Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010230592015 2026:GAU-AS:8645 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5752/2015 RUPAM DEV S/O MR. CHANDAN DEV R/O ARASHUTI JUNGHAL, BORGAON DIST. SONITPUR, P.S. THELAMARA PIN - 784149, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM and 4 ORS, REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HOME DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006, ASSAM. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ASSAM POLICE HEAD QUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI - 781007 ASSAM. 3:THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE TAP ASSAM POLICE HEAD QUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007 ASSAM. 4:THE CHAIRMAN STATE LEVEL POLICE RECRUITMENT BOARD ASSAM POLICE HEAD QUARTER ULUBARI GUWAHATI- 781007. 5:THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE SONITPUR DISTRICT Page No.# 2/7 SONITPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRM R ADHIKARI, MS.N DAIMARI Advocate for the Respondent : , GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 15.06.2026 Heard Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has raised a grievance with regard to the action on the part of the respondent authorities in not permitting him to appear in the written test held for recruitment to the post of Armed Branch Constables, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 24.12.2014, although he had secured the qualifying marks in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET). 3. The petitioner in pursuance to an advertisement dated 24.12.2014, had submitted his candidature for recruitment to the post of Armed Branch Constable in Assam Police. The petitioner thereafter, had participated in the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET). The petitioner projects that he had scored 32 Page No.# 3/7 marks in the PET segment of the selection process which was stipulated to be the minimum qualifying marks required to be secured by a candidate in the said segment of the selection process. The respondent authorities had thereafter, prepared a list of candidates for appearing in the written examination with regard to the vacancies as identified for the District of Sonitpur. The petitioner’s name not figuring, therein, the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. M. R. Adhikari, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner by reiterating the facts, noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner having scored 32 marks, had secured the qualifying marks and had cleared the PET segment of the selection process and accordingly, in terms of the stipulations made in the advertisement, he was required to be called for appearing in the written examination. Mr. Adhikari, submits that the petitioner was discriminated against, inasmuch as, he inspite of having secured the qualifying marks in the PET segment of the selection process was denied an opportunity to appear in the written examination. Accordingly, Mr. Adhikari, submits that the select list prepared against the vacancies identified for the Sonitpur District would mandate an interference from this Court. 5. Per contra Mr. A. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate, appearing for all the respondents, has submitted that the petitioner Page No.# 4/7 admittedly had secured 32 marks, in the PET segment of the selection process, however, given the stipulation made in the advertisement for calling candidates for the written examination, the petitioner is found to have not obtained the cut off marks against the category for which the petitioner had applied, which was found to be 35 marks. The petitioner not having scored the cut off marks of 35 in the PET segment of selection process, he was not called for the written examination, inasmuch as, the requisite number of candidate to be called for the said examination was found to have been satisfied and the last of such candidate had scored 35 marks in the said segment of the selection process. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner not being called for the written examination on account of the marks obtained by him in the PET segment of the selection process being below the cut off marks as working out for, the category against which the petitioner had submitted his application, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 7. In the advertisement dated 24.12.2014, it was stipulated that the selection procedure would consist of Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET). The marks for the PET segment of Page No.# 5/7 the selection process was set out in the advertisement and the total marks assigned to the said segment of the selection process was 60. A candidate appearing in the PET segment of the selection process was required to secure 32 marks, therein, to qualify the said segment. The advertisement further stipulated that district wise merit list for each category i.e. reserved and unreserved (separately for men and women) would be prepared on the basis of the total marks secured in the PET segment of the selection process. It was further stipulated that candidate would be called for the written examination in order of merit, 5 (five) times the number of posts allotted to each category. Further stipulation was made that if there are candidates scoring the same marks in the PET segment of the selection process as the last candidate selected for the written test by applying the 5 (five) times formula in a particular case, the candidates scoring the same marks will also be called for the written examination and therefore, the number may exceed the 5 (five) times to that extent for that particular category. 8. It was further provided that, in the event, the total number of qualifying candidates turns out to be less than 5 times the number of posts, all candidates scoring qualifying marks in the PET segment of the selection process shall be called for the written examination. 9. The materials brought on record reveals that the petitioner had Page No.# 6/7 applied against the OBC (male) category and had secured 32 marks in the PET segment. The respondents have contended that against the OBC segment for male, there were 96 post reserved and candidates 5 times the number of the said post as advertised came to be called for the selection process. The last of such candidate was found to have secured 35 marks in the selection process. The petitioner having secured only 32 marks in the PET segment of the selection process, he was not included in the list of candidates called to appear in the written examination against OBC (male) category, inasmuch as, on application of the 5 times rules, the requisite number of candidates to be called was satisfied by inclusion of the last of such candidates who had secured 35 marks in the PET segment. Thereby, the non calling of the petitioner for appearing in the written test in the considered view of this Court is not erroneous. The respondents had in their affidavits made categorical statements to this effect, however it is seen that the petitioner had not disputed the said statements made in the affidavit filed by the respondents, way back on 17.12.2015, by way of filing a rejoinder. 10. In view of the above discussion, the petitioner being found by this Court to be not coming within the cut off marks as prescribed for the OBC category (male) candidates for appearing in the written examination, the claim made by the petitioner in the present writ Page No.# 7/7 petition would not mandate an acceptance. 11. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit and accordingly the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant