Petitioners challenged their non-selection from the police constables selection list, alleging arbitrary selection. The Court found no merit in the writ petition as the non-selection was based on specified parameters regarding interview marks and physical tests.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/3
GAHC010005292010
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 2681/2010
1:BINOD KUMAR NATH and 2 ORS.
S/O SRI DEBEN CH.NATH, R/O VILL. NATUAGAON, P.O.NATUAGAON, P.S. AND DIST MORIGAON, ASSAM
P.O.NATUAGAON DIST MORIGAON ASSAM
3: SANJIB DAS
S/O SRI TELESWAR DAS R/O VILL NAPUKHURIPARA P.O.ALIKUDI P.S.RAHA DIST MORIGAON ASSA
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY TO THE GOVT.OF ASSAM, HOME DEPTT, DISPUR, GHY-6
Page No.# 2/3
4:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ADMN ASSAM POLICE HEADQUARTERS ULUBARI GHY-7
5:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE MORIGOAN ASSAM 6:THE DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE H.Q. MORIGOAN ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.M K HUSSAIN
Advocate for the Respondent :
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 05-02-2018
Heard Mr. F.K. R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that in pursuance to an advertisement for selection of constables from Morigaon district in the Assam Police, the petitioners took part in the selection process. Though the petitioners had done well and were expecting to be selected by the respondent authorities, petitioners names did not appear in the select list.
Petitioner’s counsel submits that no reasons have been assigned by the respondents as to why they were not selected. He also submits that the respondents have chosen and selected candidates on a pick and chose policy basis. He therefore submits that the select list published in the daily newspaper dated 11.03.2010 should be set aside and as there are vacant posts as on today, the petitioners should be adjusted against the same.
Mr. D. Nath, learned counsel for the State respondents submits that petitioner Nos.1 and 3 had passed the physical efficiency test and medical test.
Page No.# 3/3
However, they did not get the required minimum marks in the interview and in that view of the matter, petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 could not be selected. In respect of petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.2 was disqualified for not having done well in the 100 meters as per parameters set by the respondents.
The affidavit-in-opposition has shown the detailed results of the petitioners, wherein the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 are shown to have failed to qualify in the interview, due to not securing the benchmark of 25 in the interview. Petitioner No.1 secured 23 marks while petitioner No.3 secured only 22 marks. In respect of petitioner No.2, the petitioner No.2 was disqualified for the time he had taken to complete the 100 meter race, while comparing the same with the other candidates, who took part in the 100 metres race. As the respondents have not selected the petitioners on the basis of the parameters laid down by them for selecting the successful candidates, this court finds no infirmity with the nonselection of the petitioners. Also the averments made by the State respondents in the affidavit-in-opposition have not been denied or countered by the petitioners by filling affidavit-in-reply.
In view of the above reasons, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere when petitioners were not selected for police constable posts due to failing interview marks or physical efficiency tests?
Whether the selection process conducted on the basis of specified parameters was arbitrary or lacked merit?
Binod Kumar Nath and 2 Ors.
The State of Assam and Ors
Michel Zothankhuma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
