Judgment · High Court · 2009

Heard Mr PD Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr B Patha k, learned Central Govt. counsel and Mr BJ Talukdar, learned Govt. Advocate, Ass am.

#2. The petitioner, who is aged about 85 years and had been a Member of the State Legislative Assembly from the Patacharkuchi Constituency, Barpeta, has instituted the present PIL seeking appropriate orders from the Court to all ow a large number of candidates who had applied for recruitment as General Duty Constables in the Central Reserve Police Force (in short ’the CRPF’) to particip ate in a fresh round of selections. The said candidates, according to the petiti oner, had not been allowed to take part in the selection as their applications h ad not been accompanied by the requisite Permanent Resident Certificate (in shor t ’PRC’). Additionally, the writ petitioner has prayed for directions from the C ourt for cancellation of the candidature of the candidates who had been allowed to participate in the selections held in the month of February, 2009 on the basi s of what he comprehends to be fake, bogus and unauthorized PRCs.

#3. esent adjudication may now be briefly set out: The relevant facts which will be required to be noted for the pr In the month of December, 2008 an advertisement was issued, inte r alia, inviting applications for filling up 324 numbers of posts of General Dut y Constables belonging to the State of Assam. It may be mentioned herein that ou t of the aforesaid 324 posts, 312 Nos. of posts were reserved for male candidate s and 12 Nos. of posts were reserved for female candidates. Clause 14(vi) of the said advertisement being relevant for the purposes of the present adjudication, may be usefully extracted hereinbelow : (cid:28)14.(vi) Domicile certificate issued by competent authority for candidates belon g to Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh. As regards, candidates belonging to Assam State they have to produce Permanent Residential Certificate (PRC) issued by the competent authority of the State Govt. not below the rank of Tehsildar. Residen t certificate mentioning (cid:28)valid for education purpose only (cid:29) shall not be accepte d. (cid:29)

#4. According to the petitioner, in the selections which were schedu led to be held on different dates in the month of February, 2009, a large number of candidates were allowed to participate on the basis of false, bogus and surr eptitious PRCs which had accompanied their applications. However, at the same ti me a large number of candidates who had not been able to furnish PRCs in accorda nce with Clause 14(vi) of the advertisement were debarred from participating in the selections held. The writ petitioner by filing an additional affidavit has a lso brought on record an order of this Court dated 16.2.2009 passed in a proceed ing registered and numbered as WP(C) No. 287/2009. By the said order, this Court while considering certain individual grievances in the same matter took note of the fact that it was a declared policy of the State of Assam to issue PRCs only for educational purpose and for no other purpose. In the aforesaid order, the C ourt also took note of fact that the competent authorities of the State had writ ten to the Union Home Ministry as well as to the Heads of various organizations making recruitments, including the CRPF, that the State Government had not been issuing any PRC for any purpose except educational purpose for long and that ver ification of the residential status of candidates can be made after the selectio ns are over and the list of selected candidates are circulated to the concerned Deputy Commissioners of the districts. After taking note of the aforesaid stand of the State Government, the Court recorded the conclusion that Clause 14(vi) of the advertisement required the intending candidates to submit documents which w ere impossible to submit and, accordingly, the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 287 /2009 were directed to be allowed to participate in the selections without submi ssion of any PRC. Orders similar to the one dated 16.2.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 287/2009 were also recorded in certain other cases. None of the aforesaid orders have been appealed against and, therefore, have attained finality in law. That apart, the directions contained in the said orders have also been implemented by the CRPF authorities by allowing the individual writ petitioner in the concerne d cases to take part in the selections held.

#5. Notwithstanding the above, the CRPF authorities persisted in the ir actions in disqualifying all other candidates who had not approached the Cour t and did not permit such candidates to take part in the selections on account o f the fact that they had not submitted PRCs as required in terms of Clause 14(vi ) of the advertisement. It is the cause of the aforesaid candidates that is bein g sought to be projected in the present P.I.L. The CRPF authorities have filed an affidavit wherein though it h 6. as been stated that the orders of this Court passed in the individual writ petit ions noticed above have been complied with and the same have not been appealed a gainst, no cogent explanation has been offered as to why inspite of the said ord ers, the CRPF authorities had decided not to allow the other candidates who were not before the Court to participate in the selections held. Mr B Pathak, learne d Central Govt. counsel, on instructions received, has informed the Court at the hearing that against the 324 posts earmarked for candidates of the State of Ass am, a total of 40,085 (approximately) applications were received, out of which 2 1,848 applications were accepted and 18,237 applications were rejected. The bulk of the rejected applications were on account of non-submission of PRCs though t he said number may include some applications rejected on other grounds also. Fro m the above, it appears that almost half of the candidates who had submitted app lications pursuant to the advertisement issued could not take part in the select ions held solely on account of non-submission of the requisite PRCs. In the order dated 16.2.2009 passed in WP(C) No. 287/2009, this 7. Court has already taken the view that Clause 14(vi) of the advertisement require d the candidates to comply with an impossible condition, inasmuch as, it is the official stand of the State Government that PRCs for any other purpose except ed ucational purpose are not being issued since the decade of 1980s and further tha t in recruitments like the present, verification of the residential status of ca ndidates are to be made only after the selection is complete and after the selec t list is circulated to the concerned Deputy Commissioners of the districts. If acting on the basis of the aforesaid stand taken by the respondent State of Assa m which had also been duly communicated to the authorities of the Union of India including the authorities of the CRPF, directions have been issued to allow the individual writ petitioners who had not submitted PRCs, as required, to take pa rt in the selections, it is difficult to visualize as to how the same benefit ca n be declined to other similarly situated candidates who had not approached the Court earlier. The lack of such approach to the Court can reasonably be understo od to be on account of acceptable and good reason and in any event cannot be a v alid ground to deny similar relief. We, therefore, find no good ground to take a ny view different from the one already recorded in the Court’s order dated 16.2. 2009 passed in WP(C) No. 287/2009.

#8. We are informed that though the selections as per schedule have been completed and the select list has been prepared, the same has not been publ ished and, therefore, no appointment has been made. This is on account of the in terim orders passed by the Court in the present case. We have already recorded o ur conclusion that a large number of candidates who have been debarred from part icipating in the selections for non-submission of PRCs would be entitled to part icipate in the same. We, therefore, direct the CRPF authorities to publish a fre sh schedule of selection for all such candidates who have not been allowed to ta ke part in the selection already held on account of non-submission of PRCs. The said schedule shall clearly indicate the dates on which the different segments o f the selection will be held and the Roll numbers of the candidates who are to a ppear on each of such dates. As we are told by Sri Pathak, learned Central Govt. counsel that the need for filling up the posts is imminent and urgent, we direc t that it will not be necessary for the CRPF authorities to issue individual cal l letters and all the candidates eligible in accordance with the present order m ay appear, if they so desire, in the selection as per schedule and the roll numb ers mentioned in the schedule to be published. The said publication will be issu ed in three leading newspapers of the State including newspapers in Barak Valley , two of which will be vernacular newspapers. At the conclusion of the selection s as per revised schedule, the performance of the candidates will be reconciled with the performance of the candidates who had already participated in the selec tions held earlier and on that basis a consolidated merit list/select list will be published on the basis of which further steps in the matter of appointment wi ll be undertaken, following the procedure prescribed. As the CRPF authorities ha ve indicated urgency in the matter, we leave it to the CRPF authorities to cause the newspaper publication to be made and the fresh round of selections to be co ncluded as expeditiously as may be required.

#9. The PIL shall stand disposed of in the above terms.