The decision-making process in a speaking order must be legal and supported by cogent reasons, and a court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to examine the legality of the decision.

1.406 nos. of individuals and their Association have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a claim for their appointment for the posts of Police Constable in the Assam Police pursuant to a recruitment process which was initiated vide an advertisement dated 17.01.2000.

2. There is a history of previous litigations and a brief narration is given hereunder for better appreciation.

3. The Association had approached this Court by filing various writ petitions claiming appointment of the petitioners as constables. The said writ petitions including WP(C)/8637/2004 were disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 15.12.2005 with an observation that if the petitioners were selected, their cases are required to be considered. Accordingly, a representation was filed by the petitioner Association to the Addl. DGP, Assam which was forwarded to the Home Department vide a forwarding letter dated 12.12.2012. Vide the said forwarding letter, it was observed that as per the Fact-Finding Committee, the petitioners were found to be selected and therefore, their claim could not be ruled out. However, the records were destroyed and therefore, the matter was left to the Government for a decision.

4. As no action was forthcoming, the petitioner Association submitted representations followed by filing of a second writ petition being WP(C)/3426/2020. This Court had disposed of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 11.01.2022 directing the respondent authorities to take on record the representations and pass a speaking order thereon. Accordingly, the representations along with fresh representation dated 20.01.2022 were considered and vide the speaking order dated 19.04.2022, the claims of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the petitioners have become over-aged. Being aggrieved by the said speaking order dated 19.04.2022, the present petition has been filed.

5. I have heard Shri Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioners whereas the official respondents are represented by Shri C.K.S. Baruah, the learned State Counsel.

6. Shri Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 17.01.2000 in which the petitioners claim to have been selected. Reference has also been made to the order of this Court dated 11.01.2022 passed in, amongst others, WP(C)/3426/2020 wherein a direction was given for consideration of the representation. It is submitted that initially a bunch of about 148 writ petitions were filed before this Court, the lead case being WP(C)/720/2001. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide a common judgment and order dated 24.05.2004 in which it was observed that in the selection process, 423 nos. of candidates were not appointed, out of which, 406 nos. of candidates did not report and 17 nos. of candidatures were rejected and the petitioners are those 406 candidates. With regard to the observation made by this Court in the said order dated 24.05.2004, Shri Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the expression “allowed to set at rest” would mean that the selection has been upheld and the said issue is not to be raised for any further consideration. He accordingly submits that as a corollary thereof, since the petitioners have been held to be selected, they are required to be appointed. Reference has also been made to the order dated 15.12.2005 passed by this Court in 4 nos. of writ petitions including WP(C)/8637/2004 which was by the present petitioners. The specific challenge was against a recruitment process initiated advertisement dated 21.08.2004 as the petitioners had participated in the earlier recruitment process. In the said order, it has been held that if the incumbents were selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.01.2000, their case were to be considered as such recruitment process was upheld by the Court in the earlier order dated 24.05.2000 passed in WP(C)/720/2001