Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010041382018 2025:GAU-AS:3859 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1281/2018 MRIGEN KAKATI S/O. SRI ACHYUT KAKATI, VILL. DWIGUNPAR (LEZA), P.O. BARUAJANI, P.S. KAMALPUR, DIST. KAMRUP (R), ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF HOME AND POLITICAL AFFAIRS, P.O. ASSAM SACHIVALAYA, DISPUR, ASSAM 2:THE CHAIRMAN ASSAM POLICE STATE LEVEL RECRUITMENT BOARD ULUBARI GUWAHATI 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM POLICE ASSAM ULUBARI GHY. 4:THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION) ULUBARI GUWAHATI. 5:THE SUPDT. OF POLICE (COMMUNICATION) ULUBARI Page No.# 2/4 GUWAHATI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A AHMED, MS. R R RAJKUMARI,MS. D GOSWAMI Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER 02.04.2025 Heard Mr A Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr D Bora, learned Government Advocate for the State respondent. 2. Having regard to the projection made by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was floated by the respondent authorities concerned, for recruitment to the post of Constable, Unarmed Branch in the Assam Police, for the year 2015. The petitioner was declared selected in the written test as well as in the interview, but when he was called for producing his documents and testimonials for verification by the authorities, his candidature was cancelled on the ground that he was not from the Science stream, as was required in order to be selected for the post of Constable, APRO and Fire Emergency Service amongst others. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are various posts available in which the petitioner can be considered for his appointment since he belongs to the Arts Stream, such as Delhi Police, Special Branch, or the District Executive Force. Since the petitioner was successful in the written test as well as in the interview, the respondent authorities should be directed to consider him against appropriate posts as per his qualification. 5. Mr D Bora, learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the Page No.# 3/4 petitioner applied fo the post of Constable, Unarmed Branch, by giving 6 (six) preferences. The first preference was for the Assam Police Radio Organization (APRO), the second was Delhi Police, the third was Special Branch, the fourth was Fire and Emergency Services, the fifth was SDRF (Emergency Rescuer) and the sixth was District Executive Force. 6. The learned Government Advocate, by referring to the statements made in paragraph No. 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 2, on 07.02.2019, submits that the petitioner belongs to the OBC category, and even if he is to be considered against the posts, which can be manned by a person having Arts qualification, the petitioner will have to be considered against the posts meant for OBC category. He submits that the petitioner secured aggregate score of 50.26 marks, whereas the marks secured by the last candidate under the OBC/MOBC category, was 57.66, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be adjusted against other posts, as claimed by him. 7. Referring to the online application submitted by the petitioner, annexed to the counter affidavit as Annexure-B, the learned Government Advocate submits that against the question put to the applicant, as to whether he had passed H.S. or Class-XII in Science Stream with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, the petitioner gave the answer-“Yes”. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner has clearly made wrong entries in the application form, which perhaps led the authorities to allow him to sit for the written examination and participate in the interview. 8. The learned Government Advocate submits that as per the advertisement, it is clear that in order to be considered for the post of APRO and Fire and Emergency Services, amongst others, one has to be in the Science stream, which the petitioner does not have. He, therefore submits that the writ petition has no merit and the same should be dismissed. 9. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, this Court finds force in the stand and submission made on Page No.# 4/4 behalf of the official respondents, which is to the effect that the petitioner has misrepresented that he belonged to the Science stream in his online application and secondly, even if he is to be considered against other posts, which can be manned by candidates from the Arts stream, the petitioner being an OBC category, has not secured the required marks. In other words, the last OBC/MOBC candidate selected, appears to have secured 57.66 marks, whereas the petitioner is said to have secured only 50.26 marks. 10. Under the circumstances and upon due consideration, I do not find any merit in the petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 11. No cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant