# ·> I SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI SHEIKH & ORS

- **Citation:** [2008] 3 S.C.R. 497
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-02-27
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1609 of 2008
- **Bench:** S.B. Sinha, V.S. Sirpurkar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/i-sadananda-halo-others-v-momtaz-ali-sheikh-ors-24330
- **Pages:** 48

## Headnote

i
Service Law:
Recruitment of Constables - Recruitment rallies
conducted in all Districts of State of Assam - Selections c
challenged -
Single Judge of High Court constituting a
Screening Committee and on the basis of sample survey and
by fixing a bench mark of 250 candidates to be interviewed
per day, set aside selection of fifteen Districts mainly on the
ground of enormous number of candidates appearing for D
~
interview per day- Division Bench allowed appeals with regard
to 4 Districts and affirmed quashing of selection in respect of
remaining Districts - Appeals against quashing of selection
in three Districts - HELD: Single Judge of High Court had
expressed his satisfaction with procedure adopted - No E
deviation from rules or no inherent defect in selection process
which would render whole selection illegal have either been
alleged or proved - Instead of testing the matter in the light of
. ...._
ground realities for each District on the basis of material on
"
record, a mere expression of doubts only on the ground of F
large number of candidates appearing for interview cannot by
itself render the whole selection process illegal - Fixing of
bench mark of 250 candidates for interview per day was not
proper - Judgments of single Judge and Division Bench of
High Court in so far as they pertain to selection of three Districts G
concerned are set aside- Constitution of India - Article 226.
:..
Recruitment of Constables- Allocation of 50 marks for
viva voce -- Marks further sub-divided into six factors specifying
20 marks for oral test - Held : Such scheme cannot be found
497
H
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
A fault with ---Besides, it would be only for the State Government
to fix standards for viva voce - Administrative Law.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 226 -Scope of -- Writ petitions by unsuccessful
B candidates challenging selection of Constables held during
recruitment rallies in State of Assam - Single Judge of High
...
Court constituting a Screening Committee - On basis of
"'
"sample survey" Single Judge setting aside selection of 15
Districts- HELD: In such a writ petition roving inquiry on factual
c aspects is not permissible - While testing fairness of selection
process wherein thousands of candidates were involved, High
Court should have been slow in relying upon findings of
Screening Committee-- Going into microscopic details, not
via pleadings of parties but on basis of unnecessary
D investigation, cannot be approved - It was not for the High
Court to place itself into the position of a fact finding
-1Commission that too at the instance of unsuccessful
candidates - Exercise undertaken by scrutinizing the marks
allotted to candidates was unnecessary and unwarranted since
E
no such assertions were made in writ petitions - High Court
should have restricted itself to pleadings in writ petitions and
counter affidavits - High Court' substituted itself for Selection
Committee and in the process assumed the role of appellate
tribunal which was not proper-Administrative Law - Selection
Process - Interference with - Pleadings.
.
~
"
F
Article 226 - Writ petitions challenging recruitment of a
large number of constables - Selected candidates not made
parties - High Court advertising the dates of hearing of writ
petitions without impleading the selected candidates as parties
G - Held: The course adopted by High Court not proper- Even
those who appeared before the High Court were not supplied
copies of writ petitions in time - This amounted to denial of
opportunity of hearing to selected candidates -Administrative
,__
Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Practice and Procedure.
H
In the State of Assam 5500 vacancies of Constables
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
499
..
SHEIKH & ORS .
..-'-
to be filled in by District-wise selection, were advertised A
on 21.8.2004. On 16.11.2004 the Government notified its
decision that restriction of District-wise selection would
be there only to the posts of District Ex

## Text

_Characters 0–39,962 of 97,475. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39962 for what follows._

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 497
·>
..I...
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS
A
v.
MOMTAZ ALI SHEIKH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1609 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 27, 2008
B
...
(S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)
i
Service Law:
Recruitment of Constables - Recruitment rallies
conducted in all Districts of State of Assam - Selections c
challenged -
Single Judge of High Court constituting a
Screening Committee and on the basis of sample survey and
by fixing a bench mark of 250 candidates to be interviewed
per day, set aside selection of fifteen Districts mainly on the
ground of enormous number of candidates appearing for D
~
interview per day- Division Bench allowed appeals with regard
to 4 Districts and affirmed quashing of selection in respect of
remaining Districts - Appeals against quashing of selection
in three Districts - HELD: Single Judge of High Court had
expressed his satisfaction with procedure adopted - No E
deviation from rules or no inherent defect in selection process
which would render whole selection illegal have either been
alleged or proved - Instead of testing the matter in the light of
. ...._
ground realities for each District on the basis of material on
"
record, a mere expression of doubts only on the ground of F
large number of candidates appearing for interview cannot by
itself render the whole selection process illegal - Fixing of
bench mark of 250 candidates for interview per day was not
proper - Judgments of single Judge and Division Bench of
High Court in so far as they pertain to selection of three Districts G
concerned are set aside- Constitution of India - Article 226.
:..
Recruitment of Constables- Allocation of 50 marks for
viva voce -- Marks further sub-divided into six factors specifying
20 marks for oral test - Held : Such scheme cannot be found
497
H
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
A fault with ---Besides, it would be only for the State Government
to fix standards for viva voce - Administrative Law.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 226 -Scope of -- Writ petitions by unsuccessful
B candidates challenging selection of Constables held during
recruitment rallies in State of Assam - Single Judge of High
...
Court constituting a Screening Committee - On basis of
"'
"sample survey" Single Judge setting aside selection of 15
Districts- HELD: In such a writ petition roving inquiry on factual
c aspects is not permissible - While testing fairness of selection
process wherein thousands of candidates were involved, High
Court should have been slow in relying upon findings of
Screening Committee-- Going into microscopic details, not
via pleadings of parties but on basis of unnecessary
D investigation, cannot be approved - It was not for the High
Court to place itself into the position of a fact finding
-1Commission that too at the instance of unsuccessful
candidates - Exercise undertaken by scrutinizing the marks
allotted to candidates was unnecessary and unwarranted since
E
no such assertions were made in writ petitions - High Court
should have restricted itself to pleadings in writ petitions and
counter affidavits - High Court' substituted itself for Selection
Committee and in the process assumed the role of appellate
tribunal which was not proper-Administrative Law - Selection
Process - Interference with - Pleadings.
.
~
"
F
Article 226 - Writ petitions challenging recruitment of a
large number of constables - Selected candidates not made
parties - High Court advertising the dates of hearing of writ
petitions without impleading the selected candidates as parties
G - Held: The course adopted by High Court not proper- Even
those who appeared before the High Court were not supplied
copies of writ petitions in time - This amounted to denial of
opportunity of hearing to selected candidates -Administrative
,__
Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Practice and Procedure.
H
In the State of Assam 5500 vacancies of Constables
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
499
..
SHEIKH & ORS .
..-'-
to be filled in by District-wise selection, were advertised A
on 21.8.2004. On 16.11.2004 the Government notified its
decision that restriction of District-wise selection would
be there only to the posts of District Executive Force and
not to Armed Police Battalion. The recruitment process
commenced on 3.12.2004 and lasted upto 11.12.2004. B
...
"I
Select-lists prepared for each District for the Armed Police
Battalion located in the District and for the District
Executive Force were challenged by unsuccessful
candidates in several writ petitions, inter alia, on the
grounds of: (i) postponement of selection on more than
two occasions with an ulterior motive on the part of the c
Government ; (ii) not following the procedure laid down
in the employment notice, (iii) non-maintenance of
necessary registers, (iv) selection of candidates without
their taking part in selection process or selection of underD
-~ l,._
qualified or over-aged candidates, (v) selection of
candidates who could not qualify physical test, (vi)
interpolation/tampering with marks allotted to candidates,
(vii) political interference in favour of some of the
candidates, (viii) allotment of 50 marks for personal E
interview segment, and (ix) consideration of huge number
of candidates per day. The single Judge of the High Court
got the records of the selection process scrutinized
~.
through a Screening Committee of three judicial officers.
,
He upheld the selections in respect of 10 Districts but
quashed the selection process and selections in respect F
of other Districts. The single Judge fixed a bench mark of
maximum 250 candidates to be interviewed on a single
day and held that in the Districts concerned, average
number of candidates was much more. On the basis of
the reports of the Screening Committee on random
G
scr.utiny, the single Judge opined that allotment of 50
~
marks for viva voce, was not justified. On the basis of the
report of the Amicus Curiae, it was observed that the
selected candidates got high marks in viva voce ranging
between 30 to 41 out of 50 marks. The Division Bench of H
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
..
-'-
A the High Court allowed appeals with regard to four
Districts and dismissed those in respect of the remaining
Districts. The only ground on which selections were set
aside was that the number of candidates interviewed was
enormous and the viva voce was farce.
B
The instant appeals were filed against quashing of
selection in respect:of only three Districts mentioned in
..
,.
the judgment.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
c
HELD: 1. As regards the change of dates of interview,
firstly, there were no proper pleadings with necessary
details before the single Judge; secondly, how the
postponements affected the selection process is nowhere
D
displayed and; further, which political leaders were
responsible for such postponements of interview dates
_,.-
is also not known. On the other hand, it was found from
the records that selections were postponed on account
of Asian Car Rally, Kali Puja, Diwali and Id festivals. There
is no definite finding that the postponements affected the
E selection process. The very fact that there was a huge
turn out in each District suggests the hollowness of the
claim that the selection process was affected because of
the postponements. Therefore, it cannot be said that
..
anything was wrong in postponing the interview dates.
'
F [para 26] [525-F-H; 526-A-C]
2. The complaint against removal of District-wise
restrictions by the Government by its letter dated
16.11.2004 does not hold any ground. None of the courts
G below has commented on the selection process on this
issue. The petitioners were not able to show as to what
prejudice was caused by removal of District-wise
~
restriction in selection. On the other hand, by doing so,
the Government made the selection process broader.
H [para 26) [526-C-E]
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
501
SHEIKH & ORS .
...
......
3.1 With regard to the complaint that 50 marks were A
allotted for personal interview or viva voce, the single
Judge as well as the Division Bench have rightly found
that in the peculiar circumstances it was of no
consequence. No arguments were addressed on this
point before the Court. Besides, 50 marks for personal B
interview were distributed on six factors, namely (1)
...
~
Educational Qualification -5 marks, (2) Smartness, general
ambience - 5 marks, (3) Language, reading and writing -
10 marks, (4) Extra Qualifications - 5 marks, (5) Proficiency
in sports, marshal arts - 5 marks, and (6) General c
knowledge and oral test - 20 marks. Thus the oral test is
only left with 20 marks which is quite reasonable.
Therefore, it cannot be said that there was anything wrong
on account of allotment of 50 marks for viva voce. It has
not been disputed that this pattern of interview was D
followed in all the Districts. Besides, it would only be the
-"'
State Government which could be in a position to address
as to the standards fixed for the purposes of viva-voce.
[para 14 and 26] [526-E-F; 516-E-H; 517-A]
3.2 The exercise undertaken of scrutinizing the E
marks allotted to each and every candidate was
unnecessary and unwarranted since in the petition no
such assertions were made . The High Court should have
'\
restricted itself to the pleadings in the writ petition and
~
the stand of the respondents. It is settled law that in such F
writ petitions a roving inquiry on the factual aspect is not
permissible. The High Court not only engaged itself into
a non-permitted fact finding exercise but also went on to
rely on the findings of the Scrutiny Committee, which was
inappropriate. While testing the fairness of the selection G
process wherein thousands of candidates were involved,
the High Court should have been slow in relying upon
such findings. The approach of the single Judge of the
High Court in going into the facts and the microscopic
details, not via the pleadings of the parties but on the basis
H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
..
.;._
A of an unnecessary investigation, cannot be approved.
Such selection of large number of candidates could not
have been set aside on the basis of sample survey, for
whi~h no evidence was available. It was not for the High
Court to place itself into the position of a fact finding
B commission, that too, at the instance of unsuccessful
candidates. The High Court substituted itself for the
Selection Committee and also in the process assumed
~ ..
the role of appellate tribunal which was not proper. Thus,
the High Court converted the writ petition into public
c interest litigation without any justification. [Para 43, 44
and 49] [538-F; 539-B; 538-G-H; 539-A, 543-G-H; 544-A;
539-A-C]
Union of India & Ors. v. S. Vinod Kumar & Ors. [2007] 8
SCC 100; and Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla
D & Ors. [1986] Supp. SCC 285 - relied on.
4.1 So far as the major complaint regarding
,. -
enormousness number of candidates interviewed per day
is concerned, the single Judge held that every Board on
one day could, at the most, interview 250 candidates. The
E Division Bench also seems to have endorsed this view.
Such a benchmark could not have been fixed generally
and merely because that benchmark was allegedly
breached, the selection could not have been found fault
with in a mechanical and mathematical manner. Instead
~
F of testing the matter in the light of ground realities for each
•
District on the basis of material on record, a mechanical
approach could not have been taken by the High Court.
[para 27-28) [527-B-D, F-GJ
4.2 From the guidelines, it is apparent that firstly,
G alongwith minimum educational qualification, the
candidates had to fulfil physical standards. This task was
distributed on all the centres amongst a number of other
helping staff. Only those who crossed this barrier as also
the test by conducting the race, were to proceed for
H further physical tests. This exercise was not as time
-i
SADANANDA HALO & dTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
503
SHEIKH & ORS.
consuming and could have been done collectively as a A
team event. The candidates so filtered were further
subjected to subsequent physical test of high jump, long
jump and sprint of 100 mtrs. etc. It is at this stage that the
remaining elegible candidates were interviewed for their
viva voce. [Para 33] [530-H; 531-A-E]
B
4.3 It is worth noting that the recruitment was for the
posts of Constables. The minimum educational
qualification was prescribed; the physical standards of
each candidate were very much there before the
interviewing board; the merits of the candidates were also C
recorded regarding their physical efficiency; there was
no requirement of testing administrative or management
capacity of the candidates and/or any other quality which
is required for higher posts. All that was necessary was
to see physical fitness of the candidates in terms of D
physical endurance, their smartness in appearance and
further to test their intelligence level including their general
knowledge as required for the post of Constable.
Therefore, even less than three minutes time was enough
for each candidate. Due credit to the expertise of Selection E
Committee has also to be given. [para 31] [529-D, E, F]
Sardara Singh v. State of Punjab [1991] 4 SCC 555; and
Joginder Singh and others v. Roshan Lal and others [2002 9
sec 765 - relied on
Satpa/ & Ors. v. State of Haryaney & Ors. [1995] Suppl. 1
SCC 206; and Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [1985]
4 sec 417 - distinguished.
F
4.4 Besides, the courts below did not have any
tangible evidence regarding the interviews being farcical, G
except the self-serving statement made by the
unsuccessful candidates in the writ petitions. This is apart
from the settled position that unsuccessful candidates,
after having taken part in the selection process, cannot
turn back and assail the selection process. The High Court H
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
..
A even did not have the reasons for which the unsuccessful
~
candidates were rejected. Therefore, there is no reason
as to how the High Court could have come to the
conclusion that the selection board could interview
only 250 candidates per day and not more. [Para 26, 33B 34,45] [531-E, F, G; 526-G; 527-A]
Canara Bank and others v. Debasis Das and others
[2003] 4 SCC 557 ; All India SC & ST Employees Association
,_
and Another v. A. Arthur Jeen and Others [2001] 6 SCC 380;
Prabodh Verma v. State of UP [1984] 4 SCC 251 and AMS
c Sushanth v. M. Sujatha [2000 10 SCC 197 - relied on.
General Medical Council v. Spackman 1943 AC 627;
Taylor v. National Union of Seaman (1967) 1 WLR 532;
Garland v. British Rail Engineering Ltd. (1969) 1 WLP 1041;
D Walter Annamunthodo vs. Oilfields Workers' Trade Union 1961
SE 945; Chief Constable of the North Wales Police vs. Evans
(1982) 1 WLR 1155; B. Surinder Singh Kanda v. Government
~-
of the Federation of Malaya (1962) AC 322; Hadmor Products
Ltd. & Ors. v. Hamilton and another (1983) AC 191 - cited.
E
4.5 The first basic thing for consideration in respect
of such a selection process would be lack of bona fides
or, as the case may be, malafide exercise of powers by
those who were at the helm of selection process. The
single Judge or the Division Bench of the High Court has
F not recorded any finding that they found any malafides
on the part of any of the State officials who headed the
interviews. On the other hand, the tenor of the judgments
shows that the selection process did not suffer from
malafides, lack of bonafides, bias or political interference.
G No deviation from the rules or no inherent defect in the
selection process which would render the whole selection
illegal have either been alleged or proved. A mere
expression of doubts only on the ground of large number
;!
of candidates appearing for interview cannot by itself
H
render the whole selection process illegal. [Para 46 and
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
505
SHEIKH & ORS .
..
-""
47] [540-C, D; 541-0, E, F]
A
Union of India & Others vs. Bikash Kumar [2006] 8 SCC
192 - relied on.
Raj Kumar & Others v. Shakti Raj & Others [1997] 9 SCC
527 - distinguished.
B
'
5. The course taken by the single Judge in
~ -f
advertising the dates of hearing of the petitions and
inviting objections of the selected candidates who were
never made parties to the writ petitions is also not c
satisfactory. Even when few of the selected candidates
approached the High Court, they were not even supplied
copies of the writ petitions in time. This amounted to denial
of an appropriate opportunity to the selected candidates.
[para 48] [541-F, G; 542-8, C]
D
-.,
All India SC & ST Employees Association and Another
v Arthur Jeen and Others (2001) 6 SCC 380; Prabodh Verma
v State of UP (1984) 4 SCC 251; and AMS Sushanth v. M.
Sujatha (2000) 10 SCC 197-relied on.
6. As regards the selection in Dubri District, it is E
pointed out that the guidelines dated 2.9.2004 were strictly
adhered to. The procedure adopted suggests the
systematic way in which the whole interview process went
...
on in the District. The single Judge in his judgment has
~
observed that as per the report of the Amicus Curiae the F
selected candidates got higher marks in viva voce ranging
between 30 to 41 marks. This could be no reason to reject
the selection. The single Judge has in fact recorded his
satisfaction for the printed charts and more particularly
about their authenticity, as also with the procedure G
adopted. There is hardly any reason given by the Single
Judge excepting that the benchmark of 250 candidates
~
crossed. The Division Bench has also gone by the
mechanical test of benchmark of ~50 candidates. It seems
to have taken an exception to the proceedings dated H
506
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
A 4.12.2004 and 5.12.2004. That is by far the only reason
given by the Division Bench for upholding the finding of
the Single Judge. No court has, however, considered
ground realities shown as per the counter affidavit which
has remained uncontroverted. Therefore, the only reason
B given by the High Court could not be said to be a deciding
factor for setting aside the selection. [para 35-37) [532-G;
533-G; 534-A, B, C, D, E]
7 .1 So far as selections in Barpeta District are
concerned, the single Judge seems to have gone by the
C simple mathematical rule of dividing 5540 candidates by
9 since the interview process lasted for 9 days. He seems
to have relied on the rule of average. The Division Bench
has given the daily break up of the candidates interviewed
on each day and without making any distinction, has held
o that merely because the number of candidates exceeded
on particular days the said "benchmark", the selection
was bad. [para 39-40] [535-G; 536-A, D, E]
7.2 As regards the allegation that some candidates
were selected at the written request of a Minister, the
E Amicus Curiae in his report stated that the written request
was in respect of 43 candidates out of whom 19
candidates were selected. The single Judge has,
however, candidly held that the marks given to the said
19 candidates do not reflect award of any abnormally high
F marks in the viva voce test. All that the single Judge has
recor.ded is that having regard to the "fragile nature of
the selection" it would be just and proper to set aside the
selections made in the District This kind of general and
casual remarks cannot be approved. This is apart from
G the fact that there is nothing to suggest that in reality any
recommendations were made. [para 39] [536-A, B, C, DJ
8. With regard to selections in District Sonitpur, the
single Judge has hardly given any reasons and has
recorded that a large number of candidates who failed in
H physical test were given low marks in the interview. The
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
507
SHEIKH & ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.)
.;,
.......
two candidates mentioned specifically, if were not within A
the proper age limit, the single Judge was undoubtedly
right in setting aside their selection. But that could not be
a reason by itself to set aside the whole selection of more
than 400 candidates. There is absolutely no reference to
any ground facts and the single Judge seems to have B
relied wholly on the views expressed by the Amicus
I
.~ _,.
Curiae. The only reason appears to have weighed with
the single Judge for setting aside the selection was
crossing of the benchmark of 250 candidates a day. The
treatment of the Division Bench is identical. [para 42-43] c
[537-E, F, G; 538-A, B]
9. The judgments of the single Judge as well as the
Division Bench in so far as they pertain to the three
Districts of Dhubri, Barpeta and Sonitpur, are set aside.
[para 50] [544-A, BJ
D
-""'
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1609
of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6/12/2006 of
the Gauhati High Court in W.A. No. 34/2006.
E
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 1614, 1615 and 1610-1613 of 2008.
~
Rajeev Dutt, S.K. Dholakia, Jai Prakash Pandey, Sanjeev
~
Sen, H.U. Choudhury, F.1. Choudhury, Dr. NafisA. Siddiqui, Arna
F
Das, Shakeel Ahmed, lrshad Ahmad, Pradeep Aggaiwal, P.
Upadhyay, N. Annapoorani and Abhijit Sengupta for the
Appellants.
Avijit Roy, Ranjan Majumdar (for MIS. Corporate Law
G
Group) and Dr. Nafis A. Siddiqui for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
~
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted in Special Leave
Petition (C) Nos.3536/2007, 6576/2007, 6581/2007 and
17219-17222 of 2007.
H
508
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
...
A
2. The present Judgment shall dispose of all the above
mentioned Special Leave Petitions.
3. A large number of petitioners have filed the above sets
of Special Leave Petitions challenging therein a common
B
judgment of the Guwahati High Court disposing of as many as
54 Writ Appeals which were filed against the judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge of that High Court disposing
~-
...
of as many as 222 Writ Petitions. All those 222 Writ Petitions
were disposed of by the lea.med Single Judge by a common
judgment. The writ petitions pertained to the selections in a
c selection process for the 5500 posts of Armed Constables which
was initiated by advertisements dated 21.8.2004. This
advertisement was based on the separately identified vacancies
for each Armed Police Battalion having its permanent
headquarters in a District. The recruitment was to be held in 25
D different centres covering each District of State of Assam for
the vacancies identified separately for that district. As many as
,A -
2 lakh candidates took part in the recruitment process which
commenced on 3rd December, 2004 and lasted upto 11th
December, 2004. On completion of the recruitment drive,
E separate select-lists for each District for the Armed Police
Battalion located in the District and the District Executive Force
were prepared. These select-lists were challenged in the above
mentioned 222 writ petitions by nearly 3000 unsuccessful
aspirants. Later on more than 1000 selected candidates also
.,.
F
got themselves impleaded in th.e writ petitions. Initially the court
..
sought for the records of the selection process and ordered the
same to be kept in safe custody of the Registry of the court.
This was done since the apprehensions were expressed by the
Writ Petitioners that there may be tampering of records. A
G scrutiny of these records was got done by the learned Single
Judge through three Judicial Officers who were appointed for
that purpose. A sample survey of the records of the selected/
unsuccessful candidates was done by the three Judicial officers.
~
While going through the records, the learned Single Judge
H
considered the same District-wise and ultimately upheld the
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
509
~
SHEIKH & ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
__._
selections in respect of 1 O Districts while the selections as well
A
as the selection process in the other Districts were set aside
and quashed. This gave rise to the Writ Appeals both by the
State as also by the selected candidates. The appeals, therefore,
came to be filed in respect of the following Districts and
Battalions:
B
-
j
1)
Dhubri
2)
Karimganj
3)
Hailakandi
4)
Cachar
c
5)
Sibsagar
6)
Jorhat
7)
Nagaon
8)
Darang
D
-"'
9)
Sonitpur
10)
Goal para
11)
Morigaon
12)
Barpeta
E
13)
4th APBN, GRP, CID, SB & ACB
14)
Commando BN & Kamrup DEF
15)
10th APBN
...
•
The Division Bench allowed the appeals pertaining to (i)
F
Karimganj District, (ii) Hailakandi District, (iii) Commando
Battalion & Kamrup DEF; and (iv) 1 oth AP Battalion. The appeals
pertaining to the rest of the Districts/Battalions were dismissed.
As such the selections made in those Districts/Battalions were
also set aside as was done by the learned Single Judge. In the G
present Civil Appeals before us we are concerned with the
selections of only three Districts, they are: (i) Dhubri, (ii) Barpeta;
~
and (iii) Sonitpur. Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No.3536/
2007 pertains to Dhubri District, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP
(C) Nos.6581 and SLP (C) Nos.17219-17222 of 2007 pertain
H
510
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
....
A to Barpeta District while Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
,,,_
6576 of 2007 pertains to Sonitpur District. We will, therefore,
be limiting ourselves only in so far as those Districts are
concerned.
B
4. As has been stated earlier, there were advertisements
dated 21.8.2004 published in all the leading newspapers of the
State which provided the District/Battalion-wise vacancies as
also the vacancies meant for the reserved categories
,_
candidates. The notice also provided the further details
regarding the dates and venue of the Recruitment Rally in each
c District. The minimum physical standards for male and female
candidates were also indicated therein. The educational
qualification was 3th Class passed while age limit was between
18 to 25 years as on 1.1.2004, relaxable by three years in the
case of candidates belonging to SC/ST. 10% of the vacancies
D were to be filled up by women candidates while further 5% were
reserved for compassionate appointments. Under the procedure
,.. -
of selection it was provided as under:
"All the candidates will have to undergo test on physical
E
standard as stated above, if their application forms found
correct and in order in all respect. Candidates found to
have any physical deformity duly certified by the medical
officer present in the test, shall be rejected. Thereafter, all
male candidates will be asked to run a race of 0.60 KM
and female (sic) candidates qualified in the race shall
...
F
be allowed to appear for subsequent test mentioned
•
below.
(a) Physical
Maximum
Qualifying
1. 100 Mtrs. Race
efficiency test
marks
marks
2. High Jump
G
3. Long Jump
(b) Personal
50'
25
General
interview
awareness
general knowledge
and language
H
•
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
511
SHEIKH & ORS. [VS. SIRPURKAR, J.]
Only candidates who qualify in the. physical efficiency test A
shall be short listed for appearing. in the personal interview
(viva voce).
(c) Final selections will be. made district/battalion wise.
on the basis of the over all merit on physical efficiency test
and p.ersonal interview (viva voce) and reservation of quota
B.
under RVSP· Act, 1978."
One Selection B-oard was constituted for each District
consisted of:
"(1') Superintendent of Police/Commandant (whoever is, C.
senior - Chairman)'
(2) Sup·erintendent of Police/Commandant (whoever is
junior - Memb·er)
(3,) One; Medical Officer (to. be nominated by the. Joint D
Director; Health Services· of the· District - Member).
lh the. Districts; where: there. is (sic) nu Battalion
headquarter; the' Gommandant· of the nearest Battalion
was ... to· be th·e Chairman or Member as· the case may be,
to.oenominatedbythe DGP In the notification constituting
E
the Selectiun Board; it was also provided that the Selection
Board shall (sic) also consider candidates .. having HSLC
or equivalent qualification or above from recognized
Board/University of Assam for recruitment to District
Executive Force (UB)."
F
The guidelines were issued on 2.9.2004 for conducting
recruitment tests. As per the said guidelines, the entry of the
candidates into the Recruitment Rally was restricted to 5,000
on a sing.le day. The candidates. were; to submit their filled in
G
application forms.to the.Chairman orth·e Selection Board or his·
representatives before participating in the elimination race. For
the male candidates, the distance of the race was 1.60 Kms.
~
while for the female candidates it was 0.80 Kms. Only those
candidates who. could qualify in the. physical standards were· H
512
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
A permitted to participate in the elimination race and only those
who could qualify the elimination race were to be given identity
numbers after recording their Bio-Data in the prescribed register.
Those who could qualify in the elimination race were to face the
physical test comprising of 100 meter race, high jump and long
B jump and only those candidates who could secure 25 marks
out of the 50 allotted for physical efficiency test were to be called
for personal interview, for which the allotted marks were 50.
Those candidates who could qualify in the elimination race were
to get 15 marks whereas the 35 marks were reserved for the
c physical efficiency test wherein 15 marks were to be for 100
meter race, 10 marks were for long jump and 10 marks for the
high jump. The Recruitment Rallies were held between 3rd to
11th December, 2004 and after completion of the entire process
of selection the select-lists for each DistricUBattalion were
D prepared. It was, at this stage that the Writ Petition came to be
filed firstly challenging the very recruitment process and
methodology adopted.
5. The selections were ultimately held between 7th to 11th
December, 2004. Though, initially the candidates belonging to
E one particular District could take part in the Recruitment Rallies
for the posts of that District only, afterwards the Government by
its letter dated 16.11.2004 conveyed the decision that the
restrictions relating to District-wise selection of candidates being
limited to the candidates of those Districts only would not apply
F to the recruitment of the Armed Police Battalion but would hold
good only for the posts advertised for the District Executive
Force.
6. In the writ petitions various challenges were made before
the learned Single Judge they were, inter alia, (i) not following
G the procedure in the employment notice; (ii) non maintenance
of necessary Registers; (iii) selection of the candidates without
their taking part in the selection process or the selection of
under-qualified and over-aged candidates; (iv) selection of those
candidates who could not qualify the physical tests; (v)
H interpolations/tampering in the allotted marks to the candidates;
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
513
SHEIKH & ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
...
(vi) political interference in support of some of the selected A
,-..._
candidates; (vii) allotment of 50 marks for the personal interview
segment as also (ix) consideration of huge number of
candidates within a span of only 9 days. In short the whole
selection was dubbed as farcical. Learned Single Judge
cancelled the entire selection in respect of 15 Districts out of B
26 Districts and that is how the appeals were filed by the
selected candidates as has already been clarified by us. Now
-I''
we are concerned only with the selections of three Districts
named above.
7. Though it was stated before us by the learned counsel c
appearing on behalf of the appellants that the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench had upset the selections
only on the ground of non feasibility of completing the interviews
of large number of candidates in short time and further though
the learned counsel concentrated on that factor, it would be better D
to take account of the general findings as regards the selection
-""
process recorded by the learned Single Judge as w~ll as the
Division Bench to see whether those findings would affect the
selections.
10. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that the E
selection process was postponed on more than two occasions
and there was an ulterior purpose on the part of the govern merit
behind these postponements. It was also stated that though
initially there was a restriction of belonging to a particular District
_...
in order to be able to take part in the selection process, such
F
..
restriction was later on removed by the State Government.
Considerable arguments seems to have been addressed on
this aspect before the learned Single Judge. It was pointed out
that initially the selections were to be held earlier but they were
postponed to 1 sth to 24th November, 2004 on account of the G
bye-elections in one of the Assembly Constituency, further the
second postpo.1ement was made to 30th November, 2004 by
~~
an order dated 2. 11.2004 on account of Asian Car Rally, Kali
Puja, Diwali and Id Festivals and ultimately, the selections were
postponed to the second week of December and in the H
514
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
A
meantime the government by its letter dated 16.11.2004 had
~
....
removed the restrictions relating to the District-wise selection
of candidates being limited to the candidates of those Districts
only in cases of posts advertised for District Executive Force.
11. A further common contention was raised that this
B postponement was politically motivated and the removal of the
District restrictions was also politically motivated and it resulted
in large scale irregularities in the selection.
''L
12. The next contention was regarding the distribution of
c marks. It was pointed out that 50 marks were allotted for the
personal interview which was not correct. Lastly itwas contended
that the interviews were farcical in nature and the large number
of candidates could not have been interviewed on a single day.
13. Learned Single Judge did not give independent
D findings on these contentions but chose to consider all these
contentions together. He first fixed a benchmark of maximum
250 candidates to be interviewed on a single day relying on
,... -
certain rulings of this Court. He also held that the State would
have to justify the allotment of 50 marks for the viva voce test.
E The learned Judge also recorded that while deciding about the
effect of postponement of interviews and the removal of District
restrictions•, he would consider the case of each District basing
the same on the scrutiny made by the three judicial officers who
were appointed by him to examine the District-wise records. In
F
para 25 the learned Judge held:
,.
"The above discussion would now require the court to
record what has been revealed by the scrutiny of the
records that had been undertaken by the court and the
conclusions that the court considers prudent to reach on
G
that basis. It would not only be convenient but also
imperative for the court to proceed in the matter district/
centre-wise as each selection has to be construed as a
separate and independent selection. What, however, must
be emphasized, at this stage, before embarking upon the
f--
H
necessary discussions is that the records of each district
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
SHEIKH & ORS. [V.·s. SIRPURKAR, J:)
515
have been scrutinized by the court only to determine the ·A
fairness of the exercise performed while ·subjecting the
huge number of candidates to the·different stages ofthe
selectionprocess.The·court has not, even remotely,:been
concerned with the marks awarded to ·any particular
candidate; no attempt has been made to evaluate the
B
standards reached by the candidate·at--cmy of the.stages
of the selection process. It is broad·andgeneFal impression
of the sel·ection process that has been ;attempted to be
reached by the court on the basis of the records scrutinized
and not ca minute and microscopic examination of the c
selection process. Again, it must be emphasized that the
scrutiny of the records has been made on 'B
representative basis, as '.alreaqy indicated in the opening
part of the present judgment and the conclusions -as will
be reached and recorded is by •a process of correlation 0
of the result of the sample scrutiny with the re-st of the
cases constituting the general trend. This, the court
understands to be th·e only pragmatic manner of resolution
of the dispute involving the selection of nearly 5500
constables from:a total of over 2 lakh job seekers."
(Emphasis Supplied)
We do not, however, find concrete findings having been
given on the general submissions. Before taking up this exercise
E
the learned Single Judge seems to have rejected, though
indirectly, the objection raised by the State that having taken
F
part in the selection process, the unsuccessful candidates could
not have complained about the postponement of the selection
process nor could they question the correctness thereof after
being declared unsuccessful in the same. Though the substantial
case law has been quoted by the learned Single Judge, the
G
learned Judge relying on Raj Kumar & Ors. v .. Shakti "Raj &
Ors. [(1997) 9 SCC 527] went on to hold:
"In such circumstances, the court is of the view that in the
facts of the present case it would not be correct to refuse
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 3 S.C.R.
,-.
A
an adjudication of the merits of the dispute raised by the
petitioners."
The learned Judge also observed that considering the
enormousness of the selection process, the court would have
B
to uphold its adjudicatory mechanism to protect the inherent
requirement of fairness in the administrative process and rule
of law on the basis of "Basic Pleadings" thereby indicating his
'\,.
satisfaction about the pleadings in the writ petitions which were
fiercely opposed by the State on the ground of absence of proper
pleadings. Further, the learned Judge justified the interference
c though the writ petitions were filed by unsuccessful candidates
who had participated in selection process without demur. Similar
view as taken regarding allotment of 50% marks to personal
interview. The learned Judge decided to depend on the Scrutiny
Committee's reports on allotment of marks to see whether the
D marks were awarded excessively.
r14. When we see the District-wise approach by the learned
Single Judge, it is apparent that in so far as Golaghat District
(with which we are not concerned) is concerned, the 50 marks
E allotted for viva voce were further bifurcated in the following
manner:
"1. Educational Qualification
5 marks
2.
Smartness, general ambience
5 marks
,.
F
3.
Language, reading and writing
10 marks
4.
Extra Qualifications
5 marks
5.
Proficiency in sports, marshal arts
5 marks
6.
General knowledge and oral test
20 marks"
G
It was argued before us on behalf of the Government that
this was normally the pattern of interviews practically in all the
~ ..
Districts as the guidelines were fixed for the purpose of
interviews (viva-voce) in the similar fashion commonly for all the
H Districts. This was not contradicted before us and indeed it
SADANANDA HALO & OTHERS v. MOMTAZ ALI
517
""
SHEIKH & ORS. [V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
,,.,..
cannot be, for the simple reason that it would only be the State A
which could be in a position to address as to the standards
fixed for the purposes of viva-voce (presuming that they were
so fixed).
15. As regards Barpeta District, the learned Single Judge
B
found that the register of candidates of Barpeta was maintained
_;'(
only from the stage of completion of the elimination race wherein
5540 candidates had qualified. All of them were allowed to take
the physical test. The learned Judge then deduced that 5540
candidates were interviewed in a span of 9 days. He, therefore,
came to the conclusion that the average number of candidates c
on each day was much more than the benchmark of 250 which
he had fixed. He also recorded that one Minister had made
written request in respect of 43 candidates but out of them only
19 were selected.