Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: B.D. Das, R. Deka, I.H. Saikia.
For the Respondents: K.N. Choudhary, R. Singha, M. Nath, A. Bhattacharjee.

Key Points: - Writ petitions challenging a selection can be maintainable where there is glaring illegality or fraud in the process, and an inquiry may be warranted (!) (!) . - The court directed an inquiry into allegations of fraudulent experience certificates and allowed consideration for appointment of petitioners where some selected candidates may have defective credentials (!) (!) . - The court held that petitioners’ participation in the selection does not bar challenge where fraud is alleged, and it declined to prematurely invalidate appointments, instead directing an inquiry and potential remedial actions (!) (!) . - The matter involved examining the authenticity of experience certificates submitted by private respondents and CID charge-sheet findings, with the court noting that guilt is for trial but an inquiry is appropriate where serious allegations exist (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court preserved the right to consider petitioners for appointment if vacancies arise after inquiry, and noted inaction or laxity by authorities in investigating can be remedied by an inquiry (!) (!) . - The court referenced that the advertisement’s experience criteria were challenged as ambiguous and capable of forgery, prompting scrutiny of the entire selection process (!) (!) . - The court dismissed outright cancellation of the entire select list at this stage, emphasizing inquiry and lawful consequences rather than immediate invalidation (!) (!) . - The court did not grant costs and disposed of petitions with directions for inquiry and possible consideration of petitioners for appointment (!) .

How to determine maintainability of writ petitions challenging a public selection process in the presence of alleged fraud?

How to address the impact of alleged fake experience certificates on the validity of the selection and appointment process and whether an inquiry is warranted?

What is the court’s approach to balancing petitioners’ participation in the selection with allegations of fraud and whether to cancel or preserve the select list?