WA 373/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B P KATAKEY JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral) Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Both these appeals having arisen from a common order dated 23.8.2004 wer e heard together and are being disposed of by means of this common judgment and order. 2. The facts, in brief, may be noticed at the outset. On 12.1.2003 the respondent ,Airport Authority of India, North Eastern R egion, Guwahati published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Services) for appointment in various Airports in the Nor th Eastern Region. The advertisement stipulated certain criteria of physical fit ness subject to fulfillment of which the candidates were to be allowed to partic ipate in the written test and interview. A large number of candidates applied ou t of which 31 candidates who had been finally selected but were not allowed to j oin had approached this Court by filing writ petitions registered and numbered a s WP(C) Nos.2644/2004, 2800/2004, 2877/2004 and 2903/2004. The said writ petiti ons were heard along with WP(C) Nos.3790/2003, 4698/2003 and 5733/2003 which wer e filed by a total of 16 candidates who were not selected. The present appeals a rises out of the writ proceedings registered and numbered as WP(C) Nos. 4698/200 3 and 5733/2003. The learned Single Judge by the common order dated 23.8.2004 di sposed of all the writ petitions including WP(C) Nos. 4698/2003 and 5733/2003. By the said order while the writ petitions filed by the group of 31 candidates w ere allowed the writ petitions filed by the 16 unselected candidates including t he present petitioners were dismissed. Aggrieved by the said common order passed in WP(C) Nos. 4698/2003 and 5733/2003 these two writ appeals have been filed. 3. A reading of the averments made in paragraph 5 of the writ petitions ind icate that the reliefs sought for in the writ petition was for interference with the selection and proposed appointments of the respondent Nos.5 to 12 impleaded in the writ petitions. The aforesaid challenge was made on the specific grounds stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition which is primarily to the effect tha t the respondent Nos.5 to 12 were not physically qualified to participate in the selection despite which they have been finally selected. Specifically, accordin g to the petitioners, the height of the respondent No.5 was less than 167 cms.; the respondent No.6 was flat footed; the respondent No.7 had a chest measurement of less than 81 cms.; the respondent No.8 had a fractured leg; the respondent N o.9 had undergone a major surgery; the respondent No.10 had defective eye sight along with chest measurement of less than 81 cms; whereas the respondent Nos.11 and 12 had chest measurement of less than 81 cms. 4. According to the petitioners, though the respondent Nos.5 to 12 were phy sically not fit on account of the details stated above and therefore were not el igible to participate in the written test and/or in the interview, yet, they wer e allowed to do so and were finally selected and were awaiting their appointment s. The said actions, therefore, are contended to be wholly illegal and arbitrary . 5. The respondents had filed a counter affidavit in the writ petitions in q uestion denying the statements made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. Along w ith the said affidavit photocopies of the relevant records showing the physical measurement data recorded on the date of physical fitness test of the respondent Nos.5 to 12 have been enclosed. A perusal of the aforesaid records enclosed to the affidavit indicates that the facts stated by the petitioners in paragraph 5 of the writ petition are wholly incorrect. The said records further reveal that the respondent Nos.5 to 12 had been found to be physically fit, as per the presc ribed criteria, in the physical fitness tests held on the dates scheduled. 6. We have noted that the such a finding has also been recorded by the lear ned Single Judge in paragraph 15 of the judgment under appeal to reach the concl usion that no illegality in the selection process is apparent from a reading of the records produced before the learned Single Judge. 7. The grievance of the petitioners, specific details of which have been no ted, having been demonstrated to be wholly unfounded by the records produced, we do not see how the order of the learned Single Judge can be faulted. Accordingl y, we do not find any merit in either of these writ appeals. Both the writ appea ls, therefore, shall stand dismissed, however, without any order as to costs. 8. Mr. A. B. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants have placed before the Court certain other facts to demonstrate that some of th e candidates belonging to the group of 31 who had been selected were subsequentl y disqualified on medical grounds. Sri Choudhury has also pointed out, by placin g the requisite record before the Court, that a criminal case i.e. Special Case No.24 of 2005 has been registered in the Court of the learned Special Judge, C.B .I., Guwahati in regard to the very same selection process. While taking the st atements made by Sri Choudhury on record the Court does not consider the same to be any impediment in reaching the conclusion, as already recorded above. Howeve r, if there is a criminal case pending against specific persons in respect of th e same selection process, naturally, all actions taken, including the appointmen ts made, will be governed by such orders as may be passed in the criminal case r egistered.