WP(C) 636/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) The petitioners numbering five, have filed this writ petition praying fo r a direction to the respondents to appoint them as Sub-Inspector (UB) under the respondents against the advertisement dated 7.2.2006. The irregularities in con ducting the selection, as has been identified by the petitioners, were noted in the order dated 19.4.2011. For a ready reference, the said order dated 19.4.2011 . 19.04.2011 After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at some length, the following points have emerged. Although in the advertisement it was indicated that the candidates qualifying in the written test would be called for physical test and thereafter the successfu l candidates would finally appear in the personal interview (viva- voce), but in the counter affidavit the stand of the respondents is that the candidates were called for both physical test and viva voce irrespective of whether they had qua lified in the physical test or not. As against the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit filed by Shri Gunottam Bhuyan, IPS that the petitioners had secured 20, 21, 17, 18 and 19 mar ks in the personal interview, but in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petiti oners they have shown that in fact, they had secured 36, 27, 33 and 28 marks in the personal interview. Be it stated here that the petitioner No.2 has withdrawn from its proceeding he has already been appointed pursuant to a subsequent sele ction. In the rejoinder affidavit the petitioners have enclosed the final result sheet brought through RTI Act to show that the candidate who did not get qualifying ma rks, i.e. 50% in the personal interview has been selected and appointed. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the c andidates at serial No.18 and 46 under Roll No.27 and 50 who although had secure d 24 and 22 marks respectively in the personal interview have been selected and appointed. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn my attention to the case of t he petitioner No.3, namely Md. Firdaus Saikia, whom according to him ought to ha ve selected and appointed having regard to the specifications in respect of phys ical test. The above points would require explanation from the respondents, more particular ly the officer who had sworn the affidavit dated 27.06.2008. The original also required perusal of this Court for proper adjudication of the matter inasmuch as there is inherent contradiction in the stand of the respondents in their counte r affidavit compared to the documents furnished through RTI Act. Heard in part. Further hearing will be after two weeks. Meanwhile, the responde nts shall file their additional affidavit clarifying the aforesaid positions and shall also produce the records pertaining to the physical test of the petitione rs. Let a copy of this order be furnished to Ms R. Chakraborty, learned State co unsel. 2. In response to the said order, the Addl. Director General of Police (TAP ), Assam filed a further affidavit on 3.5.2011 in which, it was stated that the petitioner No.3 failed to secure the qualifying mark in the Long Jump event. Acc ording to the said affidavit, he had secured 4.5 marks out of 10 marks, whereas the qualifying mark was 5. It was further stated in the affidavit that as a toke n of acceptance of the said statistics, the petitioner had also put his signatur e at Sl. No.G(1). 3. As recorded in the order dated 24.5.2011, the affidavit in opposition fi led by Mr. R. Chandranathan, Inspector General of Police (Admn.) in another wri t petition being WP(C) No.3717/2010 pertaining to the same selection revealed th at the allotment of marks for Long Jump event was 10 and pass mark 6. The minimu m standard to be covered was 12 feet. However, the pass mark was reduced to 5 an d minimum distance to be covered was also reduced to 9 feet. Referring to the sa id affidavit, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a t least the petitioner No.3 had qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test inasmu ch as the said petitioner had covered a distance of 10.8 feet as against 9 feet and thus, he qualified in the said event. Be it stated here that the petitioner involved in WP(C) No.3717/2010 was declared pass with the distance covered 10 fe et. 4. So far as the marks secured by the petitioners are concerned, it has bee n stated that the petitioners No.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 had secured 20, 21, 17, 18 and 19 marks respectively in the personal interview. As regards the plea of the pe titioners that the candidates, who had qualified in the physical test only were to be called for personal interview as per the norms fixed in the advertisement, the stand of the respondents is that the candidates who had appeared in the phy sical test were also called for personal interview irrespective of passing or no t passing the physical test. As per the affidavit, in the physical test and pers onal interview, only 142 could qualify, who had been selected for appointment as Sub-Inspector of Police (UB). The stand of the respondents in their counter aff idavit is that the petitioner could not qualify in the physical test. 5. At this stage, Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the peti tioners submits that the petitioners allegedly could not qualify only in the 100 Mtr-race. But the respondents have shown them to have failed in other events al so. If we go by the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit that the petitioners having secured the marks which are less than the qualifying mark 25 out of 50 marks only in the personal interview, they could not qualify in the s election. As regards the aforesaid claim of the respondents, the petitioners in their additional affidavit filed on 16.12.2010 have furnished information derive d through the provisions of the RTI Act, as per which, out of five petitioners, four petitioners namely, Shri Rakesh Sharma, Md. Firdaus Saikia, Paragjyoti Gos wami and Golam Rahul Amin Mottaquee had secured 36, 27, 33 and 28 respectively in the personal interview. Thus, it was contended that the respondents were wr ong in the plea taken in the counter affidavit that the petitioner failed to qua lify in the personal interview. 6. In reply to the said additional affidavit, the respondents have filed a further affidavit, in which it has been stated that the marks secured by the pet itioners in the personal interview were wrongly shown in the earlier affidavit d ue to inadvertence. It has been stated that the marks shown in the earlier affid avit were given by only one member and due to inadvertence, the marks given by o ther two members and the total marks thereof were not reflected. Thus, the respo ndents have admitted wrong reflection of marks in the personal interview secured by the petitioners. 7. Irrespective of the aforesaid mistake, the stand of the respondents is t hat in the final result sheet, everything was reflected and in fact, the final s core-sheet has been quoted in the affidavit to show the actual marks secured by the petitioners. The plea of the respondents is that the petitioners failed to q ualify in the physical efficiency test and thus, they did not come in the Select List. 8. It is an admitted position that the petitioners could not qualify in the 100-Mtr-race, except the petitioner No.3. If that be so, irrespective of securi ng the qualifying marks in the personal interview, which was held by calling the candidates, who had appeared in the physical efficiency test without declaring the results thereof, the petitioners could not have been included in the Select List. 9. As regards the petitioner No.3, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the stand of the respondents in their counter affi davit filed in WP(C) No.3717/2010, about which mention has been made above, he c ould not have been declared to have failed in the Long Jump event. Noticing this position, the respondents were directed to clarify their position in the matter . In response to the said direction, the Addl. Director General of Police (TAP) Assam has filed an affidavit, in which it has been stated that even Gurjeet Sing h, who was the petitioner in WP(C) No.3717/2010 did not secure the qualifying ma rks in Long Jump event. According to this affidavit, the qualifying marks in the Long Jump event was 6, as against the full mark of 10 and distance to be covere d 12 feet. However, this affidavit does not speak anything of reduced standard a s indicated in the counter affidavit filed in WP(C)No.3717/2010. 10. In view of the above, at least in the case of the petitioner No.3, the r espondents owe an explanation. There is apparent variation of stand in the affi davit filed in this proceeding and the affidavit filed in WP(C) No.3717/2010. It is the plea of the petitioners that if the petitioner No.3 is declared to have cleared the Long Jump event then, in that case, he would qualify in the selectio n. As regards the other petitioners, the submission made by Mr. Buragohain, lea rned counsel for the petitioners is that as against awarding the grace marks to some of the candidates, the petitioners have been left out from the purview of g race marks. However, the respondents have clarified the position in their counte r affidavit stating that the said candidates, about which the petitioners have m ade a mention, being candidates belonging to reserved category, their cases have been considered with the reduced marks. 11. The above being the position, no relief can be granted to the petitioner s other than the petitioner No.3. So far as the petitioner No.3 is concerned, th e respondents will have to consider his case afresh taking note of the observati ons made above and the stand in the counter affidavits filed in this proceeding and WP(C) No.3717/2010. Although in terms of the earlier orders passed, the Add l. Director General of Police (TAP), Assam has filed an additional affidavit, bu t the point that was highlighted in the order dated 24.5.2011 regarding the redu ced standard has not been dealt with. 12. In view of the above, the respondents are directed to examine his case o n the basis of the available records. If upon such examination, it is found that the said petitioner ought to have been included in the Select List, on the basi s of his performance in the selection, they may do so by placing him in the Sele ct List appropriately. If it is further found that upon such placement, the said petitioner comes within the zone of consideration for appointment, the responde nts shall take necessary follow up action. 13. Let the entire exercise in terms of this order be carried out, as expedi tiously as possible, but at any rate, not later than 31st July, 2011. It will be appropriate for the respondents to pass a speaking order. Whatever may be the o utcome of such exercise, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner No.3. 14. With the above direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. There s hall be no order as to costs.