WP(C) 6621/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA.. All the writ petitions filed by the unsuccessful petitioners, who were a spirants for the post of Armed Branch Constable in the district of Nagaon and So nitpur, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. An advertisement dated 8.2.2010 was issued by the Addl. Director General of Police, Assam for filling up of 3843 posts of A.B. Constables. The vacancies notified were for the entire State, but in the present proceeding, we are conce rned with the selection conduced for filling up of posts pursuant to Nagaon and Sonitpur district. The selection comprised of physical and viva voce test. The petitioners having cleared the physical test, appeared in the viva voce test. The common gr ound on which the selection has been challenged is that the interview conducted by the Selection Board was a farcical one inasmuch as it was a mockery in the na me of interview in which, no relevant question was asked, but the questions were put at random, which cannot be said to be for the purpose of extracting the kno wledge and suitability of the candidates. Another ground urged is that while con ducting the selection, the reservation policy was not followed including the res ervation for women. Pursuant to the aforesaid selection, the Select List was published, but before any appointment could be made, writ petitions were filed and because of t he interim order passed, no appointments could be made. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the plea rais ed in the writ petition. It has been stated that the selection was conducted fol lowing the established selection procedure. In this connection, the selection pr ocedure enumerated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit is reproduced below : - Selection Procedure : The candidates whose applications are found in all respec t will have to undergo the Physical Measurement and Fitness Test first. If any c andidate is found to have any physical deformity to be detected by the Medical O fficer present in the Selection Board, he/she will be debarred from participati ng in the other test. All candidates who are found fit in physical Measurement a nd having no physical deformity will have to participate in the Physical Efficie ncy Test of 1.60 K.M. run in case of male candidates and 1000 Mtrs in case of fe male candidates which will be determining factor for elimination of the candidat es from participating in the other tests of 100 mtrs sprint/80 mtrs sprint, High Jump. The total marks on the Physical Tests are as follows:- Male Female Minimum Qualifying Candidates Candidates Ma rks Marks 1.60 K.M Race 1000 Mtrs Race 15 7.5 100 Mtr Sprint 80 Mtr Sprint 15 7.5 Long Jump Long Jump 15 7.5 High Jump High Jump 15 7.5 60 30 The candidates who could qualify in the First Elimination Test will be put throu gh next Physical Test. A slight relaxation will be admissible to the female cand idates in Physical Test as per existing norms. Only those candidates who are fou nd qualified in each of the Physical efficiency Test will be short listed for ap pearing in the Personal Interview. The total marks in the interview would be 40 and the qualifying marks would be 2 0 for both male and female candidates. The marks during the interview will be al lotted out of the maximum marks as per following break up. The break up of 40 marks for Personal Interview /Viva-Voce is as follows : (a) Viva Voce including test of General Knowledge 15 marks (b) Education Qualification 5 marks (c) Language reading and writing skills 10 marks (d) Possession of NCC certificate/ Experience of serving as Home Guard/Profi ciency in Sports/Martial Arts 5 marks (e) Skills in Tradecrafts like computer/motor driving/electrician/ plumbing/ masoning/Radiology/ Physiotherapy/Carpentry 5 marks Total 40 marks Final selection will be made on the basis of overall merit based on the total ma rks obtained by a candidate in Physical Test and Interview. As regards the marks secured by the petitioner involved in WP(C) No.6355 /2010, it has been stated that they secured 42.5, 41, 41.5 and 41.5 respectively in Physical Efficiency Test. In paragraph 6 of the affidavit in opposition, the details of selection process has been indicated in which, the physical efficien cy was tested and the marks secured have also been indicated. The grand total of marks secured by the petitioners are 64.5, 64, 62.5 and 56.5. It has been state d that the last candidate in category of O.B.C. secured 64.5 marks. It has also been stated that in case of a tie in securing the marks by two candidates, the marks secured in Physical Efficiency Test is considered for final selection. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have stated thus :- 7. That the statements made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the writ petition, bei ng wholly misconceived and baseless, the answering respondents categorically den ies the correctness of the same. It is further respectfully stated that no wrong was committed while asking questions relating to general knowledge to the candi dates. Questions on general knowledge were put up to the candidates as per their qualifications and other professional training or course. All the candidates we re given equal opportunity and reasonable time to prove their competence. No dis crimination was made to any candidate. It is also humbly brought to the notice o f this Hon’ble Court that all the petitioners participated in the selection proc ess (including the interview) without any protest/objection whatsoever. Now havi ng participated and failed to qualify the petitioners are now estopped from find ing fault with the said selection process. As regards the reservation policy being followed by the State, it has be en stated that while selecting the candidates, reservation was applied. By prod ucing the notification dated 11.2.2007, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advoca te General, Assam assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel, has submitted th at the percentage of reservation for women is 10% for the post of Sub-Inspectors and Police Constable, both Unarmed Branch/Armed Branch in Assam Police. Althoug h normally there is 30% reservation, but having regard to the nature of duties a nd the job involved in the post, the said percentage has been reduced from 10% t o 30% exercising the power under Section 5 of the Assam Women (Reservation of Va cancies in Services & Posts (Amendment) Act, 2010. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner s as well as Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Addl. Advocate General along with Ms R. Chakraborty, leaned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, I have also gone through the enti re materials on record. Learned State counsel has also produced the Select List that has been prepared o n the basis of marks secured by the candidates. The Select List duly indicates that the reservation was applied in conducting the selection. Although in the writ petition, the allegation has been made that the interview w as not conducted in a proper manner and that the same was a mere eye-wash, but in absence of disclosure of any materials, this Court exercising its judicial re view under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot make a roving enquiry to find out the veracity or otherwise of the said allegation. In this connectio n, Mr. Choudhury, learned Addl, Advocate General, Assam has submitted that the p etitioners having participated in the selection process taking a chance for favo urable consideration, cannot now turn around so as to question the very validity of the selection. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the methodology adopted in conducting the i nterview, they ought to have immediately reacted by approaching the appropriate authority by making a grievance against the said methodology. However, nothing o f the sort was done and it was only after the selection was finalized and the pe titioners found their names not included in the Select List, they filed the writ petitions raising the general plea of unfairness in the interview. For all the aforesaid reasons, the plea of the petitioners cannot be accepted an d consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed. Interim orders operating in th e writ petitions stand vacated.