WP(C) 3477/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Both the writ petitions having raised common question of law on the same set of facts were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgm ent and order. 2. I have heard Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the pe titioners in WP(C) 3477/07 and Mr. AS Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the sole petitioner in WP(C) No. 3646/2007. I have also heard Mr DR Gogoi, learned c ounsel for the private respondents i.e. the selected candidates and Mr RK Bora, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam. 3. By an advertisement dated 14.3.2007 issued by the Deputy Commiss ioner, Dhubri applications were invited, inter alia, for filling up 47 vacant po sts of Junior Assistant in the same office. The selection process was to consist of a written test of 100 marks, a typewriting test of 25 marks and finally an o ral interview consisting of 25 marks. The candidates who were to qualify in the written and typewriting test were to be called for the interview. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement issued, the petitioners in both the writ petitions submitted their applications for the post of Junior A ssistant. At the conclusion of the selection process, a select list dated 13.7.2 007 was published consisting of 47 names as against the 47 posts of Junior Assis tant advertised. The said select list consisted of an additional nine names wher ein the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3646/2007 was placed at serial No.3 (serial No. 50 of the combined merit list). Contending that the selections held were not in compliance with the provisions of the Assam Public Services (Direct Recruitment to Class III and Class IV Posts) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as ’the Ru les’) and further alleging gross anomalies in the conduct of the selection, both the writ petitions have been filed challenging the process of selection as well as the select list(s) in question. 5. On a consideration of the pleadings advanced by the writ petitio ners in both the writ petitions and upon hearing the learned counsels for the pe titioners, it appears that the objections of the writ petitioners against the se lections held and the select list published are four fold. The Advertisement dat ed 14.3.2007, it is contended, was published only on the notice board of the off ice of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri and not in any newspaper. The advertiseme nt was issued on 14.3.2007 fixing 23.3.2007 as the last date for submission of a pplications. The time allowed, according to the petitioners, was barely sufficie nt to enable a large number of aspirants to submit their applications. The adver tisement dated 14.3.2007, according to the petitioners, was not published in any newspaper thereby depriving a large number of candidates from participating in the selection process. The said fact, according to the petitioners, is a pointer to the lack of transparency in the selection process. The provisions of Rule 3, 4,5 and 6 of the Rules have also been laid before the Court by the learned couns els for the petitioners to contend that the preparation of a select list and an additional select list is contrary to what has been envisaged by Rule 4 of the R ules. That apart, it is the contention of the learned counsels for the petitione rs that no valid selection committee as envisaged by Rule 5 was constituted to h old the selection. The petitioners also allege that in the examination held on 8 .4.2007 there was mass copying which was also facilitated by the lack of proper invigilation to check rampant use of mobile phones inside the examination hall. As the question paper in English was in the objective pattern i.e. multiple choi ce, use of such mobile phones resulted in large scale unfair practice being adop ted by many candidates. The learned counsels for the petitioners have also laid stress on the fact that the majority of the selected candidates belonged to Dhub ri Sub Division of the district and a very few candidates from the other two Sub Divisions of the district had succeeded in the examination, which fact also sho uld be taken into account by the Court in determining the fairness of the sele ction process. 6. Mr. RK Bora, learned Govt. Advocate as well as Mr DR Gogoi, lear ned counsel for the private respondents i.e. selected candidates, have offered a common stand against the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Both the learned counsels have laid stress on the affidavit dated 25.7.2007 filed by the SDO(S), Dhubri. A perusal of the aforesaid affidavit indicates that according to the respondents, as required under the Rules in force, the advertisement was pu blished in the notice board of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhubri and the same was sent for being displayed in the notice board of the Sub Divisional offices of the district. That apart, according to the respondents, the advertis ement was published in local vernacular daily ’Akhomiya Khabar’ in its issue dat ed 18.3.2007. In the affidavit filed, the respondents have further stated that t hough initially the last date for submission of applications was fixed as 23.3.2 007, the said date was extended to 30.3.2007 and correspondingly the date of wri tten test earlier scheduled on 1.4.2007 was altered to 8.4.2007. All the said fa cts, according to the respondents, were duly published in the notice board in th e district as well as the sub-division offices and also in the newspaper. In the affidavit filed, the respondents have further stated that in response to the ad vertisement for the post of Junior Assistant over 3200 candidates had submitted their applications out of which about 2300 candidates were called for the writte n test, pursuant to which about 1900 candidates had appeared. In so far as the G rade IV posts also advertised by the same advertisement dated 14.3.2007, accordi ng to the respondents, over 4600 candidates had applied. 7. The respondents, in the affidavit filed, have specifically state d that a selection committee was constituted with the Deputy Commissioner as the Chairman and the District Transport Officer, Dhubri, Assistant Director of Empl oyment, Dhubri and Treasury Officer, Dhubri as members of the Committee. In so f ar as the holding of the written examination is concerned, the respondents in th eir affidavit have denied the allegations made by the petitioners and have conte nded that the question papers were set by a renowned professor of Gauhati Univer sity and the manuscripts were brought from the paper setter on 6.4.2007. The que stion papers, thereafter, were printed outside the State under the strict vigil of two responsible officers who had brought the question papers to Dhubri one da y before the examination i.e. on 7.4.2007. The question papers were kept in the strong room of the Treasury under double lock which was opened only one hour bef ore the examination for being taken to the examination centers. Executive Magist rates were specifically deputed to oversee the conduct of the examination in eac h examination center (there being nine of such centers) and adequate invigilatio n staff as well as police force were deployed in each examination center. No unt oward incident of any substantial kind, according to the respondents, had occurr ed in the conduct of the written examination. In the affidavit filed, the respon dents have also controverted the allegation of the petitioners with regard to th e two other sub divisions not being represented in the select list by contending that the selection was held in accordance with the Rules to select the most mer itorious of the candidates who had applied and the fact that many candidates wer e selected from one particular sub division will not, in any manner, vitiate the selection process. 8. The role of the Court, exercising powers under Article 226 of th e Constitution, while scrutinizing selections made for public appointments is ex tremely limited. Time and again it has been emphasised that the Courts should as a matter of prudence, leave such tasks to be assigned by the employer State or its instrumentalities and judicial interference will be justified only if the fa cts unmistakably and overwhelmingly point to only one conclusion, namely, that t he selection process has been vitiated to the core. Judicial interference, there fore, cannot be made on mere allegations, however serious, or on the perceptions of the individual candidates of how well they had performed in the examination. In the present case, the advertisement dated 14.3.2007 was publi shed in a local daily and though initially about a week’s time was granted for s ubmitting applications, the said period was extended by another week. The number of candidates who had applied pursuant to the advertisement would indicate that the allegations levelled by the petitioners that the vacancies were not properl y and adequately advertised and the selections were kept confined to a close qua rter does not hold good. The very fact that over 3000 candidates had submitted t heir applications would indicate that the vacancies intended to be filled up wer e widely publicised enabling a large number of candidates to submit their applic ations. In any event all the petitioners before the Court had submitted their ap plications pursuant to the advertisement issued. In so far as the allegation of mass copying is concerned, the same has been denied by the respondents in the af fidavit filed. Clear and categorical statements have been made in the said affid avit to show the details of the manner in which supervision of the written exami nation was conducted. In a situation where the allegation of mass copying has be en denied by the respondents, it will be difficult for the Court to accept the a llegations made in the writ petition, particularly in a situation where one of t he petitioners i.e. petitioner No.1 in WP(C) No. 3477/2007 Monowar Hussain was n ot even called for the written test as he had not submitted a valid application and another petitioner i.e. Sri Surajit Gupta [WP(C) 3646/2007] has been selecte d against serial No. 50 of the combined merit list. 9. The constitution of the selection committee consisting of the De puty Commissioner as the Chairman and other officials of the district as require d under the Rules has already been taken note of by the Court. In so far as the selected candidates being from a particular sub division is concerned, the Court must observe that in a selection process where merit is the only test, adequate representation from all the sub divisions of a district may not be the ultimate result, though, such a situation should not be construed to have affected the s elections held. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Court is of the view that bot h the writ petitions are without any merit and/or substance. Both the writ petit ions are, accordingly, dismissed, however, without imposing any cost. Interim or der passed earlier is vacated.