed.

3. As per the proceedings of the Lawazima Court dated 07.04.2016, notice to the respondent Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 10 were received by the family members of the respondents concerned and the Lawazima Court held that the service was complete.

4. Accordingly, service is complete against all the respondents.

5. No one appears for the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10. The matter is being heard as ex-parte against the respondent Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10.

6. The advertisement dated 24.12.2014 was issued by the Police Recruitment Board to fill up 6748 vacancies in the post of AB Constable in Assam Police. The vacancies were notified district wise and in respect of Hamren Police District, 66 (sixty six) vacancies were notified.

7. Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of the 66 (sixty six) vacancies notified for Hamren Police district, 10% were reserved for women. As per the calculation made by the respondents, seven seats were reserved for woman. Out of the seven seats, no posts could be reserved for SC and ST (H) candidates. For ST(P) candidates, one post was reserved and for the OBC/MOBC, two posts were reserved. Thus out of the total 7 (seven) vacancies for women, 4 (four) vacancies were for the General candidates and 3 (three) vacancies were for the reserved candidates.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a female candidate belonging to the ST(H) category of Hamren Police district. She participated in the selection process and secured 61.50 marks. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had secured the highest marks among in the woman category, the petitioner was not selected and appointed to any of the 7 (seven) vacant posts reserved for women and instead the respondent Nos. 5 to 11, who had secured lower marks than the petitioner have been appointed.

9. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the final recommended list of candidates (ALL) in respect of the recruitment test held in 2015 should be set aside in so far as it relates to recommendation of the respondent Nos. 5 to 11 and a direction should be issued to appoint the petitioner to the post of Constable (AB) in Hamren Police district.

10. Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that the petitioner had availed of the benefits of reservation provided to ST(H) female candidates, inasmuch as, the petitioner had availed of the relaxation in height as allowed as per the advertisement. The petitioner having already availed of the eligibility criteria in respect of relaxation of her height, the petitioner cannot be considered for a post other than a post reserved for ST(H) candidates. He further submits that there was no reserved post for ST(H) category and as such there is no question of petitioner being given an appointment order.

11. Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that he has no comments to offer in the present case as a direction for appointment of the petitioner to one of the 7 (seven) post of Constable (AB) in Hamren Police district in pursuance to the selection process would not effect the respondent No. 7.

12. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

13. The chart, which is a part of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 is reproduced below:-

Respondent No.	Name as recorded	Sex as per record	Height in cm as per records	Caste/community as recorded	Total marks obtained in final as recorded	Remarks