WP(C) 4773/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The petitioners, contending candidates for appointment to the post of AB/UB cons tables in the State of Assam, seek a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or appro priate direction to the official respondents to provide appointment to them to t he aforementioned post for which selection was held in terms of the advertisemen t dated 17.01.2000. 02. I have heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. B .J. Ghosh, learned State Counsel for the official respondents. 03. The pleaded case of the petitioners, in short, is that they having respo nded to the aforementioned advertisement dated 17.01.2000 soliciting candidature for recruitment to unspecified number of post of police constables in the Sate, were subjected to selection that followed and were duly selected. The petition ers hail from various districts in the State of Assam. In spite of their selecti on, however they were not provided with appointment. 04. While the matter rested at that, a second advertisement was issued on 26 .07.2002 contemplating to recruit about 1300 additional constables in the police battalion of the State. Spate of writ petitions followed challenging both the selections. As a matter of fact, the process pertaining to the advertisement da ted 26.07.2002 could not be pursued in view of an interim order dated 24.05.2004 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.720/2001 and 94 other connected petitions. Th ereby, the State respondents were however permitted to go ahead with a fresh pro cess of recruitment taking note of the fact that in the meantime the vacant post of constables had swelled to 5000. The liberty was granted subject to the norm s stated in the order dated 22.01.2004, whereafter another advertisement dated 2 1.08.2004 was published for filling up 5500 posts of constables. The process re latable thereto was put to challenge in WP(C) No.976/2005 and other connected ca ses which were eventually disposed of on 12.12.2005 with which the issues subjud ice herein have no nexus. 05. In WP(C) No.720/2001 and other related cases witnessing a challenge, pri ncipally to the process initiated vide advertisement dated 17.01.2000, a co-ordi nate Bench of this Court having regard to the nature of the controversy involved constituted a Committee to enquire into all relevant factual aspects pertainin g to the impugned selection and submit a report. The Committee submitted its re port on 09.03.2004 narrating the norms, guidelines and parameters applied in con ducting the selection. The report disclosed that the selections were initially held in all the districts of the State and the district level Select Lists were thereafter forwarded to the Police Headquarter and finally a Central Master List /Central Select List was prepared for the purpose of recruitments/appointments. It further transpired from the report that the records of the selection at the district level were not available, the same having been destroyed, the exceptio n being for southern range enfolding, the districts of Cachar, Hailakandi, Karim ganj and North Cachar Hills. The report also revealed that all the candidates w hose names have figured in the Central Select List were appointed, except 423, o ut of which 406 did not report for appointment and the remaining 17 were rejecte d on account of certain ineligibilities discerned in them. The copies of the Central Master List/Central Select List were however produced before the learned Single Judge. In absence of the records of the selection at the district level and thu s any tangible proof of illegality in the Central Master List/Central Select Lis t, this Court by its judgment and order dated 24.05.2004 passed in WP(C) No.720 /2001, chiefly on this ground, did not interfere with the selection. The challe nge thereto was therefore rejected. A direction was however issued in view of t he above appalling state-of-affairs to the concerned departmental authority to i nitiate an Inquiry for fixing the responsibility for such lapse and amiss. According to the petitioners, even prior to the above determination by t his Court, they on 13.07.2001 had staked their claim for appointment claiming th emselves to be included in the list of 406 candidates who had been denied the sa me in spite of their selection. This representation before the Hon’ble Chief Mi nister of the State was followed up by another dated 11.10.2001 to the same effe ct. Their association being The Assam Minority Youth Association, in view of th e inexplicable lull approached this Court with WP(C) No.8637/2004 and 4 other co nnected writ petitions challenging inter alia the process initiated by the adver tisement dated 21.08.2004 as permitted vide order dated 22.01.2004 of this Court and claiming appointment instead on the basis of their selection in the earlier process. This Court disposed of the writ petitions with the following observati ons: The selections pursuant to both the advertisements i.e. advertisement d ated 17.01.2000 and 21.8.2004 has in the meantime been finalized and the challen ges as made against both the aforesaid selections have also been disposed of by the Court. In such circumstances, it will be difficult for this Court to recogn ize any subsisting right in any of the petitioners for consideration of their ca ses for appointment. If the petitioners were selected in the selections held pur suant to the advertisement dated 17.01.2000, surely and certainly, their cases f or appointment must be considered as the said selections have been upheld by thi s Court. If the petitioners have again participated in the selections held purs uant to he advertisement dated 21.8.2004 their cases will have to be dealt with according to the judgment and Order dated 12.12.2005 passed in WP(C) No.976/2005 and other connected cases. Beyond the aforesaid, no further direction can be c ontemplated or visualized in the present group of cases. The petitioners have in the instant proceeding returned to this Court, n othing further having materialised in effectuation of their claim. 06. The Respondent No.2 & 3, in their affidavit, have in substance pleaded t hat on the completion of recruitment process launched by the advertisement dated 17.01.2000, 2831 candidates including those of reserved categories were selecte d and were provided appointment by 31.03.2011 and that no selectee was denied th e same. According to the answering respondents, therefore the petitioners’ clai m for appointment was misconceived. 07. Mr. Sharma has emphatically argued with reference to the relevant extrac ts of the report dated 09.03.2004 of the Committee referred to hereinabove that the pleaded contention of the answering respondents is visibly opposed thereto a nd being contradictory is liable to be rejected in limini. 08. According to the learned counsel, it is apparent from this report, that though selected 406 candidates were not appointed on the purported ground, that they had not reported. While contending that the petitioners were entitled to ap pointment being within the 406 selected candidates, Mr. Sarma has urged that the plea that they had not reported for joining is factually incorrect. The learned counsel insisted that as the process in which the petitioners had been selected has been upheld by this Court vide the judgment and order dated 24.05.2004, a w rit of mandamus and/or appropriate direction ought to be issued to the official respondents to appoint them forthwith. Reliance has also been placed on the jud gment and order dated 15.12.2005 passed in WP(C) No.8637/2004 etc. 09. Mr. Ghosh has argued per contra that not only the present petition ought to be rejected on the ground of delay, the recruitment process initiated by the advertisement dated 17.01.2000 having been concluded for all intents and purpos es, no direction as sought for at this distant point of time ought to be made. While disputing that the petitioners have been illegally denied appointment thou gh selected, the learned State counsel has urged that even otherwise their selec t list being obsolete and non est in law as on date they cannot claim any unassa ilable right for appointment on the basis thereof. 10. The pleadings available and the rival assertions have been taken note of . Noticeably, the claim of the petitioners for appointment is wholly founded or the process initiated by the advertisement dated 17.01.2000 in which they profe ss were selected. On being queried by this Court, Mr. Sarma has candidly admitt ed that the petitioners were not contesting parties in WP(C) No.720/2001 and the other connected cases disposed of on 24.05.2004. The fact finding inquiry was also conducted in the year 2004. Though, the learned Single Judge while disposi ng the above proceedings duly noticed amongst others the fact that 406 selected candidates were not appointment, no direction as such was issued provide them th erewith. This assumes significance in view of the respondents stand as disclose d by the report that it was so as these candidates did not report for appointmen t. 11. The concluding portion of the judgment and order dated 15.05.2005 quoted hereinabove is also of considerable significance. The learned Single Judge the refor, recalling the intervening developments observed that in that backdrop it was difficult to recognize any subsisting in any of the petitioners for consider ation of their cases for appointment. This was logically in the context of the prayer for a writ of mandamus directing their appointment. The further observat ion therein that if the petitioners were selected, their cases should certainly be considered for appointment however cannot be construed dehors all relevant co nsiderations permitting such course and mandated by law. Admittedly, as the pet itioners complain, their cases were even thereafter not considered for appointme nt. 12. The present proceeding has been initiated in the year 2008 which is all most three years after the judgment and order dated 15.12.2005. The attention o f this Court has not been drawn to any step taken by them in between pursuing th eir case. That the recruitment process of the petitioner has since been conclude d in the year 2001 is a matter of record. Their grievance is that they have bee n illegally and arbitrarily denied appointment though entitled in law. As referr ed to hereinabove, this Court in WP(C) No.8367/2004 refrained from issuing a wri t of mandamus and/or direction to the official respondents to provide them with appointments on the basis of selection as claimed by them. Nothing better is fo rthcoming in the instant proceeding to warrant such a writ and/or direction as o n date. In any view of the matter even assuming that the petitioners’ names fig ure in the Central master list/Central select list prepared in the year 2000-200 1 (no material disclosing the date thereof having been furnished) it cannot be p erceived to be continuing and valid as on date. Though, Mr. Sarma has asserted that it is so due to continuing omission or wrong on the part of the official re spondents, such a view cannot be acceded to. As on date, therefore even assumin g that the petitioners were selected in the year 2000-2001, they cannot claim an y inviolable right for appointment on the basis thereof. A public participatory process having culminated in the year 2001 in absence of any persuasive or comp elling reason or justification, the same ought not to be opened at this distant point of time. The instant petition, in the above premise cannot be entertained and is thus dismissed. No costs.