AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. A.R. Tahabildar, the learned Counsel representing the two petitioners. Also heard the learned Government Advocate Mr. M.K.
Nath, appearing for the respondents.
The matter pertains to recruitment of AB Constables in pursuant to the advertisement dated 23.2.2009 (Annexure-A), issued by the IGP
(Admn.), Assam. Of the 2002 advertised posts of AB Constables, 100 vacancies were earmarked for Sonitpur district and the petitioners
participated in the recruitment process conducted on 15.9.2009 and 18.9.2009 respectively, at the Police Reserve, Tezpur.
The petitioner No.1 belongs to the SC category and the 2nd petitioner belongs to the OBC category and the learned Counsel Mr. A.R.
Tahabildar projects from the advertisement that for the SC and the OBC category, 7% and 27% vacancies were earmarked. The Counsel then
refers to the selection result notified on 5.2.2010 (Annexure-D) to point out that only the Roll Numbers of the successful candidates were notified
and there is no indication as to whether the reservation criteria was followed, to finalize the select list.
1 On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate Mr. M.K. Nath refers to the counter affidavit filed on 25.6.2010 to project that the
candidate Jagannath Hazarika (Roll No.246), had fared poorly in the education criteria, reading & writing skills and he failed in the viva-voce test.
The other candidate Sanjay Borah (Roll No.718), failed to complete 1.6 k.m. distance running within the stipulated time period and accordingly he
failed to qualify in the running test.
4.2 The Government Advocate then refers to the Annexure-A documents in the counter affidavit to project that the selection was conducted by
several Senior Police Officers together with the Medical & Health Officer and the candidates were assessed on the merit of their respective
performance. As both petitioners failed to qualify and performed poorly, they were not selected.
What follows from above is that the inferior performance of the petitioners has led to their nonselection. As they failed to achieve the required
qualification standard, only because they belong to the SC and or OBC category, they cannot claim appointment. Hence this challenge by the
unsuccessful aspirants is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost