WP(C) 3622/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard MH Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Handique, learne d State counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners have filed the present petition claiming the following relief: - For directing the respondents to sent the petitioners for training as they were selected for constables. According to the petitioner pursuant to the advertisements issued for selection of candidates for recruitment of constable in Assam Police the petitioners submi tted their applications and accordingly they were called for physical test and m edical test wherein they were successful and also for the personal interview hel d on 28.5.2008. It is the case of the petitioners that they have done well in th e personal interview also and therefore they are required to be sent for trainin g which the respondent authorities have not done and hence the present petition has been filed. The respondent No. 2 in the affidavit-in-opposition filed has stated that though the petitioners were qualified in the physical test as well as medical test, in the personal interview they did not secure 25 marks out of the total 50 marks. The respondents have further stated in the affidavit that the petitioner No. 1 h ad secured 23‰ marks and the petitioner No. 2 secured 9‰ marks out of 50 marks a nd as such in the merit list prepared and published their names do not figure as they were not selected having not secured the minimum marks in the personal int erview. The respondents in support of such contention has also annexed the list of recommended candidates for appointment as well as the list containing the mar ks secured by the different candidates including the petitioners in the personal interview. The petitioners as such in the writ petition has not challenged the select list prepared and published by the authority pursuant to the selection process initia ted for recruitment of constables in the Assam Police. There is no averment in t he writ petition that such select list is not prepared and published. The petiti oner in fact as it appears above has prayed for direction to the respondents to send them for training on the basis of the selection made. The documents annexed contain the names of the selected candidates and also the marks obtained by the different candidates including the petitioners in the interview. The minimum ma rks fixed to become qualified in such personal interview was 25 out of 50. The p etitioner No. 1 having secured 23‰ marks and the petitioner No. 2 having secured 9‰ marks were found to have not secured the minimum qualifying marks in such pe rsonal interview and as such were not selected. The fact remains that the petiti oners were not selected for appointment. In view of the above, the relief as prayed for in the writ petition could not be granted. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No cost.