Judgment · High Court · 2009

The facts in short for disposing of the writ petition is that pe 2. titioner, herein, is a graduate from the Dibrugarh University and has also succe ssfully completed a Commando Course on Terrorism and Anti/Counter Terrorist Oper ation at the National Security Guard Training Centre, Manesar, Haryana. He is al so an accomplished sportsman, having participated in many competitions at the st ate and national level.

#3. In response to an advertisement, published on 6.9.97, inviting a pplications for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the department of Home , petitioner applied for the same and appeared for the written test alongwith ot hers and performed satisfactorily. He being selected in the aforesaid written te st was invited for the interview, which was scheduled to be held on 4.6.99. In t he said call letter, it was stated that in case, the candidate is selected for t he interview he would be called for the physical test for final selection. Pursu ant to the aforesaid call letter, petitioner duly appeared in the interview held on 4.6.99, wherein he performed well and was waiting for announcement of the re sult. But from a news item published on 13.1.01 in the (cid:28)Asomiya Pratidin (cid:29), an As samese daily news paper, petitioner came to know that 84 persons were going to b e appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in pursuance to the advertisement dated 6 .9.97. Being aggrieved, the petitioner alongwith thirty others approach ed this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.4839/02. This Court vide order dated 31.7.03 disposed of the same with a direction to the respondent aut horities to consider the case of the petitioners in accordance with the provisio ns of the Recruitment rules against available vacancies. The order dated 31.7.03 is quoted hereinbelow: (cid:28)31.7.2003 THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE D BISWAS BEFORE Heard Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and al so heard Mrs Dey, learned State Counsel. This petition has been filed by the writ petitioners numbering thirty on e claiming appropriate direction for their appointment as Sub-Inspector of Polic e on the ground that they have been selected and empanelled by the Competent aut hority in the Select list prepared in pursuance of the advertisement published o n 6.9.1997. Their case is that they had appeared in the interview held on 26.4.1 998 and they were waiting for announcement of the result thereof. But surprising ly, they have come to know from the Newspaper publication issued on 30th of Janu ary, 2001, that 84 persons were going to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police in pursuance of the said advertisement. Hence, they approached this Court for a ppropriate direction for consideration of their case for appointment. The state has not filed any affidavit in this petition. Therefore, the c laim of the writ petitioner that they were interviewed and selected remains unco ntroverted. Situated thus, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to examine the claim of the writ petitioners and if it is found that they were duly empanelled in the select list prepared in pursuance of the adver tisement issued in 1997 and, if the list is still in force, their case shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Recruitment Rules against av ailable vacancies and appropriate orders be passed for their appointment only a gainst the number of post advertised in the year 1997. The interim order passed on 16.8.2002 is merged with this order. (cid:29)

#4. Thereafter, the petitioner alongwith 7 other writ petitioners in the aforesaid writ petition submitted a representation before Respondent No.1 a nnexing a copy of the order dated 31.7.03 thereon whereby they requested the Res pondent No.1 for consideration of their case for appointment against the existin g vacancies as per Recruitment Rules. Pursuant to the representation so submitte d on 22.9.03, Respondent No.1 forwarded their application to the Respondent No.3 , the Deputy Inspector General of Police alongwith a copy of the order dated 31. 7.03 asking him to take necessary action including the submission of the parawis e reply of the representation. Despite the aforesaid representation and directio n issued thereon, nothing has been done in order to give appointment to the peti tioner in the existing vacant post of Sub-Inspector in compliance with the Court ’s order dated 31.7.03 and hence, the instant writ petition.

#5. Mr Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has strenuously urged that as per relevant rules there is provision for recruit ing a person in the post of Sub-Inspector by considering his ability and experie nce which has already been gathered by the petitioner in the instant case. Learn ed Sr counsel has further submitted that earlier in several occasions, appointme nts in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police have been made in respect of the pers ons possessing special qualifications like the petitioner as per rules in vogue. In the instant case, petitioner has twice cleared the written test for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police but, subsequently, he was deprived of getting appoin tment due to some extraneous consideration on the part of the respondent authori ties. Learned Sr. counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner’s case deserve s to be considered for appointment in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police as per rules, more so, petitioner’s experience as Constable in the Assam Police for mo re than 10 (ten) years and the special training which the petitioner has complet ed at the National Security Guard Training School makes him eminently suitable f or appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police. Learned Sr counsel thus submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitione r for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police under the appropriate provisions of the Rules, inasmuch as, the petitioner is legitimately expecting that his case shall be considered by the respondent authorities as has been considered in simi lar cases in the past. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respo 6. ndent authorities. However, Mr BC Saikia, learned Addl Sr Govt. Advocate has fai rly submitted that petitioner’s case will be considered as per relevant provisio ns of Rules. Considered the submission so made by the learned counsel appeari 7. ng for the parties and also perused the materials on record. In view of the subm ission so made, the respondent authorities, particularly, Respondent No.2 is dir ected to consider the case of the petitioner as per relevant provisions of Rules in vogue. Petitioner shall submit a fresh representation alongwith a certified copy of this order and a copy of the writ petition with the annexures appended t hereto before Respondent No.2, the Director General of Police, Assam who shall d ispose of the representation within a period of 3 (three) months from the date o f receipt of the same.

#8. It is needless to say that any order passed to that effect shall be communicated to the petitioner.

#10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.