WP(C) 3256/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B. Chetri, Mr. A. Ali and Mr. M. Phukan, learned counsels appe aring for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt . Advocate. The petitioners are the unsuccessful candidates for appointment to the p ost of Assam Forest Protection Force Constables. According to the petitioners, b y virtue of their performance in the selection, they could go upto the level of viva-voce test and did well in the same. However, when the results were publishe d on 22.12.2009, to their utter shock and surprise, they did not find their name s in the select list. The grounds on which the petitioners have challenged the s election and appointment are as follows :- (i) The petitioners did exceedingly well in the viva-voce test and thus ther e was no reason to deprive them of selection and consequential appointment. (ii) While making the select list, the authority did not adhere to the reserv ation policy of the State and thereby deprived the reserved category candidates. (iii) From reliable source, the petitioners have come to know that the selecti on has been made with political interference adopting unfair practice. There has been exchange of handsome amount. (iv) The Selection Board members tactfully used wood pencil instead of ink or ball pen towards allocating marks to the candidates in the viva-voce test leavi ng scoping for maneuvering. In absence of any material particulars to substantiate the aforesaid grounds, sa me are absolutely vague, indefinite and are devoid of any reasons coupled with t he fact that none of the selected and appointed candidates are party respondents to this proceeding. Thus, no adverse orders can be passed against them. It is a n admitted position that pursuant to the impugned selection, appointment has alr eady been made. As has been held by the Apex Court in Probodh Verma Vs. State of UP reported in AIR 1987 SC 167, the High Court ought not decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgement, bring before it as respondents or at-least by some of them bring before it as respondents in a representative capacity, if their numb er is too large. In the said case, the Apex Court held that the High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear the matter in absence of the persons who are like ly to be affected by any order passed in the writ petition. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid allegations hav e been denied. It has been stated that the select list was drawn on the basis of the performance of the candidates in different segments. As regards the reserva tion policy of the State, it has been stated that the total number of posts in e ach cadre and the break-up thereof against reserved categories were published in the advertisement as cleared by the Finance (SIU) Department. In the affidavit, the respondents have indicated the percentage of reservation and the register m aintained for appointment of the selected candidates. They have also indicated t he number of appointments made from amongst the reserved category candidates and the roster point. In WP(C) 3256/2010, one additional ground urged is that the petitioner having se cured 54.5 marks in total, his name should have been included in the select list . In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it has been stated that the la st general category candidate selected for empanelment had secured 55.5 marks as against 54.5 marks secured by the petitioner. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is variation or difference of only 1 (one) m ark, the authority should look into the grievance of the petitioner so that his name can also be empanelled. Suffice is to say that whether there is difference of 1(one) mark or 10 (ten) marks, the fact of the case is that the petitioner in the selection did not get the qualifying marks for empanelment in the select li st. Mr. B. Chetri, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a comparison in resp ect of the reserved category candidates selected in the selection and ear-marked in the advertisement. According to him, there is variation in providing reserva tion when compared to the selected reserved category candidates with that of ear -marked reservation provided for in the advertisement. Although, the petitioners have claimed variation in reservation but they have no t disclosed any material particulars regarding the total cadre strength and the percentage of reservation to be provided and as to how the roster point is to be operated. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have indicate d the percentage of reservation and the reservation provided for in reference to the said percentage and the reservation roster. Be that as it may, in absence o f the selected candidates before us, no relief can be granted to the petitioners . Irrespective of the selected candidates being not party to this proceeding, I ha ve decided the matter on merit. I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the selection. The whole basis of the writ petition(s) is based on surmises and conjectures and it does not disclose any valid ground to issue a writ of certio rari to set aside the selection and appointment of the selected candidates. For all the aforesaid reasons I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and accordingly they are dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.