KINGKUMANI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All the three writ petitions pertain to the claim of the Petitioners that they have been deprived of selection and appointment as Excise Constable because of the wrong action on the part of the Respondents. While in WP (C) 763/2011, the Petitioners did not participate in the selection process, the Petitioners in the other two writ petitions i.e. WP (C) 1145/2011 and 1359/2011 did participate in the selection but could not qualify, which according to them is because of the illegality committed in conducting the selection, more particularly, in the oral interview.

(2.) Although in WP (C) 763/2011, the 8(eight) Petitioners have also stated about some irregularities in conducting the selection but the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, during the course of hearing confined his argument only to one issue, which is as to whether the selection conducted without the posts being advertised in the newspaper is a valid one. Be it stated here that the selection was conducted from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchanges. In the second writ petition, the four Petitioners who had participated in the selection process upon failure to qualify in the selection, have questioned the selection on the ground that some of the candidates who did not conform to the requirement of physical fitness and also those who did not even undergo the physical test including running test, had been called for viva-voce. These Petitioners have also adopted the ground of attack in the first writ petition to question the selection.

(3.) The Respondents have filed their counter affidavit in WP (C) 763/2011 highlighting the procedure of selection conducted. It has been denied that the selection was conducted in a mechanical manner. It has also been highlighted that in absence of any malafide and colourable exercise of power in conducting the selection, the writ court will be reluctant to interfere with the selection.