KIPA RAJA Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. P. Taffo, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N. Tagia, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/appsc. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 1 and Mr. K. Ete, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that they appeared in the combined competitive examination conducted by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commissioner in 2006 and they were found qualified in the written as well as viva-voce tests. In the final selection list published by the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission' only) on 18. 01. 2009, the names of the petitioners appeared at serial Nos. 7, 42, 47 and 49. It is claimed that the petitioners were physically and medically fit but they were disqualified in the physical endurance test and in place of the petitioners, the private respondent Nos. 3 to 7 were selected, although, in the select list published by the Commission, their names appeared at serial Nos. 58, 61, 69, 70 and 89. The petitioners are aggrieved by the selection of the aforesaid private respondents against the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP ).

(3.) MR . Tagia, learned Standing Counsel for the Commission submits that although, in the original advertisement published by the Commission, no mention was made about the physical endurance test in respect of the candidates for the DSP posts, it was notified subsequently by the Commission in its notice dated 16. 10. 2008 as per provision under the Arunachal Pradesh Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2001. He refers to appendix-III of Rule 11, para 4 of the said Rules which has been annexed as annexure-A to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Commission, which provides amongst others that :