WA 212/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL B.K. Sharma, J Heard Mr. A.M. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. T.S. Deka, learned State Counsel. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 2395/2009, by which the writ pet ition filed by the present appellants has been dismissed. The matter pertains to selection and appointment of Police Constables i n the District of Karimganj. Posts involved are 77. Pursuant to an advertisement , which was published on 10.10.2007 for the aforesaid posts of Police Constables , selection was conducted throughout the State including the Karimganj District. The petitioners although were selected by the District Level Committee (DLC) bu t the State Level Committee (SLC) of the recruitment Board in its meeting held o n 2711.2008, declined to grant the approval to the selection, challenging which the petitioners filed the writ petition. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition by order dat ed 31.5.2011 also took note of the disposal of the earlier writ petition being W P(C) No. 5309/2008. As submitted by Mr. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel for the app ellant, the said writ petition was filed by some other candidates praying for a direction to declare the results of the selection. The writ petition was dispose d off by order dated 22.4.2009 taking note of the ground assigned in the counter affidavit towards cancellation of the selection. It appears that although the D LC had recommended some candidates but the SLC on scrutiny of the materials, fou nd anomalies in the selection and infact, recorded the find that a pick and choo se policy was adopted by the DLC. For a ready reference, the particular stand of the respondents on the basis of the minutes of the meeting of the SLC, is repro duced below :- The records of 100 mtr. Sprint on 11.11.07 amply prove this. The records shown that out of 17 candidates whose timings were clocked as many as 10 candidates ra n the rate exactly in 13.75 seconds, 5(five) candidates ran exactly in 13.15 sec ond, 1 (one) candidate ran in 13 second and 1(one) candidate ran in 17.5. second . The Board feels that it is near to impossible that 10(ten) candidates ran the rate with exactly the same timing and the records were just to favour somebody o r disfavour others. Similarly on 12.11.07 in a ground of 27 candidates, 14 ran t he race exactly in 13.5 second, 4 ran exactly in 13.75 second. The Board also fe els that records were judges. Same has been done on the other days also. In the one mile race on 12.11.07 in a group of 20(twenty) candidates, 10(ten) candidat es were shown with a timing of exactly 6 minutes 40 seconds, 3 candidates were s hown with a timing of exactly 6 minutes 30 seconds and 7 candidates were shown f ailed. It seems to be near impossibility that so many candidates ran the race ex actly with the same timing. Similarly on 13.11.07 in a group of 20(twenty) candi dates, 8(eight) were shown with a timing of 6 min. 40 sec., 3 (three) ran with a timing of 5 min. 30 sec. and rest failed. Same has been done on other days also . As the Board in question feels that the timing were not faithfully recorded, i t is not in a position to approve the results for the District of Karimganj. In the affidavit, it was specifically stated that because of such illega lities, the select list could not be approved. As in the said case, in the insta nt case also, the respondents in their counter affidavit highlighted the illegal ities committed in the selection conducted by the DLC. In paragraph 5 of the cou nter affidavit, the respondents highlighted those illegalities. Although, the co unter affidavit was filed on 28.7.2009 but till the disposal of the writ petitio n on 31.5.2011, the petitioners did not dispute the said illegalities by filling any rejoinder affidavit. According to the petitioners, the purported illegalities committed by th e DLC could not have set at naught the selection of candidates and the SLC ough t to have approved the same. We are not inclined to accept such plea of the peti tioners/appellants. The SLC was empowered to finalise the selection taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances. While doing so, it found the afore mentioned illegalities in conducting the selection by the DLC. Situated thus, th e SLC declined to approve the selection. There is no allegation of malafide and / or colourable exercise of powers by the SLC. The particular exercise carried o ut by the said Committee cannot be said to be arbitrary and / or illegal. When t he illegalities were noticed, the SLC had no other option but to decline approva l of the selection conducted by the DLC. It is on record that pursuant to the impugned decision, a fresh selectio n process has been initiated, which however, Mr. Buzarbaruah, learned counsel fo r the appellants disputes. Be that as it may, we are satisfied that the recommen dations made by the DLC was interfered with by the SLC on good and sufficient gr ound. We see no infirmity in the impugned judgement and order upholding the sam e. Consequently, the WA is dismissed.