B. P. Katakey, J.:- 1. This batch of writ petitions arise out of the process initiated for recruitment of 145 Sub-Inspectors, Food & Civil Supplies, Govern­ment of Assam (in short, "Sub-Inspector"). WP(C) No.5520/2008 has been filed chal­lenging the advertisement dated 20th August, 2008, the written test conducted pursuant to the said advertisement and praying for direct­ing the respondent authority not to declare the result of the written test. WP(C) Nos.3207/2009; 3526/2009; 3704/2009; 3899/2009; 4150/2009; 4319/2009; 5197/2009; 5245/2009; 5820/2009 and WP(C) No. 1268/2010 are filed by the candidates, who were not successful in the written test conducted for that purpose, challenging the entire selection process including the list dated 27th July, 2009 of successful candidates in the written test. In WP(C) No.3526/2009 a further prayer has also been made to direct the respondent authorities to call those peti­tioners, who have secured the qualifying marks in the written test, as fixed by the re­spondent authorities. WP(C) Nos.3283/2009; 3327/2009; 3500/2009 and 4259/2010 are filed by the candidates, whose names do not appear in the said list, chal­lenging the result of the written test on one of the grounds that though some of them have secured more than the cut off marks fixed by the respondent authorities for such selection, their names do not appear in the said list and were not called for viva-voce test. WP(C) No.95/2010 has been filed by the petitioner praying for a direction to the respondent au­thorities to call him for the viva-voce test con­tending that he has not been called, despite securing the cut off marks fixed for that pur­pose. In WP(C) No.3824/2009, the peti­tioner has challenged the action of the re­spondent authority in declaring him as unsuc­cessful in the written test, on the ground of alleged anomalies in the answer script, though in the list of successful candidates dated 27th July, 2009 his name appeared and he also appeared in the viva-voce test held on 10th August, 2009. WP(C) Nos.2806/2009 and 447/2010 are filed praying for a direction to declare the result of the written test held on 28th December, 2008, in respect of Barpeta district and also to publish the list of success-fill candidates after completion of the selec­tion process and to appoint accordingly. WP(C) Nos.2806/2009 and 447/2010 are filed praying for a direction to declare the result of the written test held on 28th December, 2008, in respect of Barpeta district and also to publish the list of success-fill candidates after completion of the selec­tion process and to appoint accordingly. WP(C) No.4263/2010 is filed by the peti­tioner praying for a direction to the respond­ent authorities to declare the result of the viva-voce test held on 10th August, 2009 and to publish the select list and also to appoint the selected candidates, pursuant to the selection process initiated for recruitment of 145 num­bers of Sub-Inspector. All these writ petitions being relating to the recruitment to the afore­said posts, are taken up together for hearing and disposal, as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of the present writ petitioners may be noticed as under: (i) The process for direct recruitment of unspecified numbers of Sub-Inspectors was initiated by the Director of Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Assam (in short, "the Director") initially by issuing 2 (two) advertisements in the year 1996, under the provisions of Assam (Food & Civil Supplies) Rules, 1970 (in short, "1970 Rules"). Though a large number of candidates submitted their applications for selection and recruitment, the selection process, however, did not proceed fur­ther for the reasons best known to the re­spondent authorities. Ad-hoc appointments as Sub-Inspector, however, were made, which came to be challenged in various writ petitions filed. In the year 2001 as well as 2002, 2 (two) other advertisements were also issued by the Director to fill up the vacant posts of Sub-Inspector. The said process initiated, however, was not com­pleted due to various reasons. Pursuant to the said 4 (four) advertisements, more than 76,000 (seventy-six thousand) can­didates filed their applications for selec­tion. In the year 2001 as well as 2002, 2 (two) other advertisements were also issued by the Director to fill up the vacant posts of Sub-Inspector. The said process initiated, however, was not com­pleted due to various reasons. Pursuant to the said 4 (four) advertisements, more than 76,000 (seventy-six thousand) can­didates filed their applications for selec­tion. After disposal of the writ petitions filed challenging the ad-hoc appointments made, another writ petition being WP(C) No. 1672/2008 was filed praying for a di­rection to fill up the vacant posts of Sub-Inspector on regular basis by completing the process of selection initiated by issu­ing the various advertisements, wherein an order dated 7th August, 2008 was passed by a Single Bench of this Court, on the basis of the affidavit filed by the Depart­mental Secretary, directing him to issue a fresh advertisement within 3 0 (thirty) days therefrom and to complete the selection process within a period of 9 (nine) months thereafter. It was also directed that in the said advertisement to be issued, all con­cerned must be informed that the persons, who have already applied pursuant to the earlier advertisements, need not apply and the cases of such persons, who have al­ready applied and became over aged shall also be dealt with as per the Governments instruction in force. Thus all the candidates, who applied pursuant to the earlier 4 (four) advertisements apart from the candidates who may apply pursuant to the fresh ad­vertisement were allowed to participate in the selection process for recruitment as Sub-Inspectors. (ii) The Director pursuant to the said order dated 7th August, 2008 passed in WP(C) No. 1672/2008 issued an adver­tisement, which was published in a local English daily, namely the Assam Tribune, on 20th August, 2008 to fill up 145 posts of Sub-Inspector, notifying that the per­sons, who had applied for such posts pur­suant to the earlier 4 (four) advertisements, need not apply again. In the said adver­tisement, the reservation to SC/ST(P)/ST(H)/OBC/MOBC, women and physi­cally handicapped persons have also been indicated. The total marks for such selec­tion was fixed as 200, out of which, 150 marks was allotted for the written test and 50 marks for viva-voce test. A large number of candidates, pursuant to the last advertisement, which was published in the local daily on 20th August, 2008, also applied for selection and recruitment to the said posts of Sub-Inspector. The total marks for such selec­tion was fixed as 200, out of which, 150 marks was allotted for the written test and 50 marks for viva-voce test. A large number of candidates, pursuant to the last advertisement, which was published in the local daily on 20th August, 2008, also applied for selection and recruitment to the said posts of Sub-Inspector. Altogether 1,04,770 number of candidates, pursuant to the aforesaid 5 (five) advertisements were in the fray for selection. A written test, thereafter, was conducted on 28th December, 2008 in 255 centres in the State of Assam, in which 41,959 number of candidates appeared. The result of the written test was declared vide notice dated 27th July, 2009 by the Director, who is the Chairman of the Selection Committee, which was published in a local daily, namely The Assam Tribune on 28th July, 2009, notifying the successful candidates and intimating them to appear before the Selection Committee for viva-voce test to be held on 10th August, 2009. (iii) WP(C) No.5520/2008, as indi­cated above, was filed prior to conduct of the written test. Other writ petitions, ex­cept 3 (three), as noticed above, were filed challenging the result of the written test. 3 (three) writ petitions, as mentioned above, have been filed for declaration of the re­sult of the written test held on 28th De­cember, 2008 and also the result of the viva-voce test held on 10th August, 2009, apart from praying for a direction to com­plete the selection process. In WP(C) No. 3207/2009, an interim order dated 8th September, 2009 was passed by a Single Bench of this Court restraining the respond­ent authorities from making appointment to the posts of Sub-Inspector on the basis of the selection process undertaken. (iv) During the course ofhearing of this batch of writ petitions, an order was passed on 10th February, 2011 directing the Director to cause publication of the notices in 2 (two) local dailies, 1 (one) in vernacular, i.e. in Assamese, and another in English published from Guwahati hav­ing wide circulation in the State of Assam intimating those candidates, who were se­lected for viva-voce test, about filing and pendency of the writ petitions, fixing 4th March, 2011 for their appearance, as all those candidates, who were successful in the written test, were not parties in the writ petitions though the result of such written test is under challenge. Such publications were made in 2 (two) newspapers, nam­ely, The Assam Tribune (English) on 21 st February, 2011 and in Asomiya Khabar (Assamese) on 20th February, 2011, pur­suant to which a good number of candi­dates, who were selected in the written test, filed applications for their impleadment and accordingly they were impleaded as party respondents in the writ petitions, some of whom have also filed affidavits-in-opposition on receipt of the copy of the writ petition filed. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for the State respondents and also the learned counsel appearing for the private respond­ents as well as the newly impleaded respond­ents. 4. Challenging the result of the written test published by the Director on 27th July, 2009 and their non selection, the learned counsel for the petitioners, in those writ petitions, where such result is under challenge, has sub­mitted that the entire selection process is viti­ated (i) because of subsequent introduction of cut off marks as well as change of the marks initially allotted for viva-voce test, af­ter the result of the written test was declared, thereby changing the rules of the games in the midway of the process of selection; (ii) fixa­tion of different cut off marks for male and : female candidates, which amounts to gender discrimination, rendering the process uncon­stitutional; (iii) non evaluation of the answer scripts properly, as evident from the mistakes found by the Selection Committee in its pro­ceeding dated 23rd July, 2009 and (iv) dec­laration of the result of the written test, on the basis of a sample exercise, namely scrutiny of some of the answer scripts of some of the candidates, who were initially found to be selected in the written test, without making such exercise in respect of other candidates, who appeared in the written test, apart from the ground of applications of 30% quota for women under the provisions of the Assam Women (Reservation of Vacancies in Serv­ices and Posts) Act, 2005 (in short, "2005 Act") as vertical reservation, resulting in a situ­ation of excessive reservation, though the same is required to be worked out as a horizontal reservation. 5. 5. Referring to the last advertisement is­sued by the Director and published in the newspaper dated 20th August, 2008, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that out of 200 total marks allotted for the pur­pose of selection, 50 marks was allotted for the interview/viva-voce test, thereby stipulat­ing the criteria for selection, which was sub-sequently changed by the Selection Commit­tee constituted for that purpose in its proceed­ing dated 3rd February, 2009, wherein a de­cision was taken to conduct the viva-voce test on the basis of 25 marks, thereby changing the criteria for selection. It has also been sub­mitted that the Selection Committee, in its meeting dated 26th May, 2009, has introduced the cut off marks to be secured in the written test after declaration of the result ofthe writ­ten test on 27th July, 2008, though the same was required to be done before conduct of such test. It has been submitted that once the process of selection commences, the rules of the selection cannot be changed, as has been done in the instant case by the respondents. 6. The learned counsel placing reliance on the proceeding of the Selection Committee dated 24th June, 2009 has also submitted that different cut off marks for male and female candidates were fixed in all the categories, namely Gen/SC/ST(P)/ST(H)/OBC/MOBC, by fixing lower cut off marks for the female candidates than the male candidates, thereby fixing different criteria for the purpose of se­lection in the written test for male and female candidates, which amounts to gender discrimi­nation, rendering the same unconstitutional, being violative ofthe fundamental right guar­anteed under Article 15 ofthe Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex. 7. It has also been submitted by the learned counsel that it is apparent from the proceeding ofthe Selection Committee dated 23rd July, 2009 that the Committee carried out the limited verification ofthe answer scripts of 1401 candidates, who were found to have secured the cut off marks fixed by the Com­mittee, out of total 41,959 numbers of candi­dates who appeared in the written test, thereby making scrutiny of the limited answer scripts only. Referring to the said proceeding, it has also been submitted that in such limited veri­fication of answer scripts, the Committee hav­ing found that there were discrepancies in the marks allotted to certain candidates, ought to have carried out the re-verification exercise in respect of all the answer scripts, so as to rule out any discrepancies in the marks allot­ted. The learned counsel further submits that it is also apparent from the proceeding of the Selection Committee dated 26th May, 2009 that all the members of the Selection Com­mittee were not involved in preparation of centre wise booklets containing the marks secured by the candidates in the written test, which was done by the Chairman of the Com­mittee alone without involving the other mem­bers. That apart, the committee in the said proceeding dated 26th May, 2009 has arbi­trarily fixed the number of candidates to be called for viva-voce test, as 1260, which is in the ratio of 1:8.67, keeping in view the number of vacancies sought to be filled up, i.e. 145, though such ratio normally ought to have been around 1:4. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that there was no transparency in the selection process conducted by the Selection Committee, which requires interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the deci­sion of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 173 ; in Rajesh Kumar Daria & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Pub­lic Service Commission & Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785 ; in HemaniMalhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 and Division Bench judgments of this Court in Matiur Rahman Bhuyan & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Anr. reported in 2002 (1) GLT 316 and in Ratul Kumar Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2009 (4) GLT 648. 9. High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 and Division Bench judgments of this Court in Matiur Rahman Bhuyan & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Anr. reported in 2002 (1) GLT 316 and in Ratul Kumar Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2009 (4) GLT 648. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the writ petitions, who are amongst 66 (sixty-six) candidates whose names were subsequently deleted from the list of successful candidates in the written test because of the alleged discrepancy in the to­tal marks recorded in the "total marks col­umn" of the answer scripts and in the mark sheets submitted by the examiner, has sub­mitted that those candidates cannot be held responsible and make liable for such discrep­ancies, if any, the same having been done by the examiners and the candidates being not at all involved in awarding the marks or in wrong calculation. According to the learned counsel, before deleting the names of those 66 candidates from such list of successful candidates in the written test, the Selection Committee did not verify the actual marks awarded to those persons and simply because there was discrepancy in recording the total marks in the "total marks column" and in the mark-sheets submitted by the examiner, the names of those persons were excluded from the said list, which cannot be done. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to verify the total marks actually secured by those candidates, as has been awarded by the examiner and thereafter, if they secured the cut offmarks fixed by the Committee, they may directed to be called for the viva-voce test, except the candidates who have already appeared in the viva-voce test. 10. The learned counsel for the petition­ers in those writ petitions, who have challenged the action on the part of the respond­ent authorities in not calling them for viva-voce test despite securing the cut off marks fixed for that purpose, has submitted that they hav­ing secured the cut off marks in the written test their names ought to have find place in the list of successful candidates in such writ­ten test. According to the learned counsel, those petitioners having secured the requisite marks, the respondent authorities cannot refuse to call them for viva-voce test, as has been done in the instant cases. According to the learned counsel, those petitioners having secured the requisite marks, the respondent authorities cannot refuse to call them for viva-voce test, as has been done in the instant cases. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that necessary di­rection may be issued to the respondent au­thorities to conduct the viva-voce test in re­spect of those candidates and thereafter, to declare the result of the selection and to make appointments accordingly. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 2806/2009; 4477 2010 and 4263/2010have submitted that since the authority has initiated the selection proc­ess for recruitment to 145 numbers of vacant posts of Sub-Inspector, they are duty bound to complete the process, as initiated, in view of the directions contained in the order dated 7th August, 2008 passed in WP(C) No. 16727 2008, whereby and whereunder the author­ity was directed to complete the selection process within 9 nine months from the date of issuance of the last advertisement. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the said process of selection may directed to be completed forthwith by publishing the list of candidates selected for recruitment and by making the consequential appointments. 12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the official respondents, placing reliance on the averments made in the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the Director, has submit­ted that the process for selection of candidates to fill up 145 vacancies of Sub-Inspec­tors was initiated inconformily with the require­ment of the 1970 Rules, wherein it has clearly been indicated that the reservation policy relating to the reservation of vacancies for all the reserved categories including the women would be followed. The learned counsel further submits that in view of appearance of large number of candidates in the written test against 145 vacancies, the Selection Com­mittee had to fix the cut off marks so that reasonable numbers of candidates can effectively be interviewed. 13. The learned counsel further submits that in view of appearance of large number of candidates in the written test against 145 vacancies, the Selection Com­mittee had to fix the cut off marks so that reasonable numbers of candidates can effectively be interviewed. 13. Relating to the allegation of changing the rules of games by changing the marks initially allotted for viva-voce test, it has been submitted by the learned counsel that the Selection Committee in the proceeding dated 3rd February, 2009, keeping in view the vari­ous pronouncements of the Apex Court and with a view to keep the marks allotted for the viva-voce test in the range of 25% of the to­tal marks fixed for written test, had decided to change the marks allotted for viva-voce test from 50 to 25, as notified in the last advertisement dated 20th August, 2008, with­out, however, changing the marks allotted for the written test, i.e. 150. The learned counsel submits that the unsuccessful candidates in the written test cannot have any grievance relat­ing to the change of the marks allotted for the viva-voce test, the same having not affected such candidates at all, who were not success­ful in the written test. The learned counsel fur­ther submits that all the candidates, who are successful in the written test, would be judged on the basis of 25 marks allotted for viva-voce test. 14. It has also been submitted that the 30% quota fixed for women in terms of the provisions of the 2005 Act was not worked out taking the same as vertical reservation but as horizontal reservation. However, in terms of the provisions of 2005 Act, after working out the total number of posts to be kept re­served for women, those were distributed amongst different reserved categories, like SC/ST(P)/ST(H)/OBC/MOBC apart from General category. The learned counsel also submits that different cut off marks had to be fixed for the male and the female candidates, as reflected in the proceeding of the Selection Committee dated 24th June, 2009, with a view to fill up the posts reserved for women candidates against 30% quota fixed under the provisions of 2005 Act and, therefore, there is no gender discrimination, as contended by the petitioners. It has also been submitted that in the selection process, the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportuni­ties, Protection of Rights and Full Participa­tion) Act, 1995, relating to the reservation of vacancies for the persons with disabilities, have also been scrupulously followed. 15. The learned senior counsel further sub­mits that the answer scripts were properly scrutinized by the examiners appointed for that purpose and on the basis of the marks allot­ted the booklets were prepared by the Chair­man as authorized by the Selection Commit­tee, which was accepted by other members of the Committee. The learned counsel also submits that since there were proper scrutiny of the answer scripts and there is no allega­tion of bias or malafide against any examiner or the members of the Selection Committee including the Chairman, such process cannot be interfered with on the basis of wild allega­tion of not properly scrutinizing the answer scripts, by contending that had the answer scripts been properly scrutinized, the petition­ers, who did well in the written test, would have been selected. The learned counsel sub­mits that such a roving enquiry cannot be made by a writ Court to find out the lacuna in the selection process, there being no factual foun­dation laid by the petitioners in the writ peti­tions. 16. It has also been submitted that the dis­crepancies, as noticed by the Selection Com­mittee in the proceeding dated 23rd July, 2009, cannot be the basis for arriving at a conclusion that proper verification of the an­swer scripts was not done by the examiner, more so, when no factual foundation has been laid by the writ petitioners, in that regard, in the writ petitions. The Selection Committee has re-scrutinized the answer scripts of all the persons, who were found to have secured the cut off marks in the written test and having found certain discrepancies in respect of 66 candidates, as noticed in the said proceed­ing, their names were accordingly deleted from the list of successful candidates in the written test. 17. The learned senior counsel appearing for the State respondents, however, has fairly submitted that it appears from the record that certain candidates, who secured the cut off marks, were not called for the interview/viva-voce test by mistake and hence those candi­dates would now be called for such test. 17. The learned senior counsel appearing for the State respondents, however, has fairly submitted that it appears from the record that certain candidates, who secured the cut off marks, were not called for the interview/viva-voce test by mistake and hence those candi­dates would now be called for such test. It has also fairly been submitted that the Selec­tion Committee in the proceeding dated 23rd July, 2009 decided to exclude 66 candidates from the list of successful candidates without verify the actual marks secured by them, as awarded by the examiner, as they were ex­cluded because of the discrepancy relating to the total marks recorded in the "total marks column" and in the mark-sheets submitted by the examiners and as such, the Selection Com­mittee shall undertake the process of ascertaining the actual marks secured by those can­didates, as awarded by the examiner and in such process if it is found that they have se­cured the cut off marks, they would be called for interview/viva-voce test. 18. The learned counsel in support of his contention has placed reliance on the deci­sion of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 454 and in Union of India & Ors. Vs. Bikash Kuanar reported in (2006) 8 SCC 193. 19. The learned counsel appearing for the private respondents as well as the newly impleaded respondents supporting the argu­ments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the official respondents have sub­mitted that the selection process having been initiated and result of the written test having been declared, in compliance with the provi­sions of 1970 Rules and taking into account the reservation policy of the Government of Assam and there being no illegality in such selection process, the same may not be inter­fered with by this Court, except where the learned counsel appearing for the official re­spondents have conceded. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav (supra), it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the private respondents/newly impleaded respondents that in the said case, the Apex Court while recognized the recruiting authority's power to fix the eligibil­ity criteria of minimum marks to be secured in the written test, with a view to limit the number of candidates for the viva-voce test, keeping in view the number of posts to be filled up, has held that there is no obligation on the part of the recruiting authorities to call all the persons securing the minimum eligibil­ity requirement. The learned counsel further submits that in Hemani Malhotra (supra), the Apex Court has interfered with the recruit­ment process because there was no prescription of minimum marks to be secured in viva-voce test, as was prescribed for the written test and the minimum marks to be secured in the viva-voce test was prescribed after the written test was over. The said decision in Hemani Malhotra (supra), therefore, accord­ing to the learned counsel, is not applicable in the cases in hand. 20. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appearing parties and also perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the materials available on record, as produced by the learned counsel appear­ing for the State respondents. 21. The process for selection of candidates for appointment by direct recruitment to fill up 145 posts of Sub-Inspector was initiated under the provisions of 1970 Rules. Rule 11 of the said rules provides for recruitment to the said post from 2 (two) sources, namely 75% of the vacancies by direct recruitment through competitive examination, which is to be conducted by the Committee constituted under Rule 17(1) and 25% by promotion from amongst the ministerial cadres. Rule 17 pro­vides for constitution of the Selection Com­mittee for recruitment by competitive exami­nation, with the Director of Food and Civil Supplies as Chairman, the Joint Director of Food and Civil Supplies as Member and the Deputy Secretary/under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Food and Civil Supplies Department as Member Secretary. The competitive examination is required to be conducted by the Committee in accordance with the rules and syllabus, as the appointing authority may decide from time to time in con­sultation with the Committee. The competitive examination is required to be conducted by the Committee in accordance with the rules and syllabus, as the appointing authority may decide from time to time in con­sultation with the Committee. The Committee is required to prepare a list of candidates on merit, who have qualified in the written examination. The Committee would, thereaf­ter, hold the interview of the successful can­didates in the written test and the final merit list then to be prepared and published, taking into account the marks obtained by the can­didates in the written as well as in the interview/viva-voce test. The list so prepared is to be forwarded to the appointing authority for its approval and publication. The said list, from the date of its approval, shall remain in force for 1 (one) year only. 22. The Selection Committee was accord­ingly constituted, as required under the 1970 Rules and the written test, as notified, was conducted on 28th December, 2008 in 255 Centres in all over Assam, wherein, out of the total 1,04,770 numbers of applicants, 41,959 appeared. 23. The Selection Committee, thereafter, in its meeting dated 3rd February, 2009 deliberated upon the selection process initiated and took a decision to reduce the marks ini­tially allotted for viva-voce test from 50 to 25 and accordingly, it was decided to intimate all concerned by making publication in the print media. The Chairman of the Committee, in the said meeting, also apprised the Members of the Selection Committee about the proc­ess of examination of the answer scripts of the candidates appeared in the written test. Being satisfied with the process undertaken, the Committee requested the Chairman to compile the marks secured by each of the candidate. In the next meeting of the Com­mittee held on 26th May 2009, the matter relating to the process of evaluation of the answer scripts were again discussed and the Committee accepted the compilation of the marks secured by different candidates, done by the Chairman, as was authorized in its pro­ceeding dated 3rd February 2009. The num­ber of posts required to be reserved for ST(H)/ST(P)/SC/OBC/MOBC candidates was also worked out, apart from the posts reserved for the persons with disabilities un­der the disability law. The num­ber of posts required to be reserved for ST(H)/ST(P)/SC/OBC/MOBC candidates was also worked out, apart from the posts reserved for the persons with disabilities un­der the disability law. Keeping in view the fact that a large number of candidates have ap­peared in the written test conducted for re­cruitment against 145 vacancies, a decision was taken to restrict the number of candi­dates to be called for viva-voce test to 3% of the total number of the candidates appeared in the written test, which is in the ratio of 1:8.67. The total number of candidates to be called for viva-voce test, therefore, was fixed at 1260. The Committee in the said proceed­ing distributed 1260 numbers of candidates to be called for viva-voce test in different cat­egories, which is quoted below: "No. of Posts Candidates to be called ST(H) 5% 5 post for male =44Nos. 2 post for female = 17 Nos. Total: 7 post - A = Total: 61 Nos. Al ST(P) 10% 10 posts for male = 87 Nos. 5 posts for female = 44 Nos. Total: 15 post-B = Total: 131 Nos.B 1 SC 7% 7 posts for male =61 Nos. 3 posts for female = 26 Nos. Total: 10 post - C = Total: 87 Nos. Cl OBC/MOBC 27% 27 posts for male =234 Nos. 12 posts for female = 104 Nos. Total: 39 posts - D = Total: 338 Nos. Dl General 52 posts for male = 451 Nos. 22 posts for female =191 Nos. Total: 74 posts - E = Total: 462 Nos. El All total posts A + B + C + D + E = -145 posts Total candidates to be called (Al + B1 + Cl + Dl + El) 1259 say 1260." 24. The Committee in the next proceed­ing dated 24th June, 2009 fixed the cut off marks for different categories of candidates including the women candidates, in terms of its decision to call 1260 numbers of candi­dates for viva-voce test. The Committee in the next proceed­ing dated 24th June, 2009 fixed the cut off marks for different categories of candidates including the women candidates, in terms of its decision to call 1260 numbers of candi­dates for viva-voce test. The cut off marks fixed by the Committee in the said proceed­ing is reproduced below:-"Lowest cut off marks Category (I) ST(H)-Do-Male Female (Women) 84 marks out of 150 marks 76.5 marks out of 150 ma­rks (II) ST(P) -Do-Male Female (Women) 97.5 ma­rks out of 150 marks 85.5 marks outof 150 marks (III) SC Male Female (Women) 99 marks out of 150 marks 88.5 marks out of 150 marks (IV) OBC/MOBC Male Female (Women) 99 ma­rks out of 150 marks 87 out of 150 marks (V) General Male Female (Women) 105 marks out of 150 marks 93 marks out of 150 ma­rks." 25. In the deliberation dated 23rd July 2009, the Committee has noticed that out of 1401 number of candidates, who secured the cut off marks, there are certain discrepancies in respect of 66 candidates, as the marks en­tered in the "total marks column" do not tally with the mark-sheets submitted by the exam­iner, use of wooden pencil in answering the questions and also award of marks for the unanswered questions. The Committee, therefore, decided to exclude those 66 can­didates from the list and to publish the result of the written test. Accordingly, the result of the written test was notified on 27th July, 2009, which was published in a local daily, namely The Assam Tribune, on 28th July, 2009. The viva-voce test was, thereafter, con­ducted on 10th August, 2009 on the basis of 25 marks allotted for that purpose. No ap­pointment, however, could be made because of the interim order passed by this Court in the present writ proceedings, though the final result, according to the learned senior counsel appearing for the State respondents, has been prepared, which was in fact once pub­lished by the then Director without the ap­proval of the Government and hence was immediately withdrawn, consequence of which is the non publication of the final list of candidates selected for recruitment. 26. The Writ Court, while scrutinizing the legality or validity of a selection process undertaken by the authority cannot make a rov­ing enquiry on the factual aspect. 26. The Writ Court, while scrutinizing the legality or validity of a selection process undertaken by the authority cannot make a rov­ing enquiry on the factual aspect. The High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Ar­ticle 226 of the Constitution of India would be slow to interfere with the selection proc­ess on the basis of microscopic findings, while testing the fairness of the selection process, wherein thousands of candidates appeared. A mere expression of doubts relating to the scrutiny of the answer scripts and not scruti­nizing the same objectively and properly, with­out further factual backgrounds or support­ing facts cannot by itself render the whole selection process illegal. The Courts, in the matter pertaining to the conduct of examina­tion for recruitment, are not to act as the ap­pellate bodies and also cannot assume the role of a super examiner. The Court, however, in a given case can interfere with such process, provided there is any strong compulsion for doing so. It is also a settled position of law that unless specific instances are brought to the notice of the Court to demonstrate that the selection process has been vitiated by malafide or by such action prompted by extraneous consideration, the interference of the Court, in the matter of selection process un­dertaken by the authority, is not permissible. 27. In the cases in hand, there is no alle­gation of malafide or bias against any mem­ber of the Selection Committee or against the examiners who examined the answer scripts of more than 41000 candidates, who ap­peared in the written test. Except making vague statement that the examiners appointed for that purpose did not evaluate the answer scripts properly, no foundational fact could be laid before the Court. It is also not the case that the Chairman, who was authorized by the Committee to compile the marks se­cured by different candidates, did not com­pile such marks correctly or there is any dis­crepancy in such compilation by the Chair­man. As discussed above, the Committee vide proceeding dated 3rd February, 2009 author­ized the Chairman to compile the same and such compilation was approved by the Com­mittee in its proceeding dated 26th May, 2009. It also appears from the aforesaid pro­ceeding dated 23rd July, 2009 that the Com­mittee, having noticed certain discrepancies, had decided to exclude 66 candidates from the list of successful candidates in the written test. 28. It also appears from the aforesaid pro­ceeding dated 23rd July, 2009 that the Com­mittee, having noticed certain discrepancies, had decided to exclude 66 candidates from the list of successful candidates in the written test. 28. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the concerned writ peti­tions relating to the anomalies in scrutinizing the answer scripts, as noticed above, is based on the proceeding of the Selection Commit­tee's meeting dated 23rd July, 2009, wherein the Selection Committee noticed certain dis­crepancies in respect of 66 answer scripts, out of total 1401 candidates, who secured 85 marks or above. Such plea though taken only in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the pe­titioners in WP (C) No. 3207/2009, the Court cannot refuse to consider the same on the ground that it was not taken in the writ peti­tion filed. Merely because certain discrepan­cies were detected in respect of 66 candi­dates, it cannot be concluded, in view of the aforesaid discussion, that the answer scripts of more than 41000 candidates were not properly scrutinized by the examiners. That being the position, the contention of the peti­tioners in that respect cannot be accepted. 29. When a Selection Committee recom­mends the names of candidates, the same cannot be presume to have been done in a mechanical manner, in the absence of any il­legality or favouritism or bias. A presumption is always required to be drawn that the offi­cial acts have been regularly performed, un­less of course the party making the allegation of bias or favouritism rebuts the same by pro­ducing sufficient proof therefor. In the case in hand, as discussed above, there is no such allegation of bias or favouritism against the examiners, who examined the answer scripts of the candidates or against the Chairman of the Selection Committee of not faithfully com­piling the marks awarded by the examiner. Reference may be made in that regard to the Apex Court's judgment in Bikash Kuanar case. 30. Reference may be made in that regard to the Apex Court's judgment in Bikash Kuanar case. 30. Another ground of challenge of the selection process is that before initiation of such process and in any case before conduct of the test, the procedure to be followed has to be notified and in the instant cases, accord­ing to the petitioners, as the Selection Com­mittee subsequent to conduct of the written test decided to limit the number of candidates to be called for interview/viva-voce test, with­out notifying the same prior to holding of the test, the same has vitiated the selection proc­ess, as by such decision, the rules of the game has been changed. The same contention has also been made in respect of re-fixation of the marks allotted for viva-voce test from 50 to 25. 31. As noticed above, more than 41000 candidates appeared in the written test con­ducted for selection and appointment against 145 posts of Sub-Inspector, for which, the Commission for the justification recorded in the proceeding dated 26th May, 2009, decided to limit the number of candidates to be called for viva-voce test to 3% of the number of candidates appeared in the written test. Such course of action taken by the respond­ent authorities, in limiting the number of can­didates to be called for vice-voca test, can­not held to be wholly unreasonable and un­justified, requiring interference with the selec­tion process initiated. The number of candi­dates appeared in the written test being very high, in comparison to the number of posts required to be filled up, it cannot be said that the respondent authority was not justified in limiting the number of candidates to be called for viva-voce test, otherwise it would be dif­ficult to carry out the viva-voce test properly for measuring the personality of a candidate The Apex Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav (su­pra) has approved such action of the Haryana Public Service Commission in limiting the number of candidates to be called for viva-voce test. 32. 32. The decision of the Apex Court in Hemani Malhotra (supra) is not applicable in the facts of this case, as in that case, the Apex Court has interfered with the selection proc­ess initiated for recruitment to Delhi Higher Judicial Service, on the ground that though there was no prescription of minimum marks to be secured by a candidate in viva-voce test, such minimum mark was subsequently prescribed after the written test was over, which the Apex Court has held is not permis­sible. In the said case, the question whether the authority can limit the number of candi­dates to appear in the written test was not in issue. 33. In Matiur Rahman Bhuyan (supra) the challenge was made to the decision of the Assam Public Service Commission cancel­ling the result of the written examination and viva-voce on the ground that a subsequent decision was taken to select the candidates only on the basis of the interview and conse­quently all the candidates, irrespective of whether they secured the minimum qualifying marks in the written test, were called for in­terview again. A Division Bench of this Court in the backdrop of such factual foundation has interfered with the selection process on the ground that the authority has deviated from the criteria earlier laid down for selecting the candidate on the basis of the written test as well as the viva-voce, which, it cannot do, as it amounts to changing the criteria after com­mencement of the selection process. There is no dispute to the said proposition of law. 34. In the case in hand, only the marks allotted for the viva-voca test was changed from 50 to 25. No minimum cut off marks for viva-voce test has been fixed at any time. The petitioners also being not successful in the written test cannot have any grievance relating to the change of the total marks allotted for the viva-voce test. Hence, such conten­tion of the petitioners in those writ petitions cannot be accepted. The decision of the au­thority to call the candidates for viva-voce test in the ratio of 1:8.67, on the ground its being on the higher side, also cannot itself, in the absence of any rule in that regard, be a ground to interfere with the selection process. 35. The decision of the au­thority to call the candidates for viva-voce test in the ratio of 1:8.67, on the ground its being on the higher side, also cannot itself, in the absence of any rule in that regard, be a ground to interfere with the selection process. 35. This leads to the consideration of the next plea raised by the petitioners, i.e. application of reservation for women, as provided in 2005 Act, as "vertical reservation" instead of "horizontal reservation". The law on that issue has been settled by the Apex Court. In Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), the Apex Court discussing the difference between the "verti­cal reservation" and "horizontal reservation", has opined that the social reservations in fa­vour of SC/ST and OBC under Article 16 (4) of the constitution are vertical reservation and the special reservations in favour of physi­cally handicapped, women etc. under Arti­cles 15 (3) or 16 (1) of the Constitution are horizontal reservations. In case of vertical res­ervation made under Article 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, the candidates belonging to the reserved category may compete for non reserved post and if they are appointed to the non reserved post on own merit, their numbers cannot be counted against the quota reserved in the respective reserved categories. The said principal, however, is not applicable to the "horizontal reservation", i.e. special reservation made in favour of physically handicapped, women etc. Where special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota fixed for women within the social reservation in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them, who belong to the special reservation group of such reserved category women. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any short fall, the requisite number of reserved category women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to such reserved category. Thus the women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted for horizontal reservation for women. Only if there is any short fall, the requisite number of reserved category women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to such reserved category. Thus the women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted for horizontal reservation for women. The Apex Court by way of illustration has given the following example in paragraph 9:- "If 19 posts are reserved for SCS (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candi­dates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC women candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC women candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman candidates, then the next two SC woman candi­dates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four women SC candidates. (But if the list of 19 SC candi­dates contains more than four women candi­dates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess women candidates on the ground that 'SC women' have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four." 36. The Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) has also quoted with approval the observation in paragraph 18 of Anil Kumar Gupta's case (supra), which is reproduced below: "Now, coming to the correctness of the pro­cedure prescribed by the revised notification for filling up the seats, it was wrong to direct the fifteen percent special reservation seats to be filled up first and then take up the OC (merit) quota (followed by filling of OBC, SC and ST quotas). The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizon­tal reservations is already satisfied - in case it is an overall horizontal reservation - no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candi­dates shall have to be taken and adjusted/ac­commodated against their respective social res­ervation categories by deleting the correspond­ing number of candidates therefrom. (If, how­ever, it is a case of compartmentalised horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen percent in favour of spe­cial categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) Because the revised notifica­tion provided for a different method of filling the seats, it has contributed partly to the unfor­tunate situation where the entire special reser­vation quota has been allocated and adjusted almost exclusively against the OC quota." 37. ADivision Bench of this Court in Ratal Kumar Das (supra), while considering the policy of reservation under 2005 Act, based on the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court has also held that in the event the select list prepared on the basis of the merit for each category also includes the requisite number of women candidates, no further exercise is required to be performed. However, if there is a short fall of requisite women candidates in order of merit will replace the last of male candidates, which is the essence of applica­tion of law relating to reservation under the 2005 Act. 38. The 2005 Act provides for reserva­tion of vacancies in services and posts for the women in the State of Assam. It provides for the reservation for women in vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment. Section 4 re­quires that at the commencement of the Act, 30% of the vacancies in respect of appoint­ments to the services and posts in the estab­lishment, which are to be filled up by direct recruitment, shall be reserved for the women candidates. Section 2(b) defines 'establish­ment', which also includes any office of the State Government. Section 4 re­quires that at the commencement of the Act, 30% of the vacancies in respect of appoint­ments to the services and posts in the estab­lishment, which are to be filled up by direct recruitment, shall be reserved for the women candidates. Section 2(b) defines 'establish­ment', which also includes any office of the State Government. The first proviso to Sec­tion 4 stipulates that the said reservation shall be inclusive of the reservation provided statutorily or otherwise to the SC/ST(P)/ST(H)/OBC/MOBC or persons with disability within the respective reserved category. The second proviso stipulates that 30% res­ervation of the vacancies in the respect of the women for the remaining unreserved category shall be available to the women for the unre­served category only. 39. Under the said Act, therefore, 30% of the posts are reserved for women within each category, i.e. SC/ST(P)/ST(H)/OBC/MOBC and persons with disabilities. Apply­ing the law laid down by the Apex Court, as discussed above, for proper application of the reservation policy for women within the ver­tical (social) reservation, it is required first to fill up the quota of such women candidate within each category of vertical (social) res­ervation in order of merit and in the event there is any short fall, the requisite number of the women in such category shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of male candidates from the bottom of the list relating to the said reserved category. 40. In the cases in hand, the Committee in its proceeding dated 26th May, 2009 fixed the quota for women candidates against each of the reserved category as well as the gen­eral category and worked out the number of posts to be kept reserved and accordingly, vide proceeding dated 24th June, 2009 fixed the cut off marks, for the female candidates under each category. By fixing such quota for women candidate, the Committee, therefore, decides to fill up those posts only by women candidate, irrespective of the number of women candidate to be appointed on merit. The Committee, therefore, has applied such special reservation for women as vertical (so­cial) reservation, which is not permissible in law. By fixing such quota for women candidate, the Committee, therefore, decides to fill up those posts only by women candidate, irrespective of the number of women candidate to be appointed on merit. The Committee, therefore, has applied such special reservation for women as vertical (so­cial) reservation, which is not permissible in law. The same is also evident from the affida-vit-in-opposition filed by the Director on 9th November, 2009, more particularly in second sub-paragraph of paragraph 6 thereof, which reads as follows: "It is further clarified that the very inten­tion of the selection committee to bring down the marks of women candidates lower was only to accommodate number of women candidates decided to be called for viva-voce as mentioned in paragraphs 5 (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) and (v) above so that 30% vertical (social) reservation can be maintained as provided under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and as mandated in the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to above." 41. It also appears that different cut off marks are fixed for male and female candi­dates in each category. When the Selection Committee decided to fix the cut off marks for the purpose of limiting the number of can­didates selected for appearing in the viva-voca test, the same has to be applied uni­formly both to the male and the female candi­dates, otherwise it would amount to gender discrimination and consequently violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Ar­ticle 15 of the Constitution of India. Such a course of action, as adopted by the Selection Committee, therefore, cannot sustain the scru­tiny of law. 42. The learned senior counsel appearing for the State respondents, as noticed above, has conceded that some of the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 3283/2009, 3327/2009; 3500/2009; 3526/2009; 3824/2009; 5245/2009; 95/2010 and 4259/2010, were excluded from the list of the successful candidates in the written test, by mistake though secured the cut off mark and some being amongst those 66 candidates in respect of whom cer­tain anomalies were detected, without verify­ing as to whether they actually secured the minimum cut off marks fixed by the Selection Committee, as per the marks awarded by the examiner. It has also been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the Selection Committee will verify whether any candidate who secured the cut off mark was left out, apart from verification of the marks actually secured by those 66 (sixty-six) candidates, on the basis of the marks awarded by the examiners and if they or any of them found to have secured the cut off marks, they would be called for viva-voce test. The candidates, who have secured the cut off marks, cannot refused to be called for viva-voce test. The Selection Committee was also not justified in deleting the names of all those 66 candidates from the list of successful candidates in the written test, without first verifying as to whether they have secured the; cut off marks on the basis of the marks actually awarded by the examiners. 43. As noticed above, pursuant to the re­sult of the written test notified on 27th July, 2009, the viva-voce test, in respect of the candidates whose names appeared in the said list, has already been conducted, how­ever, without formal publication of the final result. It has been held in this judgment that the law relating to the reservation for women has been wrongly applied and in case of 66 candidates, it has not been verified as to whether they actually secured the cut off marks and in respect of some petitioners, as noticed above, though they secured the cut off marks, they were not called for interview. It has also been held that the action on the part of the Selection Committee in fixing dif­ferent cut off marks for male and female can­didates is illegal. It has also been held that the action on the part of the Selection Committee in fixing dif­ferent cut off marks for male and female can­didates is illegal. That being the position, the respondent authorities, in terms of the ob­servations made hereinbefore in this judg­ment, are directed to: (i) correctly apply the 30% reservation for women, inconformity with the provisions of the 2005 Act and in terms of the observations made herein above and to make the selection; (ii) re-fix the uniform cut off marks, both for male and female candidates; (iii) verify the marks secured by those 66 (sixty-six) candidates, on the basis of the marks awarded by the examiner, with­out, however, undertaking any exercise of re-evaluation of answer scripts; (iv) verify as to whether all the candi­dates appeared in the written test, who have secured the cut off marks, were called for viva-voce test, and thereafter; (v) call those candidates, who have secured the re-fixed cut off marks, by fol­lowing the ratio of 1:8.67, who have not already been interviewed; and (vi) prepare and publish the select list on the basis of merit, as contemplated un­der 1970 Rules, taking into account both social and special reservation and to ap­point the selected candidates accordingly, against the posts advertised. In the event, because of the re-fixation of the cut off marks in the written test, it is found that certain candidates, who would not have been called for the viva-voce test, their can­didature would not be considered for final selection, even though they have already been interviewed. 44. The entire exercise, including the pub­lication of the final select list, is directed to be completed within a period of 3(three) months from today. 45. The WP(C) Nos. 5520/2008; 3207/2009; 3283/2009; 3327/2009; 3500/2009; 3526/2009; 3704/2009; 3824/2009; 3899/2009; 4150/2009; 4319/2009; 5197/2009; 5245/2009; 5820/2009; 95/2010; 1268/2010 and 4259/2010 are accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. WP(C) Nos. 2806/2009; 447/2010 and 4263/2010 are disposed of. No costs.