I.A. Ansari, J.;- Pursuant to an advertisement, issued, on 17.12.2008, by the respondent No. 3, namely, Additional Director General of Police (TAP), Assam, inviting application for filling up of the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Branch) in Assam Police, the petitioner too applied. In course of time, the petitioner appeared in the written examination, which was followed by physical as well as medical test and interview. In the select list, which was, eventually, published, as many as 112 candidates' names appeared as selected candidates. The petitioner's name had appeared, in the said selection list, at serial number 40. When the petitioner came to know that the persons, placed in the said selection list above and below the name of the petitioner, had received letters asking them to report for training on 05.04.2010 and the petitioner had not been given any such letter by the respondents/authority concerned, the petitioner made a representation, on 22.03.2010, to the respondent No. 3, namely, Additional Director General of Police (TAP), Assam, with a request to issue an appointment letter to him too. In response to the petitioner's said representation, a letter has been issued by the respondent No. 3 intimating the petitioner that since a criminal case is pending against him in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, the petitioner would be allowed to join as soon as he is acquitted. 2. Claiming that he is confident that he would be acquitted by the Courts and also alleging that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in not issuing appointment letter to him on the ground of pendency of a criminal case, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking, with the help of this application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directions to be issued to the respondents to issue to the petitioner requisite appointment letter. 3. I have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be noted is that the fact that the petitioner stands selected for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Armed Branch) is not in dispute. I have heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. R.K. Bora, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 4. While considering the present writ petition, what needs to be noted is that the fact that the petitioner stands selected for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Armed Branch) is not in dispute. The limited question, which has been raised in the present case, is: Notwithstanding the fact that a criminal case is pending in the Court against the petitioner, whether the respondents, as public authorities, are bound under the law to issue letter of appointment to the petitioner? Conversely put, the question is: whether the omission, on the part of the respondents, to invite the petitioner to join the training camp, can be held to be an arbitrary act warranting this Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution ? 5. The concept of arbitrariness is that likes shall be treated alike. It is this philosophy, which Article 14 embraces and gives, therefore, guarantee to all persons that they would be treated alike if they are similarly situated. The petitioner is not obviously situated as other candidates, who have been issued appointment letters inasmuch as except the fact that the petitioner as well as appointed candidates are selectees of the same selection process, there is a striking difference between the two groups, namely, the petitioner, on the one hand, and the rest of the appointed candidates, on the other, the difference being that while a criminal case is pending, in a Court, against the petitioner, there is no such case is alleged to have been pending against those candidates, who have been issued appointment letters. The petitioner cannot, therefore, claim that he stands on the same footing as do the other candidates. 6. Having clarified that the act of not appointing the petitioner, in the present case, does not violate the guarantee of equality of treatment, which Article 14 provides, I, now, come to Article 16. It may be pointed out, in this regard, that Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in matters relating to appointment or appointment to any office under the State. The present one is not a case, where the petitioner can be said to have not been given equal opportunity as others for appointment to a post in the public domain. The present one is not a case, where the petitioner can be said to have not been given equal opportunity as others for appointment to a post in the public domain. Article 16 cannot also, therefore, be said to have been violated in the present case. 7. In the backdrop of the above position of law, what needs to be pointed is that the petitioner was a candidate to a post in public domain and, that too, in the department concerning police. As a model employer, the State cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily, when it decides not to issue any appointment letter to the petitioner on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him. 8. The moot question, therefore, is as to whether pendency of a criminal case can create a legal bar or hurdle in obtaining appointment to a public post or can pendency of a criminal case be a ground for not making appointment to a post in public domain? In this regard, it is noteworthy that an FIR was lodged, on 18.06.2007, with the Officer-in-Charge, Dhubri Police Station, by one Mamta Bora, as informant, whereby she alleged that while two of her daughters and her younger sister were standing near the gate within the boundary of their house, the accused, named in the FIR including the present petitioner, came there with sticks, etc., in their hands, entered into their land, pulled all of them to the road, beat them up and injured them. It was specifically alleged in the FIR that the present petitioner had assaulted the informant's daughter, Mamoni Bora, on her hand and injured her. Based on this FIR, Dhubri Police Station Case No. 313/2007 under Sections 144/447/325 IPC was registered. On completion of investigation, police laid a report, under Section 173 (2) (1) CrPC, stating to the effect that on visiting the place of occurrence and also taking down the statements of the witnesses, it transpired that during past six months, there had been a dispute between the family members of the informant and the present accused with regard to sale and purchase of land and that on the day of the occurrence too, there was a quarrel between the two parties, a minor scuffle followed and some injuries were sustained, but the medical examination, conducted on the injured, did not reveal any serious injury. The report accordingly suggested that the dispute may be regarded as a civil dispute and the case be closed. By filing a petition, the informant resisted acceptance of the report, which had been submitted by the police, and also requested the Court to reject the said report, whereupon the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, passed an order, on 09.04.2009, observing to the effect, inter alia, that upon perusal of the relevant case diary, he had found prima facie materials of commission of offences under Sections 147/ 447/323/149 IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate accordingly took cognizance of the offences aforementioned and issued summons to the accused-persons including the petitioner herein. Against taking of cognizance and issuance of processes as described hereinbefore, the petitioner has filed an application under Section 482 CrPC, which has given rise to Criminal Petition No. 215/ 2009 and the same is pending for hearing. 9. From the narration of facts, what clearly transpires is that there is a criminal case pending, in the Court, against the petitioner on the basis of cognizance taken as aforesaid. Thus, the fact that cognizance of offences aforementioned has been taken by a Criminal Court and that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner cannot be disputed. The question, therefore, is as to whether, in such circumstances, the respondents, as public authorities, were within the ambit of law in not issuing any letter inviting the petitioner to join the post of Sub-Inspector. A post, in public domain, has to be filled up by persons against whom there is no criminal case pending. If the State chooses not to make public appointment in favour of persons, who have criminal cases pending, such an action of the State cannot be treated as an arbitrary action or an irrational action. When the State, as an employer, chooses to give appointment to a person against whom no criminal case is pending, and decides not to appoint a person against whom criminal case is pending, the State cannot be said to have adopted an arbitrary, irrational or unreasonable stand. On the basis of the fact that the petitioner has not yet been convicted, the petitioner cannot demand appointment to the post to which he stands selected. A person, whose name appears in a select list, has no inherent right to receive appointment. On the basis of the fact that the petitioner has not yet been convicted, the petitioner cannot demand appointment to the post to which he stands selected. A person, whose name appears in a select list, has no inherent right to receive appointment. If, therefore, the State's action in refusing to make appointment transpires to be reasonable, the Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226, would not interfere. Though may be lesser in merit, when there is a person available with no strings of criminal prosecution attached to him, he may be treated by the State better suited for the post, particularly, for the post of Sub-Inspector, when the appointee would be required to maintain law and order and also public order. A person, against whom a criminal case is pending, may not inspire confidence of the State and the State may not deem it proper to make such appointment, for, appointment of persons, against whom criminal cases are pending, would shake the confidence of the public at large in the fairness of the State's action. If the State decides to retain confidence of the people by not giving appointment to such persons in public domain, against whom criminal cases are pending, the State cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily, illegally, unreasonably and/or irrationally. 10. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this Court does not find any merit in this writ petition. This writ petition, therefore, fails and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 11. No costs.