High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 4194/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. G. Soren, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard M rs. R. Gogoi, learned State Counsel. The seven petitioners involved in this writ petition are said to be surr endered ULFA militants. By means of this writ petition, they have prayed for a d irection to the respondents to appoint them against the vacant posts of AB Const ables in the Assam Police.
Decision
The petitioners were all candidates for selection to the post of AB Cons tables, for which the Assam Police Headquarters had issued employment notice dat ed 08.02.2010 (Annexure-1). In the employment notice, it was provided that the f ormer members of the militant outfits who did not have any criminal case pending against them, might also apply for the post of constable. Pursuant to the adver tisement, selection was conducted comprising physical and personality test. In t he notice declaring the results, the petitioners name having not been included, they field the instant writ petition, stating that the selection was not conduct ed in a fair and transparent manner. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it has been stated that out of 33 candidates from Kamrup District, only three persons from Kamrup(R) and three candidates from Kamrup(M) have been selected. Reference has also been made to selection of three candidates from Nalbari district. Acco rding to the petitioners, the candidates bearing Roll No.49 from Kamrup(R) and b earing Roll Nos. 4, 8 and 9 from Kamrup(M) did not even qualify in the physical efficiency tests, but were called for the interview. It has further been alleged that candidates bearing Roll Nos.G-027 and G-036 were not even members of milit ant organization. However, they have been called for the interview. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid allegat ions made in the writ petition have been denied. It has been stated that the pet itioners could not qualify in the physical test. In this connection paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit is reproduced below:- (cid:28)That, as regard to the statements made in paragraph No.8 of the writ pe tition, this deponent admits that the results of the Selection Test of FMMO cand idates for appointment as Constable were declared on 02.08.2008. The petitioners were not selected because as per norms of the advertisem ent all candidates had to qualify in physical Efficiency test and Personal Inter view of the selection test respectively. Also they should have to qualify in eac h event of the physical Efficiency test i.e. 1.6 KM, long jump, high jump and 10 0 mtr. Sprint separately. But the petitioner No. 1 had failed in 100 mtr. Sprint , petitioner No.2 in 1.6 KM and 100 mtr. Sprint, petitioner No. 3, 4 and 5 in 10 0 mtr. Sprint, petitioner Nos. 6, 7 and 8 in 1.6 km and 100mtr. Sprint, and as i nformed by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar, the petitioner No. 9 had fai led in personal Interview. The petitioner No. 9 though he had shown his home dis trict as Nalbari, but he appeared in the Selection test under BTAD hold in Kokra jhar District under Chairmanship of S. P. Kokrajhar. The State Assembly Election which was conducted in the year 2011 fell un der the said period and the code of conduct of the election was in force because of which work relating to the recruitment rally was completely stopped during t hat period. The primary motive of conducting the recruitment rally for FMMO who did not have any criminal cases pending against them was to rehabilitate those misgu ided youths of the society who had given up the path of violence and wanted to l ive under the Constitution. After qualifying themselves in the necessary selecti on test they had to be appointed in the selection Police Deptt. for their rehabi litation where personal weapons will be issued for their duties. But they were a lso a member of armed militants groups and therefore a discreet and confidential verification of candidates of this category had been conducted by the Special B ranch whether they had any relation with such group as presently existed. A reas onable time was necessary for completion of the process but the same was complet ed as early as possible and the results were declared immediately. (cid:29) As regards allegation made in respect of the aforesaid candidates, the r espondents have denied the same in their counter affidavit. In the reply affidav it, the petitioners have reiterated their stand in the writ petition. However, i n response to the above noted paragraph 9, what they have stated is that they ha d passed the physical efficiency test and the plea of the respondents that they could not qualify in the physical efficiency test is not correct. During the course of hearing of the writ petition Mr. Soren, learned cou nsel for the petitioners referring to the circular dated 23.03.1993 submitted th at the members of the organizations are required to be absorbed against Grade-II I and Grade-IV posts. However, Mrs. R. Gogoi, learned State Counsel submits that the petitioners have been applied for the post of AB Constable in the Assam Pol ice, a discipline post, they cannot claim automatic appointment dehorse the sele ction. As stated in the counter affidavit, the petitioners could not qualify in the physical efficiency test and accordingly could not be called for the interv iew. In this connection, the Annexure-A to the counter affidavit has been referr ed to which shows that the petitioners’ failed to qualify in the physical effici ency tests. Mere denial of the said fact cannot entitle the petitioners with the ir appointment that too in the Police force. As regards the aforesaid circular letter dated 23.03.1993, on a bare per usal of the said letter, it is seen that the directives contained in the said le tters was to remain in force for a period of six months with effect from the dat e of issuance of the circular. By the said circular, it was conveyed that applic ations of ULFA surrendees for Government jobs may be considered along with all o ther eligible applicants. Mere direction for consideration of the cases of the U LFA surrendered militants at per with other eligible candidates, cannot give the petitioners any kind of right to get selection for appointment as AB Constables . Moreover, the directives contained in the said circular letter was followed fo r a period of six months. In the instant case, the employment notice indicated the eligibility cri teria including educational qualification, physical measurement etc. The selecti on procedure was also notified and the requirement to obtain particular bench ma rk in each segment of the physical tests. It is only after clearance of the phys ical efficiency tests, the selected candidates were to be called for the intervi ew. The petitioners having failed to qualify in the physical efficiency test, co uld not be called for the interviews. As regards the allegation made in paragraph 9 of the writ petition regar ding some candidates that have been called for the interview in spite of not hav ing qualified in the physical test, nothing has been stated as to whether they h ave been appointed. Moreover, they being not made party respondents in this proc eeding, no adverse order can be passed in this regard. In view of the above, no direction for appointment of the petitioners ca n be issued. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However, it will be open f or the respondents to appropriately consider the case of the petitioners conside ring the fact that they are members of the surrendered ULFA.