DHIRAJ MAJUMDAR Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to an advertisement, dated 21.08.2004, for filling up the post of constable, the Petitioner participated in the selection process and, pursuant to the said selection process, the Petitioner came to be appointed by an appointment letter issued, in this regard, on 04.02.2005. As the selection process, in question, became a subject-matter of challenge in several writ proceedings, the Petitioner could not avail his appointment. Eventually, on disposal of the writ proceedings, he was directed by Respondent No. 5 by a letter, issued, in this regard, on 17.07.2007, to appear before a Board, on 23.07.2007, for scrutiny of his papers/testimonials. The Petitioner was however, not allowed to join by the Board on the ground that the Petitioner was under-aged, i.e., below the age specified in the advertisement, dated 21.08.2004, aforementioned. Aggrieved by the fact that he had not been allowed to join the post of constable, the Petitioner has made a representation. Since no order, according to the Petitioner, has been passed on the Petitioner's said representation, the Petitioner has come to this Court, with this application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking appropriate writ (s) to be issued to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to join as a constable and to send him for training along with other appointed candidates. In this regard, the Petitioner also refers to some of the appointments, which have been made by the Respondents, of the persons, similarly situated as the Petitioner is, following their representations made to the Respondents/authorities concerned.

(2.) Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, and Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, appearing for the Respondents.

(3.) While considering this writ petition, it needs to be noted that the Petitioner was, admittedly, ineligible to participate in the selection process, which had been initiated by the advertisement, dated 21.08.2004, aforementioned. Hence, the fact that the Petitioner was allowed to participate in the said selection process and the appointment letter, as indicated hereinbefore, was issued to him, cannot be said to have clothed the Petitioner with any right to demand that the letter of his appointment be allowed to take effect. Allowing the Petitioner to join, in terms of the letter of appointment, dated 04.02.2005, aforementioned read with the letter, dated 17.07.2007, aforementioned, would, in effect, deny to some other eligible candidate his right to be considered for appointment to the post, which the Petitioner, if the appointment letter, dated 04.02.2005, takes effect, would be joining. A person, who was, otherwise, ineligible, in terms of an advertisement, inviting applications, cannot be directed to be appointed merely because of the fact that due to an error, manipulation or otherwise, he has come to be selected. Every public appointment needs to have a transparent basis of selection and when it is transparent that the Petitioner was ineligible on the date, when he had applied for appointment, no right can be said to have vested in the Petitioner to demand that he be allowed to join the said post. When there is no right whatsoever, far less indefeasible, vested in the Petitioner the question of issuance of any writ, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner, or allow him to join, as a constable pursuant to the said selection process, does not arise at all.