Nileshwar Narzary vs State of Assam and Others

Manisana, J.—In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner has prayed for issue of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to appoint him as an UB constable.

Facts,--The undisputed fact is that a notice dated 11.11.91 was issued by the Superintendent of Police Kokrajhar inviting intending candidates to appear at the physical/written test etc. on 7.12.91 for recruitment to the posts of UB/AB constables. The Inspector General of Police (A) Assam made a Circular or Order dated 11.6.91 for the recruitment. The Order, provides, inter alia, that the vacancies should be filled up by conducting test by the Superintendent of Police and the select list in order of merit should be sent to the Officer of the DIG (Range) and that of the IGP (TAP) for record; and that the total marks for the physical efficiency would be 35 and for the interview would be 15 thereby making the total marks as 50. The Superintendent of Police Kokrajhar selected 45 candidates in order of merit and the select list was sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (A) by the Superintendent of Police under his communication dated 17.12.91. The Petitioner was one of the selected candidates. Later on, under his letter dated 3.8.92, the Superintendent of Police Kokrajhar informed the Petitioner that only 9 candidates, who had secured 70% and above marks out of the select list, had been approved by the Inspector General of Police and who had obtained less than 70% marks had been disqualified. The Petitioner after inquiry came to know that under letter dated 7.6.92, the Assistant Inspector of Police (R) Assam informed the Superintendent of Police Kokrajhar to the effect that it had been decided that who had secured less than 70% marks in the recruitment test were disqualified.

The question which arises for consideration is whether fixing of minimum marks of 70% and above for being qualified in the recruitment test was permissible.

In P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, the Supreme Court has held that the selection process had to be completed in accordance with law as it stood at the commencement of selection; and that after commencement of selection process, if any amendment of the rules is made prospectively, changing of eligibility criteria, the amending rule would not affect the selection and appointment. In N.T. Bevin Katti, etc., Vs. Karnataka public Service Commission and others, the Supreme Court reiterated the above principle and also held that, if the rule is amended retrospectively during the pendency of selection, in that event selection must be held in accordance with the amended rules.

Under Rule 20 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-III, the appointing authority of a constable is the Superintendent of Police. The Circular or Order of the Inspector General of Police referred to above, directed the Superintendent of Police to appoint after holding recruitment test and copy of the select list to be sent to the offices of the DIG (Range) and that of the IGP (TAP) for record. The Order did not prescribe minimum qualifying mark. The process of selection was completed by the Superintendent of Police in accordance with the Order as it stood at the commencement of the selection. The Circular did not provide that the select list was to be sent for approval, although, it was to be sent for record, as already stated. As the process of selection had been completed, thy fixing of minimum marks, 70% and above, was not permissible in view of the above cited cases.

For the foregoing reasons, the decision fixing minimum marks of 70% and above for being qualified in the recruitment test is quashed and the select list made by the Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar is maintained.

In the result, the petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.