IMPORTANT POINT
Eligibility criteria for recruitment must be consistent and cannot be altered after the process has commenced, as affirmed by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

Heard Mr. M. H. Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. D. K. Sarma, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5; and Mr. P. P. Dutta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 6 to 11.

2. The appellant, herein, by way of instituting this intra-Court appeal, has presented a challenge to a judgment & order, dated 28.10.2011, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)1750/2011. The appellant has also presented a challenge to an order, dated 15.06.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Pet. No.90/2022.

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under:

The Additional Director General of Police(TAP), had issued an advertisement, dated 17.12.2008, inviting applications for filling up of vacant posts of Sub-Inspector of Police(AB). The said advertisement prescribes the manner of recruitment and also stipulates that the candidates shall have to secure qualifying marks in each of the segments of the recruitment process.

The appellant, herein, being eligible, had submitted his application pursuant to the said advertisement, dated 17.12.2008.

The appellant on account of his over-age not being condoned, was not permitted to take part in the recruitment process and being so aggrieved; the appellant had approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)2121/2018, seeking a direction for relaxation of the upper age limit to enable him to participate in the said recruitment process. The writ Court, vide order, dated 22.06.2009, passed in Misc. Case No. 1623/2009 [filed in WP(c)2121/2008], was pleased to permit the appellant, herein, to participate in the said recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement, dated 17.12.2008. However, it was directed that the result of the appellant be not declared. Accordingly, the appellant, herein, participated in the said recruitment process. Subsequently, the writ Court vide order, dated 22.04.2010, disposed of the said writ petition being WP(c)2121/2008, directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for relaxation of his upper age limit and in the event, the upper age of the appellant, herein, is so condoned; to declare the result of the appellant.

The result of the appellant was, accordingly, declared and the Assistant Inspector General of Police(T), Assam, vide communication, dated 01.03.2011, intimated the appellant, herein, that he had secured 144 marks in the written test, 47.5 marks in the physical test and 23 marks in the interview, the aggregate of which stood as 214.5 marks. However, it was informed to the appellant, herein, that he was not selected, in-as- much as, he had not qualified in the interview segment of the recruitment process.

Being aggrieved by the rejection of his case; the appellant, herein, had approached the writ Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)1750/2011, inter alia, contending that there being no prescription of securing qualifying marks in the interview so disclosed in the advertisement, dated 17.12.2008; the respondent authorities could not have changed the rules of the game after the game had begun. It was further projected that in the event, the appellant, herein, is held to be qualified in the recruitment process, considering the marks secured by him in the recruitment process, he would be eligible for being so appointed against any of the posts of the Sub-Inspector of Police(AB), so advertised vide the advertisement, dated 17.12.2008, in-as-much as, he had secured more than the specified cut-off marks so mandated for recruitment to such post.

The learned Single Judge, thereafter, took up WP(c)1750/2011, along with WP(c)3524/2011, for final consideration. On appreciating the contentions so raised before him and