JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G. Pegu, learned State Counsel for the State respondents. 2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged their non-appointment to the post of Armed Branch Police Constable pursuant to the recruitment rally that was conducted in the month of June, 2009. The advertisement dated 20.02.2009 was issued by the Inspector General of Police (Administration) notifying that a recruitment rally for appointment to the post of Armed Branch Constable in the Assam Police (for ONGC security) Battalion/24th Assam Police (Indian Reserve) Battalion and 1002 vacancy post of Armed Branch Constable will be conduct. The application will be received w.e.f. 25.02.2009 and the last date of submission will be till 28.03.2009. 3. As per the advertisement, the scheme of the selection process is that 50 marks will be allotted for physical efficiency test and another 50 marks for the viva voce test. Those who scored a minimum of 25 marks in the physical efficiency test will be eligible to participate in the viva voce test. Both the 2 tests prescribed for 25 marks as the minimum marks for being selected. Pursuant to the selection process that was held, the petitioners who applied for the post from Kamrup (Rural Metro) were expected to be selected for the post. According to them, they performed well in the selection process but however, in the ultimate result that was declared in the local daily on 25.12.2009, the petitioners did not find their names/Roll Numbers. Being highly aggrieved, they are before this Court. 4. Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners performed well in the selection process and to their knowledge, they scored fairly well and therefore they should have been selected for the post. He submits that there are some candidates, who were marked as ‘not selected’ in the physical efficiency test but however participated in the viva voce test. Those persons having failed to qualified participated in the viva voce test. The petitioners on the other hand participated in both the test and have not been selected. The action of the respondent authorities only demonstrates nepotism, arbitrariness and extension of undue favor to the blue eyed boys and girls. Those persons having failed to qualified participated in the viva voce test. The petitioners on the other hand participated in both the test and have not been selected. The action of the respondent authorities only demonstrates nepotism, arbitrariness and extension of undue favor to the blue eyed boys and girls. He further submits that the respondent authorities have to demonstrate the manner in which reservation has been made for various categories, such as, the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Hills and Plains), MOBC, General Etc. He therefore submits that the conduct of the selection process for the post of Armed Branch Constable being the most bias, Court may interfere in the matter and pass suitable direction. 5. Mr. G. Pegu, learned State Counsel submits that the entire selection process has been conduct in a free and fair manner. By referring to the advertisement dated 20.02.2009, he submits that the percentage indicated in the advertisement for each reserved categories has been duly scrupulously followed by the respondent authorities. In so far as the submission of Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel is concerned that some of the candidates who were found to have not qualified in the physical efficiency test, such contention may be put to strict prove. Mr. G. Pegu, learned State Counsel by producing the relevant records of the selection process pertaining to the petitioners and the selected candidates in particular submits that the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3 belonged to the Scheduled Caste category. He submits that amongst the participants of this category, the last person to be selected on merit scored 65 marks. In case of the petitioner Nos. 1, 2 & 3, they managed to score only 45.5, 54 and 52.5 marks. He submits that the respondent No. 4 belonged to the MOBC category and even in this case, the last MOBC candidate to have been recommended for appointment on merit scored 62.5 marks, whereas the petitioner No. 4 scored only 59.5 marks. In respect of the petitioner Nos. 5 & 6, they being the candidates from the General category, managed to score 67.5 and 48.5 marks respectively, while the last person selected from the General category on merit scored 69 marks. He thus submits that since the petitioners did not performed well as claimed by them, they were not selected. In respect of the petitioner Nos. 5 & 6, they being the candidates from the General category, managed to score 67.5 and 48.5 marks respectively, while the last person selected from the General category on merit scored 69 marks. He thus submits that since the petitioners did not performed well as claimed by them, they were not selected. In such circumstance, the petitioners have failed to make out any case for interference of this Court and the writ petition may be dismissed. 6. I have heard the submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record, including the record produced by Mr. G. Pegu, learned State Counsel. 7. It is the contention of the petitioners that in the selection process for the post of Armed Branch Police Constable, carried out in the year 2009, candidates who do not even qualify in the physical efficiency test were amongst those who were selected for the post. It is the further case of the petitioners that the roster system was flouted by the respondent authorities and that proportionate numbers of candidates were not selected. However, besides making such allegation, the petitioners have failed to substantiate their allegation so as to enable this Court to examine the same. In short, the petitioners have not annexed any supporting documents to the writ petition to demonstrate such irregularities. The petitioners have of course contended that the applications submitted by them under the Right to Information Act, seeking the marks given to them in the selection process has not been responded to by the authorities. This contention alone may also not be sufficient to accept their plea that there were irregularities in the selection process, inasmuch as, from the records produced by the learned State Counsel, the marks secured by the petitioners can be seen as already mentioned in paragraph No. 5 herein above. 8. A perusal of the records reveal that the petitioners who belonged to different reserved categories, including the General category did not secure the minimum cutoff marks in order to be selected. The advertisement itself clearly indicated that a merit list will be prepared on the basis of aggregate marks secured by the candidates, both in the physical efficiency test and in the viva voce test. The advertisement itself clearly indicated that a merit list will be prepared on the basis of aggregate marks secured by the candidates, both in the physical efficiency test and in the viva voce test. Further, the merit list will be equal to the number of vacancy available and there will be no separate waiting list prepared. As can be seen from the records, the respondent authorities have only followed the criteria prescribed in the advertisement and therefore, under the given facts and circumstances and upon consideration of the matter in its entirety, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 9. No cost.