WP(C) 2371/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) 1. All the writ petitions pertain to selection and appointment of constable in the district of Nalbari. Since the grievance raised in all the writ petition s is one and the same, they have been heard analogously and are being disposed o f by this common judgment and order. 2. In response to the advertisement dated 10.10.2007 (Annexure-3) issued by the DIGP (Admn), Assam Police inviting applications for certain posts of consta bles, the petitioners alonwgith others offered their candidatures. They particip ated in the selection process comprising of physical test, medical fitness test and oral interview etc. Their names having not been included in the select list, they have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petitions. According to the petitioners, the private respondents although were not qualified for sel ection, they have been illegally selected to the deprivation of the petitioners. It is the further case of the petitioners that they were selected and their nam es were included in the select list prepared by the Selection Board, but in the select list published on 4.6.2008, their names were omitted. 3. The grounds towards assailing the selection of the private respondents u rged in the writ petition are that, some of the respondents being not the reside nts of the district of Nalbari were not eligible to apply; some of the responden ts did not qualify in the physical test, but yet called for subsequent interview ; some of the respondents although crossed the age limit fixed have been selecte d ignoring such age bar; the respondent No. 11 is not a resident of Assam not to speak of the district of Nalbari and the video shooting in respect of physical test was not done although such video recording of the physical test was done in respect of other districts. 4. Above are the basic allegations made in the writ petition towards assail ing the selection of the private respondents. In addition, it is the case of the petitioners that although they were selected and their names were incorporated in the select list prepared by the Selection Board and sent to the authority, bu t subsequently their names were deleted from the list, which was published on 4. 6.2008. Another allegation made in the writ petition is that the select list was not published in the newspaper. 5. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit alongwith the documen ts pertaining to the selection. As regards the allegation that the final select list was not published in any newspaper, it has been stated that the same was pu blished in the newspaper called Janasangyog on 8.6.2008. As regards the allega tion that in the list sent to the Director General of Police (DGP), Assam, the n ames of the petitioners were included, but subsequently deleted while publishing the list on 8.6.2008, the respondents have denied the same. They have annexed t he select list (Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit), which was sent to the DGP. As regards other allegations regarding deficiency in physical and medical fitne ss test and that some of the respondents are not residents of the district of Na lbari, the respondents have denied the same. It has been stated that the candida ture offered by the private respondents were found valid as per the advertisemen t dated 10.10.2007 and accordingly they were allowed to participate in the selec tion. 6. I have heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners as we ll as Ms. R. Chakraborty and Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate s, Assam. I have also heard Mr. A.M. Bujarbarua, learned counsel for the private respondents as well as Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel representing some of th e private respondents in WP(C) No. 2371/2008. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners upon a reference to t he advertisement and the clause therein how to apply submits that as per the p articular criterion to apply for the post, the candidate must be a resident of t he district. As per the said clause a candidate is to submit his application in the office of the Superintendent of Police of the district in which he is ordina rily a resident. In the writ petition, the contention raised in this regard is t hat some of the private respondents are not the permanent resident of the distri ct of Nalbari. 8. On perusal of the aforesaid clause, I am of the considered opinion that there is nothing to suggest that it is only a permanent resident of the district of Nalbari, who alone is entitled to offer candidature. The expression used in the advertisement is ordinary a resident . Thus, if the candidate is an ordinar y resident of the district, he is eligible and/or entitled to apply for the post . Another argument advanced by Mr. Bujarbarua, learned counsel for the private r espondents is that the methodology prescribed under the head how to apply is o nly to submit application through the Superintendent of Police of the district a nd the same does not debar a candidate from applying in another districts cannot be said to be misplaced. He also submits that if the particular stand of the pe titioners is to be accepted, same will be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. Apart from the above, although the petitioners have made the general rem ark that some of the private respondents are not the permanent residents of the district of Nalbari, it is not their case that the said respondents are not even temporarily residents. What has been contended is that they normally do not res ide in the district of Nalbari. As regards the deficiency in physical and medica l fitness test, only vague and general statements have been made without disclos ing anything material. Such statement cannot be said to be material and derisive for the purpose. On the other hand, the respondents in their counter affidavit have enclosed relevant documents pertaining to the selection including the final select list, to which the petitioners have not filed any reply affidavit. 10. In the matter of selection, normally presumption is drawn towards validi ty of the same unless it is shown that such selection is based on malafide and/o r colourable exercise of power. Writ Curt may interfere with the selection, if i t is shown that the same was conducted in violation of any statutory rule. Nothi ng has been brought to my notice that the selection was conducted in violation o f the statutory rules. As regards the allegation that the physical test was cond ucted without any video recording, there is nothing to show that such course of action on the part of the Selection Committee was mandatory requirement and has vitiated the selection. The Advertisement did not specify that the physical test would be conducted with video shooting/recording. 11. There is another aspect of the matter. The petitioners duly appeared in the selection and took a chance for favourable consideration. They have approach ed this Court only when they found that their names were not included in the fin al merit list. It was incumbent on their part to raise objection regarding parti cipation of the private respondents in the selection process, if the kind of ano maly as sought to be projected in the writ petition were within the notice of th e petitioners, at the time of selection itself and not after their failure in th e selection. The kind of anomalies sought to be projected in the writ petition a re also vague and indefinite on the basis of which the Writ Court cannot interfe re with the selection process conducted by the official respondents. 12. For all the aforesaid reasons I see no reason to interfere with the sele ction of the private respondents and for that matter the selection conducted by the respondents. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioners and a ccordingly, all the writ petitions stand dismissed, without, however, any order as to costs.