Point of Law: Rule 4A of Procedure of 2019 makes it clear that in case of direct recruitment select list can be prepared only on basis of interview.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. M. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr. D. Nath, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4. Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. P. Borah, learned counsel has appeared on behalf of the private respondent Nos.5 to 165.

2. By filing this writ petition the 21 petitioners have approached this Court challenging the select list dated 23.11.2022 prepared by the Assam Public Service Commissioner (in short, the APSC) for filling up 162 posts in the category of Veterinary Officer/ Block Veterinary Officer. The brief facts of the case are that on 22.07.2022, the Deputy Secretary to the APSC had issued an advertisement notice No.13/2022 inviting applications for filling up 162 vacancies in the category of Veterinary Officer/Block Veterinary Officer, Class-B, Class-I (Jr. Grade) under the Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Department by means of direct recruitment. In response to the advertisement notice dated 22.07.2022, the APSC had received as many as 695 applications out of which, 622 applications were found to be in order. The writ petitioners herein, besides the selected candidates, were amongst those 622 applicants. In the advertisement notice dated 22.07.2022 it was mentioned that the selection procedure would be notified later by issuing corrigendum/addendum, if required and that the Commission will decide the procedure of selection considering the status, cadre and grade or the number of applications received for the advertised posts. Accordingly, notification dated 02.11.2022 was issued by the APSC notifying the dates of interview. In the notification dated 02.11.2022 the candidates were also instructed to download their intimation letters from the APSC website. The notification dated 02.11.2022 had made it clear that the selection process would be based on interview of the candidates. It was also mentioned that the reject list will be uploaded on 07.11.2022.

3. After processing the applications, the list of the 622 candidates, whose applications were accepted, was published whereafter, interview was conducted by the APSC during the period from 14.11.2022 to 21.11.2022. There is no dispute about the fact that the writ petitioners herein had also participated in the interview. Eventually, the select list, containing the names of 162 successful candidates, was published on 23.11.2022. However, the names of the writ petitioners were not included in the select list dated 23.11.2022. As such, the present writ petition has been filed alleging that the selection procedure was dehors the rules and therefore, the select list dated 23.11.2022 was liable to be interfered with by this Court. By an interim order dated 29.11.2022 passed in this proceeding, the learned Single Judge had restrained the authorities from acting on the results published by the APSC on 23.11.2022 consequent to the advertisement notice dated 22.07.2022, as a result of which, no order of appointment has been issued in favour of the selected candidates i.e. the private respondents till date.

4. The APSC has conducted the selection as per the provisions of the Assam Public Service Commission (Conduct of Business) Procedure, 2019 (for short, the Procedure of 2019). The Secretary of the APSC has filed affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 stating that Rule 4A of the Procedure of 2019 permits direct recruitment to be conducted only on the basis of interview. Since the number of post was 162, which is less than 5 times the total number of applications, hence, the APSC had followed Rule 4A and invited all eli