WP(C) 6604/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI Heard Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned Senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners, and Mr. B. J. Ghosh, learned Government Advocate, appearing on beha lf of the State respondents. By filing this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of I ndia, the petitioner, altogether three in number, have sought to get set aside a nd quashed the impugned select list for appointment of police constables pertain ing to Golaghat District, the petitioners’ case being, in brief, thus: Pursuant to an advertisement, dated 08.02.2010, inviting application for selection and a ppointment to the posts of constables (AB) in the Assam Police Battalion, the pe titioners, who, all belong to the District of Golaghat, applied for the same. T he selection was to be made district-wise. The grievance of the petitioners is that they were not given marks in terms of the prescribed guidelines for selecti on of candidates inasmuch as they have participated in the National events of Ka rate and ought to have, therefore, been allotted additional 5 marks each. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be noted that t he prescribed guidelines lay down that a candidate, who represented the State, i n the event of sports, at National Level Competition, will get five marks and a candidate, having Black Belt in martial arts, such as, Judo, Karate, Tye Kwon Do , etc., will also receive five marks. Admittedly, martial arts do not fall with in the category of sports and the petitioners have not represented the State in sports of National Level competition. Bearing in mind this basic fact, when I t urn to para-6 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents, I find th at, explaining as to why the petitioners could not be selected, the respondents have averred as under: 6. That, as regard to the statements made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, the deponent begs to state that the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, being eligible and qualified in all counts and applied for the post of A.B. Constables, were parti cipated in the selection processes and qualified in physical efficiency test and also passed interview conducted for the purpose of recruitment to the post, but they are not finally selected on the basis of over all merit. It is to be stat ed that 73 posts were allotted to Golaghat District. In addition 7 posts, 5 pos ts, and 11 posts (altogether 23 posts) were also allotted against back log vacan cies for SC, ST(P) & ST(H) candidates. Further 4 posts were reserved for fillin g up on compassionate ground. The selection Committee awarded marks to the cand idates as per guideline of markings laid down by the Government in this regard. The petitioners were eligible and qualified in all counts duly applied for the post of AB constable. Petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2 also have duly pass ed the interview fulfilling the requirement as advertisement, but petitioner No. 3 failed to secure qualifying marks in interview/viva-voce as he could secure o nly 15 marks out of qualifying marks of 20. Thus did not consider for final sel ection. On the other hand, though petitioner No. 1 (General) and 2(OBC) qualify both in physical test/interview, they could secure aggregate marks of 60 and 59. 5 respectively. The candidate, who was selected as a last candidate on the basi s of merit in General and OBC/MOBC category, secured 64.5 and 62.0 marks respect ively. The petitioner No. 1 had submitted Karate competition certificate but as per guideline, 5 marks is to be allotted to the Black Belt holder, since the pe titioner submitted only competition certificate as such 2 marks was given to him and another 2 marks given for computer diploma. During interview, the petition er did not submit the Black Belt certificate. The Black Belt certificate receiv ed along with the Court petition was issued on 30.10.2010, i.e., after the recru itment test. Petitioner No. 2 submitted type writing certificate for which he is give n 2 marks. The petitioner did not submit any Martial Arts certificate. Petitioner No. 3 have not submitted any other extra curricular document for which he has not received any extra marks. The copy of application submitted by the petitioners along with their ce rtificates are enclosed herewith as Annexure-A, B and C. The averments, made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition, could not be assailed, on behalf of the petitioners, inasmuch as the petitioner, havi ng not been holders of Black Belt in Martial Arts, they could not have claimed t hat 5 marks ought to have been given to them in addition to what they have alrea dy obtained. Similarly, the petitioners, having also not represented the State, in Sports, at any National Level competition, could not be given 5 marks. As regards the petitioner No. 1’s grievance, regarding allotment of 2 ma rks to him for his diploma in computer, it needs to be noted that, as per the gu idelines, 5 marks is the maximum limit of marks, which is given to a candidate f or his skill in trade crafts, driving, etc., including computer and, in the pres ent case, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner No. 1 ought to have been given full 5 marks for his diploma in computer. In the circumstances, as indicated above, this Court does not find that the petitioners have been able to make out any case warranting interference by t his Court, with the impugned selection process, in exercise of this Court’s extr a-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition fails, t he same is not admitted and shall accordingly stand dismissed. No order as to costs.