ATAUR RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A Ali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. SS Roy, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

(2.) The petitioners are the candidates in a recruitment process initiated on the basis of an advertisement issued in the month of February, 2009 by the Additional Director General of Police, Assam Police (TAP), respondent No. 3 for recruitment of AB constables. The petitioners who hail from Dhubri district offered their candidatures against the said advertisement. After due verification of the applications along with other necessary documents, the petitioners' testimonials were found correct in all respect. The petitioners along with other candidates had undergone physical measurement and fitness test in the month of August, September and October, 2009. The petitioners' names were selected to appear in the oral interview/ viva voce comprising 50 marks and the qualifying mark was 25. All the petitioners faced the oral interview/ viva voce and when the respondent authority published the select list the names of the petitioners did not find place therein. Alleging anomalies in the advertise published in the month of February, 2009 and that too after appearing in the said selection process on the basis of the advertisement, the petitioners filed this writ petition citing that in WP(C) No. 2725/2010 (Palash Phukan and 166 others Vs State of Assam and others) this Hon'ble court made roving enquiry regarding the contention of the petitioners and finally vide order dated 22.02.2019 disposed of the said writ petition with an observation but without interfering with the select list prepared by the authority and directed the respondent authority to consider the case of the petitioners therein in WP(C) No. 2725/2010 for appointment in the post of AB constables or any other equivalent posts against current and next available vacancies in a phased manner. Mr. Ali relying the said decision passed in WP(C) No. 2725/2010 sought for interference in the selection process for the Dhubri district also citing various anomalies in the selection process. Mr. Roy on the other hand vehemently objected to the said prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioners on the ground that there is a substantial delay on the part of the petitioners in preferring the writ petition and in a similar petition learned Single Judge of this Hon'ble Court was satisfied to dismiss WP(C) No. 4921/2019 on 05.08.2019 for the following grounds:

(3.) If the factual matrix are considered in the present writ petition I do not find any difference in the conduct of the present petitioners with the one in WP(C) No. 4921/2019. The claim of the petitioners cannot be entertained at this belated stage as their roles are nothing but fence sitters. Accordingly, for the delay and laches the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs as there are no explanation in the writ petition. Even if there be any explanation the same cannot be considered inasmuch as the petitioners allowed their rights to be taken away by the act of acquiescence on their part which forms the part of laches on the part of the petitioners. The laches is apparent and the delay factor cannot be waived. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed at the motion stage.