JUDGMENT :

Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

1. Heard Mr. K.R. Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. A. Gayan, learned C.G.C. appearing for the respondents.

2. By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have sought for setting aside and quashing the final selection list for appointment as Constables (General Duty) in Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF), Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles for Assam Zone. The petitioners are also seeking a direction for appointment of the petitioners in their respective preferential options or any other vacancies. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to cause an enquiry into the issue of preparation of the final selection list and to review the same.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by an advertisement published in the Employment News dated 15.12.2012, applications were invited for filling up of various vacancies in the above referred forces wherein it was mentioned that there were total 2608 vacancies out of which 419 vacancies were for the State of Assam and it was mentioned that there were 81 vacancies allocated for Assam in respect of Constable (GD) male/female of B.G. District of Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) and Assam Rifles. The recruitment process, cut-off marks for various categories etc. were indicated in the said advertisement. It was also indicated that those candidates who were declared unfit in the medical examination could appeal for being re-examined by a Review Medical Board and the candidates who meet the valid criteria were to be placed in the reserved list. It was also indicated that the persons who were in the reserved list would be appointed only against vacancies that remained after appointment of candidates from the main select list. It is further submitted that in the present case in hand even before communication of the final select list, a Review Medical Board was held and without preparing a reserved list of candidates who had cleared the Review Medical Board, their names were included in the main selection list.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that several candidates who had secured marks lesser than the petitioners have also been appointed and in this connection he has referred to a chart given in the writ petition containing the list of the petitioners, their respective caste and the marks obtained. It is also submitted that in the employment advertisement it was mentioned that with the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs, the respondent authorities had the discretion to divert candidates from surplus States to deficit States after accommodating all available candidates in such deficit States. In this connection it is submitted that as per the information collected by the petitioners, there are about 748 posts vacant in the neighbouring State of Arunachal Pradesh and, as such, as per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement, the respondents could have placed the petitioners as surplus candidates from the State of Assam to the State of Arunachal Pradesh and that by not doing so, the petitioners have been discriminated against. It is also submitted that for the purpose of such diversion there was no transparent policy and that the authorities were exercising their discretion arbitrarily and on pick and choose basis.

5. It is further submitted that the manner of selection was arbitrary, irregular, capricious and highly illegal. It is submitted that altogether they were 589 vacancies/posts for the State of Assam, but from the selection list it could be seen that the respondents had filled up only 370 vacancies and as such, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities should be directed to appoint the petitioners in 748 vacant posts for the State o