Supreme Court of India · 2009

4. Before proceeding further it may be appropriate to take note of the orde r passed by the Apex Court on 23.11.07. Being relevant and short the same is ext racted hereinbelow for ready reference : (cid:28)These petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. From a bare perusal of the order and the materials on record, we find that there is already an order passed by the High Court of Assam at Guwahati and the petit ioners have already been selected but no appointment has yet been made. Since th at order has been passed to consider the case of the writ petitioners for appoin tment in accordance with the policy decision of the State Government, the petiti oner should move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr. R.K. Das, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits, on in struction, that he will move the High Court in a month from today. If such an ap plication is filed by the writ petitioner, the High Court is requested to dispos e of the same as early as possible. The writ petitions are disposed of according ly. (cid:29)

5. As can be seen from the above direction, the Supreme Court referred to a n order passed by the High Court, which purportedly indicates that the petitione rs have been selected in pursuant to the recruitment process following the adver tisement made on 17.1.2000. The learned counsels for the petitioners refer to th e High Court order dated 24.5.2004 in a batch of 147 writ petitions including W. P.(C) No. 720/2001, to contend that the Supreme Court was referring to this orde r of the High Court and that the right of the writ petitioners have been purport edly crystallized through this order of the High Court passed on 24.5.2004.

6. As the petitioners stake their claim on the order dated 24.5.2004, where by the learned Single Judge disposed of about 147 writ petitions, a careful exam ination of the said proceeding of the High Court would be in order. In dealing with the contour of the cases the learned Judge recorded as u

7.1 nder: (cid:28) & &..2.By an advertisement published in the newspapers on 17.01.2000, applicati ons were invited for recruitment of Constables in different Battalions of the As sam Police. In the advertisement in question, the number of posts that were prop osed to be filled up were not indicated and though the minimum conditions of eli gibility for appointment were stipulated, the norms which would govern the recru itment were also not mentioned. A very large number of candidates applied pursua nt to the advertisement issued and over 20,000 of them having satisfied the recr uitments of eligibility were called to undergo the selection process. The select ion, it must be noted, was held in the District Headquarter sin all the 23 Distr icts of the State. After the conclusion of selection process and even after on t he expiry of a reasonable period of time thereafter, as no select list was publi shed, a large number of Writ Applications were filed, wherein the relief claimed for was for a direction to the Respondents to publish the select list and there after to make appointments in accordance therewith. While the aforesaid writ app lications were pending before this Court, as appointments of Constables were bei ng made by the respondents, another set of Writ Petitions were filed calling int o question the aforesaid appointments as well as the selection process itself. T hereafter, it appears that a second advertisement was issued on 26.07.2002 propo sing to recruit about 1300 more Constables in the Police Battalion. Another batc h of Writ Applications was filed questioning the validity of the aforesaid secon d advertisement dated 26.07.2002, wherein it was contended that appointment of e ligible candidates should be made on the basis of the earlier selection held and the Respondents should be restrained from proceeding with the second process of recruitment sough to be initiated by the advertisement dated 26.07.2007. All th e Writ Applications being interconnected and having raised a core question, whic h was perceived to be common, were heard together by this Court on 15.12.2003. (cid:29)

7.2 The Court order dated 24.5.04 reveals that the High Court relied upon an Inquiry Report which recorded that select list was not published in newspaper i n pursuant to selection exercise following the advertisement dated 17.1.2000. Th e learned Court also found that the records of selection have been destroyed and in the absence of relevant records the Court expressed its helplessness to reac h a positive conclusion in the matter. The Court opined that it is not possible to determine as to whether select list were prepared arbitrarily or have been pr epared legitimately and accordingly recorded that - (cid:28) &..the truthfulness and correctness of either of the 2 situations would forever remain in doubt. &.. (cid:29) (cid:28) &.In the present case, no material whatsoever is available to enable the Court to reach any positive conclusion as regards the validity of the exercise underta ken at the Headquarters (cid:29)

7.3 The Court in its order dated 24.5.2004 further recorded that the destru ction of records has virtually pre-empted the Court from arriving at the truth i n the matter.

7.4. On the basis of the above conclusion, the High Court by its order dated 25.4.2004 declined to interfere with the recruitment exercise undertaken by the Government in pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.1.2000, which were under ch allenge in the writ petitions. But this order of the High Court can not in my view be construed to be a n order giving Court’s approval to the selection process.

8. In these 4 writ petitions, the petitioners could not show that their nam es appear in any select list. In fact in para. 3 of the W.P.(C) 905/2008, it is specifically recorded that (cid:28)That the petitioner begs to state that after having been declared medically fit, they have been accordingly waiting for the publica tion for the select list by which they would be appointed as Constables against the vacancies advertised. From the above pleadings of the writ petitioners, it is clear that while the writ petitioners claim participation in the recruitment process but their p leaded case is that, no select list has been published. 9. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated t hat in pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.1.2000, 2831 candidates were selec ted and all of them have been appointed within 31.3.2001 in the vacancies availa ble. It is specifically averred that all selected candidates were appointed. Con sequently it can be inferred that the Government’s stand is that the petitioners were not selected.

10. It may further be noticed that after the first advertisement on 17.1.200 0, two subsequent initiatives for recruitment of Constables were undertaken by i ssuing advertisements on 26.7.2002 and on 21.8.2004. By the last advertisement i .e. 21.8.2004, 5486 posts were advertised and eventually all 5486 candidates sel ected in pursuant to the advertisement made on 21.8.2004 have been appointed, of course at different times and, through this Court’s and the Supreme Court’s ord ers. This selection process made in the year 2004. This selection process made i n the year 2004, was subjected to scrutiny by the Supreme Court and after having recorded that there were proper advertisements and that the selection proceeded on the basis of the notified guidelines, the interference by the High Court was found to be unjustified. Accordingly the Supreme Court in its judgment of Sadan anda Halo vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh reported in (2008) 4 SCC 619, upheld the selec tion process. Consequential declaration in favour of the selected candidates wer e also made by the Supreme Court.

11. As regards the right of writ petitions to get appointment on the basis o f their purported selection made in the year 2000, it may be appropriate to also take note of the order passed by this Court on 22.1.2004 in W.P.(C) 720/2001 an d 94 connected petitions. In this order the High Court held that the recruitment of Constables should proceed, but not on the basis of advertisement issued on 2 6.7.2002, but with a fresh advertisement, indicating the precise number of vacan cies. Following this order dated 22.1.2004, applications were invited to fill up 5486 posts of Constables, by the advertisement dated 21.8.2004.

12. Having regard to the contentions advanced by the Counsels appearing for the parties, and on scrutiny of the records, I am unable to find any material to show that the writ petitioners have been selected for appointment in pursuant t o the advertisement made on 17.1.2000. It hardly needs to be recorded that mere participation in the recruitment process would not give anyone a right to appoin tment. In fact they pleaded for publication of the select list. That apart, foll owing the selection in pursuant to the notice dated 21.8.2004, all the 5486 adve rtised vacancies have been filled up.

13. On a specific query posed by the Court as to whether the Supreme Court i n its order dated 23.11.2007 could have referred to any other order (barring the order dated 24.5.2004 and 22.1.2004 noticed earlier), the Counsels were emphati c in their reply that no other High Court order was under consideration of the S upreme Court. The Apex Court itself did not say that petitioners are selected. I n the backdrop of this contention, I have examined both the orders of the High C ourt and in my view, the said orders does not in any way establish that the writ petitioners herein were selected and have a right of appointment. Therefore thi s Court must comprehend the purport of the Supreme Court’s order dated 23.11.200 7 in this perspective only.

14. In the above circumstances, I do not find any enforceable right of the w rit petitioners to claim appointment as they are unable to show and the Court is not in a position to conclude that they were selected, in pursuant to the adver tisement dated 17.1.2000. In the absence of any select list and having noted tha t the selection records have been destroyed (as recorded by the Court on 24.5.20 04), it wouldn’t be appropriate after a decade, to pass any direction for their appointment, particularly for the posts of Constables for which physical fitness is an essential pre-requisite.

15. In view of above I do not find any merit in these cases and the same are dismissed without any order on costs.