Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010132842018 2026:GAU-AS:8681 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4099/2018 SANDEEP AND 2 ORS. (ID NO.1013), S/O. OM PRAKASH, VILL. BASANTPUR, P.O. BASANTPUR, DIST. ROHTAK HARYANA-124001 2: NAVEEN YADAV (ID NO. 1586) S/O. SRI JAI CHAND VILL. BARSANA P.O. BARSANA DIST. BHIWANI HARYANA-127026 3: ANIL KUMAR (ID NO. 1063) S/O. SH. SRI BHAGWAN VILL. KOHLAWAS P.O. SANWAR BONDKLAN DIST. BHIWANI HARYANA-12704 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES SHILLONG MEGHALAYA. 3:PRESIDING OFFICER RECRUITMENT BOARD ASSAM RIFLES Page No.# 2/10 JORHAT ASSAM THROUGH COMMANDING OFFICER 3 MAINTENANCE GROUP OF ASSAM RIFLES JORHAT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MR. H ROHMAN,MR. A CHETRY,MS T WAPANGLA,MR G ALAM,MR. P D NAIR,MR H BEZBARUA,MR. V KUMAR,MR. U SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MRS. A GAYAN,MR. M PHUKAN (R1,2,3) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 16.06.2026 Heard Mr. P. D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. T. Wapangla, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. A. Gayan, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents. 2. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned final select list prepared for recruitment against the post of Havildar (clerk) in the Assam Rifles, in pursuance to an advertisement published in the Daily News Paper on 05.10.2012. The petitioners have further assailed the reservation of vacancies for the State of Haryana. 2.1 The petitioners by way of instituting the present writ petition have prayed for the following reliefs; “Setting aside and quashing the impugned final Selection List of the Recruitment Rally 2012-13 held at Jorhat, Assam (Annexure 3 and Annexure 7), and further. ii) Directing/ Commanding the respondent authorities to allot/ select the petitioners along with other duly selected candidates to the post of the Page No.# 3/10 Havildar Clerk under Assam Rifles and accordingly issue offer of appointment to them and further, iii) To grant all such relief to which the petitioners are legally entitled to and after perusal of the records, and upon cause/causes being shown if any and also after hearing the parties, further be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or also be pleased to pass such order/orders as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. As projected in the writ petition, in pursuance to an advertisement published in the Daily News paper on 05.10.2012, inviting applications amongst others for recruitment against 328 numbers of posts of Havildar (clerk) and 28 posts of Warrant Officer (PA) in Assam Rifles, the petitioners had submitted their applications. The petitioners having been found to conform to the eligibility criterias as set out in the said advertisement, they were permitted to participate in the selection process. On conclusion of the selection process including clearing the trade test as well as the detail medical examination, the petitioners contend that that they were shortlisted for appointment against the advertised post. Subsequently, the respondent authorities had published the select list in their website, however, the petitioners did not find their names included in the said select list. The petitioners accordingly for understanding the reasons for rejection of their candidature in the said selection process had issued a legal notice to the respondents on 05.07.2013. The said legal notice was responded by the respondents on 18.07.2013 and it was contended, therein, that for the State of Haryana 04 (four) vacancies were allotted in the post of Havildar (clerk) and persons who figured in the select list on the basis of merit came to be appointed against the said post. The petitioners being aggrieved approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court, by way of instituting a writ Page No.# 4/10 petition being C.W.P.No.19044/2013. The said writ petition however, was subsequently dismissed as not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction vide order dated 19.04.2017. The petitioners thereafter, instituted an appeal being L.P.A.No.889/2017 assailing the said order dated 19.04.2017. The Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court, vide order dated 13.03.2018, proceeded to dismiss the said L.P.A. It is thereafter that the petitioners have approached this Court by way of instituting the present writ petition with the prayers as noticed, hereinabove. 4. Mr. P. D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners having qualified in all stages of the selection process were expecting their appointments, however, although all the vacancies as advertised vide the advertisement dated 05.10.2012, was not filled up, the names of the petitioners were arbitrarily excluded from the select list. He submits that although the respondents have contended that the petitioners were not selected, inasmuch as, they were found to be lower in merit, it is projected that although initially only 04 (four) vacancies were contended by the respondents to be allotted for the State of Haryana, subsequently, it was found that 06 (six) persons were so appointed against the State of Haryana in the said selection process. 5. Mr. P. D. Nair further contends that the respondents had in the proceedings instituted by the petitioners before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, had contended that the allocation of vacancies to different States was so made on the basis of a Policy Circular dated 25.06.2009, however, he submits that the said Circular was so issued in respect of the recruitment of Constable (GD) and did not pertain to the recruitment made against the post of Havildar (clerk) in Assam Rifles. Page No.# 5/10 He further submits that in the advertisement there is no prescription made that only 04 (four) posts have been allotted to the State of Haryana, although it is stipulated in the advertisement that the distribution of vacancies will be based on the Policy issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. He submits there being no materials brought on record to demonstrate the Policy with regard to distribution of vacancies amongst various States in the matter of recruitment against post of Havildar (clerk) in Assam Rifles, the limiting of the posts allotted to the State of Haryana to 04 (four) and/or 06 (six) posts is clearly illegal and the same would mandate an interference from this Court. Mr. P. D. Nair submits that the vacancies being available and the petitioners having qualified in the selection process, a direction is called upon to be issued to the respondent authorities for appointing the petitioners against the remaining vacant post basing on the merit position obtained by the candidates in the selection process. 6. Per contra Ms. A. Gayan, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that the distribution of vacancies amongst various States in the advertisement was stipulated to be so made basing on the Policy issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs in this connection. She submits that in terms of the said Policy, 04 (four) posts came to be allotted to the State of Haryana. She further submits that the candidates intending to submit their candidature in response to the advertisement dated 05.10.2012, were so required to submit their respective applications in reference to a particular State. She further submits that the petitioners, herein, had submitted their applications in response to the advertisement dated 05.10.2012, against the State of Haryana. She submits that the respondent authorities basing on the Page No.# 6/10 guidelines applicable in the matter had determined that 04 (four) vacancies against the post of Havildar (clerk) as advertised, would be allotted to the State of Haryana. She submits that it was stipulated in the advertisement that candidates in the recruitment exercise who qualify in all respects would be placed in the merit list, depending on the category wise vacancies allotted to the concerned States. Ms. Gayan, further submits that the petitioners in the selection process admittedly had secured 54, 53 and 56 marks, respectively. She submits that cut off marks for appointment against the post of Havildar (clerk) allotted to the State of Haryana in respect of general community candidates worked out to 66 marks while in respect of OBC candidates same worked out to 63 marks. She submits that the petitioners having secured marks much lower than the cut off marks so coming into being in respect of the vacancies allotted to the State of Haryana, there was no occasion for the respondent authorities to appoint the petitioners against the post of Havildar (clerk) in pursuance to the said recruitment exercise. 7. Rejoining his submissions, Mr. P. D. Nair, learned Senior Counsel, for the petitioners has further submitted that a perusal of the final merit list of candidates for recruitment as Havildar (clerk) brought on record by the petitioners by way of filing an affidavit in reply would reveal that only 04 (four) candidates were placed against the post of Havildar (clerk) advertised. However, by referring to the Judgment & Oder dated 17.09.2020 passed by the High Court of Meghalaya in WP(C).No.177/2018, it is contended that, therein, the select list as extracted in the order reflects that 06 (six) candidates were so appointed against the State of Haryana. He submits that, in the event, only 04 (four) post were permissible, the Page No.# 7/10 subsequent increase of appointees against the State of Haryana would reveal that there was no fixed parameters for the purpose of allocation of vacancies to the various States and the same was flexible. Accordingly, he submits that the petitioners having successfully completed the selection process, there would be no marks for appointing them against the remaining vacancies by reckoning their merit position. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 9. In terms of the procedure for selection as laid out in the advertisement dated 05.10.2012, the final select list of a candidate qualifying in the various segments of the selection process would be prepared basing on the aggregate marks obtained by such candidates in the written examination. The advertisement dated 05.10.2012, further provides that the allocation of vacancies amongst various States would be based on the policy issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The respondents in their affidavits have highlighted that by applying the said policy to the number of vacancies put up for recruitment more particularly against the post of Havildar (clerk), 04 (four) posts came to be allotted to the State of Haryana. 10. The petitioners in the present writ petition have raised a grievance with regard to the allotment of post to the State of Haryana. However, while projecting the said grievance, the petitioners have not brought on record any materials to demonstrate that the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities for allotment of post of Havildar (clerk) put up for recruitment to the State of Haryana, was in Page No.# 8/10 violation of the policy laid down in this connection by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The petitioners have also not placed on record any materials to determine the manner in which allotment of posts to various States is to be done by the respondent authorities. 11. This Court finds that the allotment of the vacancies to a particular State in the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 05.10.2012, is a prerogative of the respondents and the respondents having clarified the matter with regard to the allotment of vacant posts to various States and also percentage applied for arriving at the decision with regard to the number of posts required to be allotted for the State of Haryana, this Court would not proceed to interfere with such allotment of vacancies made in the said recruitment process to the various States including the State of Haryana. Accordingly, this Court would proceed to consider the issue raised in the present writ petition by holding that the 04 (four) posts of Havildar (clerk) allotted to the State of Haryana was so allotted in terms of the policy issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 12. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court finds that the cut off marks for the general community candidate in the selection process was 65 marks for general community candidates and 63 marks for the OBC community candidates. 13. In so far as the post of Havildar (clerk) allotted to the State of Haryana is concerned, the petitioners in the present selection process have secured 54, 53 and 56 marks, respectively. Accordingly, the petitioners are found to have secured marks lower than the cut off marks obtaining in the selection process pertaining to the Page No.# 9/10 vacancies available for recruitment against the State of Haryana. Although a variance is found with regard to the names of the selected candidates in the final merit list of candidates as brought on record by the petitioners and the list of selected candidates as recorded in the order dated 17.09.2020, passed by the High Court of Meghalaya, in WP(C).No.177/2018, pertaining to an issue raised before it relating to the same very selection process, this Court finds that the said issue need not detain this Court, inasmuch as, in both the final merit list as relied upon by the petitioners and the list of selected candidates as set out in the order dated 17.09.2020, by the High Court of Meghalaya, the candidates so selected had secured more marks than the petitioners, herein. Further it is to be noted that the marks as reflected against the names of the petitioners in the final merit list as relied upon by the petitioners is not disputed. 14. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the writ petitioners, cannot be held to have been illegally or arbitrarily deprived of an appointment against the post of Havildar (clerk), inasmuch as, no violation of the conditions of the advertisement and/or any statutory provisions or the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, has been found by this Court, which otherwise would have mandated interference by this Court with the recruitment process in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 15. Accordingly, this Court finds that the claim made by the petitioners for setting aside the impugned selection and appointment made of candidates against the post of Havildar (clerk) allotted to the State of Haryana, which were put up for recruitment vide the advertisement dated 05.10.2012, would not mandate an Page No.# 10/10 acceptance. 16. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 17. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant