PALASH PHUKAN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Ms. J. Kakati, learned counsel for all the State respondents.

(2.) The petitioners, who are 167 in numbers having claimed to have a common cause of action against the respondents have joined hands in filing the writ petition. The facts of the case in brief is that the Inspector General of Police (Administration) caused the publication of an advertisement on 20.02.2009, notifying the recruitment of Armed Branch Constable in Assam Police (for ONGC security) Battalion/24th Assam Police (IR) Battalion and 1002 numbers of vacant post of Armed Branch Constables. As per the advertisement, a recruitment rally was to be conducted in different police district/battalions tentatively in the month of June, 2009 for selecting candidates for appointment as Armed Branch Constable. The last date for submitting the application was 28.03.2009. The advertisement amongst others also provided that 10% of the vacancies will be reserved for women candidates. The scheme of selection was that the applications of the applicants, which were found to be correct in all respect, will have to undergo physical measurement and fitness test and 50 marks will be the maximum marks, while 25 marks will be the qualifying marks. Those found qualified in the physical efficiency test will be shortlisted for appearing in the personal interview, which will have a total mark of 50% and 25 marks as the qualifying marks as well. After the 2 tests, a merit list was to be prepared on the basis of the aggregate marks secured in the physical test and in the interview keeping in mind the reservation rules. The number of candidates in the merit list was to be equal to the number of vacancies available and no waiting list was to be prepared.

(3.) The petitioners applied from the district Sivasagar and participated in the physical test. After qualifying in the same, they appeared in the viva voce test before the District Selection Committee, Sivasagar. According to them, they performed well in both the test and therefore, they were expecting to be recommended for the post. Although the petitioners performed well both in the physical test as well as in the personal interview, their Roll Numbers did not figure in the employment notice, issued subsequently for the district of Sivasagar. The petitioners contended that in the employment notice that was published for the district of Sivasagar, the Roll Numbers of as many as 150 candidates including women were published. However, the petitioners having all scored more than 50 marks, which was the minimum mark stipulated in the advertisement, their names did not find any place. Being highly aggrieved, they are before this Court.