Point of Law: Advertisement specifies securing of qualifying marks by the candidates, but it does not prescribe what would be the qualifying marks in each of the segments for selection of the candidate for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (AB).

Headnote:
Constitution Of India, 1950 – Seeking Relaxation - Upper age limit enable - Participation Selection - Petitioners are that an advertisement was issued by Additional Director General of Police (TAP) Chairman, SI (AB) Selection Board, inviting applications from Indian citizens, who are ordinarily a resident of Assam for filling up 115 posts of Sub Inspector of Police (AB). Minimum educational qualification prescribed was a graduate degree from any recognized university, age between 20 and 24 years as on, physical standard: - Recruitment test was prescribed to consist of 3 segments, written examination, physical test followed by interview - Merit list has been prescribed to be prepared on basis of aggregate marks secured in above mentioned tests - It was also prescribed that candidate shall have to secure qualifying marks in each of above segments - At relevant point of time, petitioner in WP(C) 3524/2011 was working as Constable at Assam Police Radio Organization and the petitioner in WP(C) 1750/2011 was working as Constable at Assam Police Battalion and as petitioners were over aged for participation in selection to be held in terms of advertisement they had filed WP(C) No.2121/2008 seeking a direction for relaxation of their upper age limit to enable participation in selection process
Finding of the court: Petitioners herein however have not prayed for quashing of selection held and select list furnished to petitioners by respondent authorities whereby as many as 115 candidates have been selected, which select list has been annexed as Annexure 7 in WP(C) 3524/2011 and annexure 5 in WP(C) 1750/2011 - Court could have set aside one appointment of private respondent in each of writ petitions, who had secured lowest marks, but on perusal of select list of 115 candidates, it is found that there are other candidates, who have secured lesser marks than respondent in each of writ petitions - Therefore, it would be unfair and unjust to interfere with selection of respondent in each of writ petitions, when there are candidates in select list on 115 candidates, who scored even lesser marks than respondent in two writ petitions. It, therefore, follows that it is two candidates, who had secured lowest marks in select list of 115 candidates, whose selection could have been set aside by court after selection concluded pursuant to advertisement have been found to be hit by principle of law laid down in case - However, candidates, who have secured lowest marks in select list prepared pursuant to selection held in terms of advertisement being not before Court, no any relief can be given to petitioners in facts and circumstances of case
Result: Writ petitions disposed

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. N. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 3524/2011, Mr. M.H. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 1750/2011 and Mr. R. Dhar, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. WP(C) 3524/2011 and WP(C) 1750/2011 have been filed seeking appointment of the petitioners as Sub-Inspector of Police (AB) in pursuant to advertisement dated 17.12.2008 issued by the Additional Director General of Police (TAP) Chairman, SI (AB) Selection Board, inviting applications for filling-up of 115 posts of Sub Inspector of Police (AB), by setting aside the appointment of the candidates, who had secured lesser marks than the petitioners.

3. The brief facts of the case of the petitioners are that an advertisement dated 17.12.2008 was issued by the Additional Director General of Police (TAP) Chairman, SI (AB) Selection Board, inviting applications from the Indian citizens, who are ordinarily a resident of Assam for filling up 115 posts of Sub Inspector of Police (AB). Minimum educational qualification prescribed was a graduate degree from any recognized university, age between 20 and 24 years as on 01.01.2008, physical standard: minimum hight-5’3”, chest measurement-78.5cm (normal) 83.5cm (expanded). The recruitment test was prescribed to consist of 3 segments, written examination, physical test followed by interview. Merit list has been prescribed to be prepared on the basis of aggregate marks secured in the above mentioned tests. It was also prescribed that the candidate shall have to secure qualifying marks in each of the above segments. At the relevant point of time, the petitioner in WP(C) 3524/2011 was working as Constable at Assam Police Radio Organization and the petitioner in WP(C) 1750/2011 was working as Constable at Assam Police Battalion and as the petitioners were over aged for participation in the selection to be held in terms of advertisement dated 17.12.2008, they had filed WP(C) No.2121/2008 seeking a direction for relaxation of their upper age limit to enable participation in the selection process.

4. In Misc. Case No.1623/2009 filed in WP(C) No.2121/2008 by the petitioners, this Court by order dated 22.06.2009 had allowed participation of the petitioners in the selection process to be held in pursuant to advertisement dated 17.12.2008. The result of the petitioners however was directed not to be declared without further orders of this Court. In pursuant thereto, the petitioners along with others had participated in the selection test held in pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.12.2008. WP(C) No.2121/2008 was disposed of by this Court by order dated 22.04.2010 directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners for relaxation of their upper age limit and in the event, the upper age relaxation of the petitioners are considered favorably, to declare the result of the petitioners in the selection held in pursuant to advertisement dated 17.12.2008.

5. The result of the petitioner in WP(C) 3524/2011 was intimated by the Assistant Inspector General of Police(T), Assam, Ulubari by his letter under Memo No.TAP/C/RTI/11/442 dated 27.05.2011, wherein it was indicated that the petitioner had secured 147 marks in written test, 40 marks in physical test and 19 mark in personal interview, the aggregate of which makes it to 206. Likewise, the result of the petitioner in WP(C) 1750/2011 was intimated by the Assistant Inspector General of Police(T), Assam, Ulubari by his letter under Memo No.TAP/C/RTI/420 dated 01.03.2011, wherein it was indicated that the petitioner had secured 144 marks in written test, 47.5 marks in physical test and 23 mark in personal interview, the aggregate of which makes it to 214.5. In addition to the result of the petitioners, select list of 115 candidates was also furnished to the petitioners, which has been annexed as Annexure-7 in WP(C) 3524/2011 and Annexure-5 in WP(C) 1750/2011. The petitioners, however, were informed by an order dated 09.0

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2021 Supreme(Gau) 462

Point of Law: Advertisement specifies securing of qualifying marks by the candidates, but it does not prescribe what would be the qualifying marks in each of the segments for selection of the candidate for the post of Sub Inspector of Police (AB).

Cases Referred (1)