WA 336/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR MADAN B LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Chief Justice The appellants are aggrieved by a common judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) Nos.3244 and 3719 of 2008. 2. The broad facts leading to the filing of the present appeal indicate tha t an advertisement was issued in leading newspapers on 29th April, 2008 inviting applications for filling up 3588 posts of constables in the Assam Police. 3. The appellants had responded to the advertisement and had undergone a ph ysical examination as well as an interview by 29th May, 2008. 4. On 31st May, 2008, an order was passed by the Guwahati Police to the eff ect that the selection process should be immediately discontinued. This order wa s passed apparently as a result of certain complaints having been received of fi nancial transactions having taken place to influence the selection process. Even tually, by an order dated 27th July, 2008 the entire selection process was cance lled. 5. It may be mentioned at this stage that when the selection process was in terdicted, as many as 311 candidates were yet to be interviewed for appointment. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the cancellation of the selection process, the appe llants preferred writ petitions in this Court for a direction that the select li st be published and the appellants be appointed as constables pursuant to the re cruitment process that had commenced with the advertisement dated 29th April, 20 08. 7. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondents issued a fresh advertisement on 17th July, 2008 for initiating a de novo selection for recruit ment to the Assam Police. This was also challenged by the appellants by filing a nother writ petition in this Court. As an interim measure, this Court permit the selection process to go on, making it clear that the candidates could participa te in the de novo selection process without prejudice to their rights and conten tions in the pending writ petitions. We are told by the learned counsel for the appellants that his clients did not participate in the de novo selection process 1. On a reading of the case papers and on hearing learned counsel for the p arties, it appears to us (prima facie) that there were large-scale financial tra nsactions involved in the first selection process. 9. The State had independently received complaints that the recruitment pro cess was vitiated because there were allegations of huge financial transactions for recruiting certain persons as constables. On the basis of these complaints, the State appointed an enquiry committee to look into the matter and that commit tee confirmed the allegations. On this basis, the State concluded that the selec tion process was vitiated. This eventually led to the cancellation of the select ion process. 10. On the other hand, the Chairman of the selection committee (Respondent N o.4) admitted on affidavit that political pressure was sought to be put on him f or recruiting certain candidates, but denied having succumbed to the pressure. A ccording to him, the selection process was not vitiated in any manner whatsoever because of the so-called political pressure sought to be put on him. 11. The learned Single Judge hearing both the issues (the challenge to the c ancellation of the selection process and the commencement of the de novo selecti on process) dismissed both the writ petitions by the impugned judgment and order and it is in these circumstances that the appellants are now before us in a wri t appeal. 12. The learned Single Judge was of the view that on the facts of the case, it was very difficult to accept either the version put forward by the State or t he version put forward by Respondent No.4 that he was not influenced by the poli tical pressure put on him. The learned Single Judge noted, quite significantly, that the selection process had been interdicted and that as many as 311 candidat es were yet to be interviewed. Under these circumstances, the learned Single Jud ge was of the opinion that the selection process having not yet been completed, no select list could have been prepared and so there was no question of granting any relief to the writ petitioners (now appellants before us). 13. In so far as the challenge to the de novo recruitment process initiated by the advertisement dated 17th July, 2008 was concerned, the learned Single Jud ge observed that there was no merit in the challenge, particularly since the ear lier selection process had not validly cancelled 14. It is submitted before us by learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge erred in the view that he had taken on both the issues. In our opinion, it is not possible to accept the contentions of learned counsel fo r the appellants. 15. It is rather difficult to conclude which of the two versions concerning the first selection process is correct - it is difficult to hold that the report given by the enquiry committee to the State that financial transactions had tak en place in the selection process is incorrect; similarly, it is difficult to sa y that the version given by Respondent No.4 that he was not influenced in the se lection process is incorrect. This is a controversy which needs to be decided in an appropriate forum and the writ jurisdiction of this Court is surely not the appropriate forum. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in not expressing any final opinion on the controversy. 16. But, it is important to note that in fact the selection process had yet to be completed, in as much as 311 candidates were still to be interviewed when the selection process was interdicted on 31st May, 2008. That being the position , there was no question of a select list coming into existence with a large numb er of candidates not having been interviewed at all. We are, therefore, of the o pinion that the learned Single Judge was quite right in concluding that it was n ot possible to give a direction to the State to publish the select list when, in fact, the selection process was yet to be completed. 17. We may note that it is well settled by the Supreme Court in Shankarsan D ash v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 that ordinarily even a successful candida te does not have an indefeasible right to be appointed. As far as the appellants are concerned, even if it is assumed that there was a valid select list in exis tence, they cannot ask for a direction to the State to appoint them as constable s in the Assam Police. 18. Additionally, we do not find any error in the commencement of the de-nov o recruitment process. That process was a logical consequence of the cancellatio n of the earlier selection process. There is nothing on record to suggest that t he selection process, initiated by the advertisement dated 17th July, 2008 was v itiated in any manner whatsoever, except the contention of learned counsel for t he appellants that the earlier selection process ought not to have been cancelle d. This is hardly a substantive reason to set aside the advertisement dated 17th July, 2008. Consequently, we do not think it appropriate to interfere in the de novo recruitment process. 19. Learned counsel for the appellants, placing reliance on Sadananda Halo a nd others v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and others, (2008) 4 SCC 619, particularly paragr aph 60 thereof sought to contend that the selection process should be set aside if there is lack of bona fides and there is some mala fide exercise of powers to vitiate the selection process. Obviously, we cannot join issue with this propos ition. But, as we have noted hereinabove, the entire selection process chaired b y Respondent No.4 had left a question mark both in the minds of the candidates w ho had not been selected, as well as in the minds of the State. There was, there fore, a prima facie lack of bona fides vitiating the selection process. More imp ortantly, there was a vitiating element in the selection process in as much as t he selection committee claimed to have prepared a select list, even though as ma ny as 311 candidates were not interviewed till the stoppage of the selection pro cess. 20. In our opinion, the lack of bona fides in the selection process is writ large. In view of this, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the Stat e cancelling the selection process, nor is there is there any error in the State initiating a de novo selection process. 21. There is no merit in these appeals. Dismissed. 22. We make it clear that we have dismissed these appeals but have made no o bservation, one way or the other, with regard to the allegations of political pr essure on the Chairman of the selection committee.