The court emphasized the limited grounds on which it can interfere with the decision of the selection committee and upheld the principle of non-interference in the comparative merits of candidates.

JUDGMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - Heard Mr. S. K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Also heard Mr. A. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and Mr. M. Khanikar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 9, whereas Mr. B. Chetry, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 8.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved in not being selected for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (UD) under the Government of Assam. The challenge made by the petitioner to his non-selection for the said post is that while he had secured 198.5 marks in the selection process, persons who secured lesser marks than the petitioner have been appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (UD). Further, as he had passed graduation in the second division, he was awarded 6 marks, while similarly situated candidates were awarded 6/7 marks.

3. The brief facts of the case is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 01.01.2010, inviting applications for filling up 98 vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police (UD), the petitioner took part in the selection process. The petitioner secured 198.5 marks, which was higher than the marks secured by some of the selected candidates. The petitioner was not selected due to the petitioner not having secured the cut off marks of 25 out of 50 marks in the interview segment of the selection process, as required in the advertisement dated 01.01.2010.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that the allotment of marks in the interview segment to the candidates has not been uniform. While the petitioner had secured a total of 24 marks in the interview segment, he should have secured one extra mark for educational qualification, keeping in mind the marks allotted for educational qualification to some of the candidates, as reflected in the consolidated final result sheet of the selection test.

He submits that the educational qualification required of a candidate was Graduate in Arts, Science, Commerce or equivalent stream from a recognized college/institution. Further, due weightage was to be given to those having adequate knowledge and proficiency in computer. He also submits that while some of the candidates, who had secured 2nd division in the graduation course had been allotted 7 to 8 marks, the petitioner on the other hand, who had also secured 2nd division, has only been allotted 6 marks. In this respect, the petitioner's counsel has pointed out the marks obtained by the petitioner vis-a-vis the marks obtained by persons who are in the "consolidated final result sheet of the selection test", who are listed at Sl. Nos. 23, 49, 50, 56, 58, 74, 110, 119, 124, 150, 170 and 187. He submits that if the petitioner was allotted 7 marks for his educational qualification, he would have secured the cut off marks of 25 in the interview segment, due to which he would have been selected and appointed on the basis of overall marks secured by him.

5. Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the State respondents, has brought the official records for perusal. He submits that the candidates, who have been allotted 7 to 8 marks for educational qualification in the interview segment have been given the said marks on account of they being post graduate degree holders. He accordingly submits that as the petitioner, who is only a graduate, did not qualify in the interview segment as he had secured only 24 marks, the petitioner could not be considered for selection and appointment.

6. The counsels for the private respondents submit that all the private respondents have secured the cut off marks in respect of all the three segments of the selection process/tests required to be done and as such, there was no infirmity with the selection and appointment of the private respondents to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (UD). They also submit that the appointment orders of the private respondents had been issued on 08.12.2011.

7. I have heard the learned counsels for t