WP(C) 3802/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AC UPADHYAY . IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND,MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, TRIPURA, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) W.P.(C) No. 3802 of 2010 Shri Dilip Regmi, S/O. Shri Chandra Prasad Regmi, Resident of village-Odalguri, P.S.-Sorbhog, P.O.-Mainamata, District-Barpeta, Assam. & & & &.. PETITIONER. Vs. 1. The State of Assam, Through the Commissioner and Secretary, Home Department, Dispur, Guwahati-6. 2. The Director General of Police, Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati-7., 3.The Inspector General of Police(Admn.), Assam, Ulubari, Guwahati-7. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Barpeta, District-Barpeta, Assam. & & & &.. RESPONDENTS. BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPDHYAY For the petitioner : Mr.R.P.Sarmah, Sr. Advocate, Mr. M.R. Adhikari, Mr. A.R.Tahbildar, Advocates, For the respondents : Mrs. M. Goswami, Govt. Advocate, Date of hearing & delivery of Judgment and order : 23.08.2011. JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) I have heard Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel assisted b y Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs. M Go swami, learned Government Advocate for the State-respondents. 2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to allow him t o join the post of Constable (A.B) in Assam Police/Battalion/IRBN etc. with all consequential benefits of seniority, arrear, salary, etc. from 22.06.2010 i.e. f rom the date, when all the selected candidates of Barpeta District were allowed to join the posts. 3. The facts, leading to filing of this writ petition, may be state d, as follows: On 23.02.2009, an advertisement was published in various newspap ers of the State for recruitment of AB Constables in Assam Police/Battalion/IRBN , etc. to fill up a total vacancy of 2401 posts. The petitioner applied for the post of AB Constable, for Barpeta District, in response to the said advertisemen t, by fulfilling all requisite criterion, mentioned in the said advertisement. P ursuant thereto the petitioner was called for interview and physical eligibility test. Accordingly, the petitioner attended the interview and also physical elig ibility test. On being successful in interview as well as physical eligibility t est, he was sent for medical examination test, in which he was also medically fo und to be fit. On 04.02.2010 the result of the tests was announced and the selec t list was published in the local dailies. Accordingly, the Roll Number 2544 of the petitioner appeared in the select list, for recruitment to the post AB Const able from Barpeta District. After the publication of the result, the petitioner and others selected candidates were sent for final medical test, where the peti tioner was also declared fit. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.4, the Superi ntendent of police, Barpeta directed the selected candidates, except the petitio ner, to report for their joining by 22.06.2010. Accordingly, all selected candid ates, whose Roll Numbers appeared in the select list, reported for joining by 22 .06.2010. But unfortunately, the petitioner was not intimated anything about his joining. Finding no alternative, the petitioner approached this Court by filin g this writ petition. 4. The respondents, by filing affidavit-in-opposition, have stated that the petitioner was selected for recruitment of AB Constable against 25 AP(O NGC Security) Bn./24 AP(IR) in the existing vacant post of Constables of differe nt battalions under Assam Police for the District Barpeta. It has been stated on behalf of the respondents that during the course of police verification, while necessary records (Electoral Roll) of Election office was consulted to ascertain his nationality, it has been found that the father of the petitioner, Sri Chand ra Prasad Regmi, has been shown under categorization of ’D’(doubtful Elector) in Electoral Roll of 2005, in respect of 40 Sarbhog LAC. Owing to this, the petiti oner’s nationality could not be ascertained as the fate of ’D’ voter was not kno wn to the respondents. The Election Officer, Barpeta was requested to clarify, a s to whether the matter is sub-judiced in any Foreigners Tribunal or not. But th e report was not received from the Election Officer, Barpeta. However, the respo ndents categorically stated that as soon as the clarification from the Election Officer is received, follow up action would be taken up for consideration of his report. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, by drawing attention of this Court to the document relating to the nationality of the petitioner and his gra ndfather submitted that his grandfather late Nandalal Regmi was born in the vill age of Udalguri, in the first decade of 20th century and petitioner’s father, Ch andra Prasad Regmi, was the fifth son, among the six sons, of late Nandalal Regm i and was born in Sorbhog district, Kamrup in the year 1957. The petitioner is the eldest son of Shri Chandra Prasad Regmi, among three children and was born o n 28.02.1984 at village-Odalguri, Assam. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the documents of Barpeta Local Board, issued on 20.04.1940, submitted that the grandfather of the petitioner, Late Nandalal Regmi, was nominated member of Mainamata School M anaging Committee and he was also running Mainamata Government Fair Price Shop v ide Licence/Permit No.460 of 1945. The petitioner’s grandfather was further app ointed as an esteemed member of the Primary School Managing Committee of Kamarga on No.184, Vill-No.1, Mainamata-1 of Barpeta District. The appointment letter wa s issued on 16.08.1955 by the Secretary, School Board, Barpeta. Learned counsel for the petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court to the relevant docum ents submitted that in 1965 Electoral Roll for the then No.47 Sorbhog Legislativ e Assembly Constituency the name of the petitioner’s grandfather was at Sl. No. 148, House No.42(old) and further in 1985 Electoral Roll for No.40 Sorbhog Legis lative Assembly Constituency, the names of the petitioner’s grandfather and fath er appeared at Sl. No. 187 and 189 respectively. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the pe titioner was born in 1984 and was enumerated as voter for No.40 Sorbhog Legislat ive Assembly Constituency, for the first time, in the Electoral Roll of 2008, wh en the petitioner became eligible to be enlisted as a voter. Learned counsel fu rther submitted that the petitioner passed out High School Leaving Examination i n 2000, from the Board of Secondary Education, Assam and completed his Higher Se condary Examination in 2003 from Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, Guwah ati. The petitioner also completed his Diploma course in Computer from National Institute of Information Technologh(NIIT), New Delhi in 2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that no case is pending against the petitioner , his father and his grandfather in the Foreigners Tribunal questioning their na tionality. 8. The respondent-authorities did not dispute the statement of fact made by the petitioner regarding his nationality by birth. 9. In view of the above, since the petitioner is a citizen of India by birth and a voter of No.40 Sorbhog Legislative Assembly Constituency, unless otherwise established, he cannot be deprived of his right to be considered and appointed merely on the ground that his father was a D voter in the Voter List . Therefore, the decision of the respondent-authorities not to consider the ca se of the petitioner solely on the ground that his father is a D voter in the Voter List is illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary. 10. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed directing the respond ent-authorities to do the needful to issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of AB Constable in terms of the advertisement dated 23.02.2009 and if he is otherwise eligible for appointment. Since all other candidates selecte d along with the petitioner have already been appointed, the petitioner shall be appointed against the existing vacant post of AB Constable accordingly. Inters e seniority of the petitioner shall be considered by the authority concerned in due course of time. 11. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.