NILESHWAR NARZARY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to appoint him as an UB constable.

(2.) FACTS , - -The undisputed fact is that a notice dated 11.11.91 was issued by the Superintendent of Police Kokrajhar inviting intending candidates to appear at the physical/written test etc. on 7.12.91 for recruitment to the posts of UB/AB constables. The Inspector General of Police (A) Assam made a Circular or Order dated 11.6.91 for the recruitment. The Order, provides, inter alia, that the vacancies should be filled up by conducting test by the Superintendent of Police and the select list in order of merit should be sent to the Officer of the DIG (Range) and that of the IGP (TAP) for record; and that the total marks for the physical efficiency would be 35 and for the interview would be 15 thereby making the total marks as 50. The Superintendent of Police Kokrajhar selected 45 candidates in order of merit and the select list was sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (A) by the Superintendent of Police under his communication dated 17.12.91. The Petitioner was one of the selected candidates. Later on, under his letter dated 3.8.92, the Superintendent of Police Kokrajhar informed the Petitioner that only 9 candidates, who had secured 70% and above marks out of the select list, had been approved by the Inspector General of Police and who had obtained less than 70% marks had been disqualified. The Petitioner after inquiry came to know that under letter dated 7.6.92, the Assistant Inspector of Police (R) Assam informed the Superintendent of Police Kokrajhar to the effect that it had been decided that who had secured less than 70% marks in the recruitment test were disqualified.

(3.) IN P. Mahendran v. State of Karnataka : AIR 1990 SC 405, the Supreme Court has held that the selection process had to be completed in accordance with law as it stood at the commencement of selection; and that after commencement of selection process, if any amendment of the rules is made prospectively, changing of eligibility criteria, the amending rule would not affect the selection and appointment. In N.T. Bevin Katti v. KPSC : AIR 1990 SC 1233, the Supreme Court reiterated the above principle and also held that, if the rule is amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended rules.