JUDGMENT : 406 nos. of individuals and their Association have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a claim for their appointment for the posts of Police Constable in the Assam Police pursuant to a recruitment process which was initiated vide an advertisement dated 17.01.2000. 2. There is a history of previous litigations and a brief narration is given hereunder for better appreciation. 3. The Association had approached this Court by filing various writ petitions claiming appointment of the petitioners as constables. The said writ petitions including WP(C)/8637/2004 were disposed of by this Court vide an order dated 15.12.2005 with an observation that if the petitioners were selected, their cases are required to be considered. Accordingly, a representation was filed by the petitioner Association to the Addl. DGP, Assam which was forwarded to the Home Department vide a forwarding letter dated 12.12.2012. Vide the said forwarding letter, it was observed that as per the Fact-Finding Committee, the petitioners were found to be selected and therefore, their claim could not be ruled out. However, the records were destroyed and therefore, the matter was left to the Government for a decision. 4. As no action was forthcoming, the petitioner Association submitted representations followed by filing of a second writ petition being WP(C)/3426/2020. This Court had disposed of the aforesaid writ petition vide order dated 11.01.2022 directing the respondent authorities to take on record the representations and pass a speaking order thereon. Accordingly, the representations along with fresh representation dated 20.01.2022 were considered and vide the speaking order dated 19.04.2022, the claims of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the petitioners have become over-aged. Being aggrieved by the said speaking order dated 19.04.2022, the present petition has been filed. 5. I have heard Shri Y.S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioners whereas the official respondents are represented by Shri C.K.S. Baruah, the learned State Counsel. 6. Shri Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 17.01.2000 in which the petitioners claim to have been selected. Reference has also been made to the order of this Court dated 11.01.2022 passed in, amongst others, WP(C)/3426/2020 wherein a direction was given for consideration of the representation. It is submitted that initially a bunch of about 148 writ petitions were filed before this Court, the lead case being WP(C)/720/2001. Reference has also been made to the order of this Court dated 11.01.2022 passed in, amongst others, WP(C)/3426/2020 wherein a direction was given for consideration of the representation. It is submitted that initially a bunch of about 148 writ petitions were filed before this Court, the lead case being WP(C)/720/2001. The said writ petitions were disposed of vide a common judgment and order dated 24.05.2004 in which it was observed that in the selection process, 423 nos. of candidates were not appointed, out of which, 406 nos. of candidates did not report and 17 nos. of candidatures were rejected and the petitioners are those 406 candidates. With regard to the observation made by this Court in the said order dated 24.05.2004, Shri Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the expression “allowed to set at rest” would mean that the selection has been upheld and the said issue is not to be raised for any further consideration. He accordingly submits that as a corollary thereof, since the petitioners have been held to be selected, they are required to be appointed. Reference has also been made to the order dated 15.12.2005 passed by this Court in 4 nos. of writ petitions including WP(C)/8637/2004 which was by the present petitioners. The specific challenge was against a recruitment process initiated advertisement dated 21.08.2004 as the petitioners had participated in the earlier recruitment process. In the said order, it has been held that if the incumbents were selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.01.2000, their case were to be considered as such recruitment process was upheld by the Court in the earlier order dated 24.05.2000 passed in WP(C)/720/2001. 7. By referring to the affidavit-in-reply dated 03.04.2024, Shri Mannan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that though the Hon’ble Supreme Court was moved by filing a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India being WP(C)/418/2007, vide an order dated 23.11.2007, liberty was given to the petitioners to move the High Court. In the meantime, the records were destroyed and therefore the verification had become impossible. 8. Shri Mannan, the learned counsel has also argued another aspect of the matter with regard to the objection of over age. He submits that there are two branches in the Assam Police namely the Armed Branch (AB) and the Unarmed Branch (UB). In the meantime, the records were destroyed and therefore the verification had become impossible. 8. Shri Mannan, the learned counsel has also argued another aspect of the matter with regard to the objection of over age. He submits that there are two branches in the Assam Police namely the Armed Branch (AB) and the Unarmed Branch (UB). It is submitted that the services of the petitioners can be utilized in the Unarmed Branch even if it is held that the petitioners have become over aged. It is also submitted that sufficient vacancies are available wherein the petitioners can easily be accommodated. The learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly submits that the writ petition be allowed and a direction be issued to appoint the petitioners by interfering with the impugned Speaking Order dated 19.04.2022. 9. Per contra, Shri CKS Baruah, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the official respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have filed two numbers of affidavit-in-opposition dated 15.12.2023 and 18.12.2023. By referring to the said affidavits-in-opposition, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the present 406 numbers of petitioners did not report and therefore, they were not given the said appointment. It is submitted that the aforesaid act of not giving them appointment is not the subject matter of any challenge. By drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 15.12.2023, the learned State Counsel has submitted that the recruitment was of the year 2000 and in the meantime, about 24 years have passed. He further submits that the post in question is of Constable requiring fitness which is of paramount importance and there was no order of this Court for reserving any post. 10. It is submitted that all the posts have been filled up in the meantime and presently, the cases of the petitioners cannot be considered for those vacancies. He further submits that the Speaking Order has given reasons which are acceptable, rational and cogent and therefore, no infirmity can be found in the decision making process. With regard to the submission that the petitioners can be accommodated in the Unarmed Branch, the learned State Counsel has submitted that any vacancies would be new vacancies and without there being any embargo in the form of an order of this Court for filling up the 406 nos. of vacancies, no such vacancies exist. With regard to the submission that the petitioners can be accommodated in the Unarmed Branch, the learned State Counsel has submitted that any vacancies would be new vacancies and without there being any embargo in the form of an order of this Court for filling up the 406 nos. of vacancies, no such vacancies exist. It is further submitted that fresh vacancies are to be required to be filled up by following the due process of law. 11. The rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 12. To examine the issue on the aspect of the challenge to the Speaking Order dated 19.04.2022, the previous orders passed by this Court pertaining to the recruitment process initiated by the advertisement dated 17.01.2000 is required to be examined. In the judgment and order dated 24.05.2004 passed in WP(C)/720/2001, a copy of which has been placed on record, this Court had made the following observations: “17. There is another aspect of the case which has received the deep and anxious consideration of this Court. It is possible that some of the petitioners may have been wronged. To remedy such wrong, if the same had occurred, should this Court require the Respondents to suitably relax the age of such of the petitioners in the event of their participation in any subsequent selection process for recruitment of Constable. The recruitment of constables, this Court has noticed, is required to be made by adoption of strict yardsticks with regard to physical ability of the candidates. Any relaxation of age would necessarily call for relaxation of physical fitness of the concerned candidates. Consequential relaxation of physical fitness may put others, who are not before the Court, at a disadvantage. That apart, the identification of the persons wronged, if any, could not be made on account of peculiar events that have occurred in the present case. Taking an overall view of the situation, I am of the considered opinion that the matter should be allowed to set at rest and ought not to be carried any further.” 13. The observation of “allow to set at rest” has been interpreted on behalf of the petitioners to mean that the selection is upheld. Taking an overall view of the situation, I am of the considered opinion that the matter should be allowed to set at rest and ought not to be carried any further.” 13. The observation of “allow to set at rest” has been interpreted on behalf of the petitioners to mean that the selection is upheld. From reading of the order along with the attending facts and circumstances, the interpretation made on behalf of the petitioners appears to be correct. Having held that, it is now required to be examined as to whether the claim of the petitioners to be appointed on the basis of a selection held in the year 2000 can be accepted or not. It is not in dispute that the 406 numbers of petitioners did not report for joining pursuant to their selection and this was the prime reason of not giving them appointment at a later point of time. The aforesaid action is not the subject matter of any challenge. It is true that there have been litigations by the petitioners and other persons on the issue. However, there is no order from the Court requiring reservation of the 406 nos. of post. The learned State Counsel has made a categorical statement that all the vacancies have been filled up in the meantime. Such submission, apart from being factual in nature, is also regarded as a reasonable submission as 406 numbers of post of Constable cannot be left vacant for a long period of about 24 years as those posts are of immense public importance connected with the maintenance of law and order in the State. The objection taken up on behalf of the State regarding age factor which is directly linked with the fitness is also a valid objection. 14. An alternative submission has been made with regard to consideration of the case of the petitioners in the Unarmed Branch wherein the aspect of fitness may not necessarily come in. Though the aforesaid submission appears to be to have some force, on a closer scrutiny, this Court is of the view that the age factor cannot be totally ignored as all the petitioners have become over-aged and from the date of the advertisement, nearly 24 years have passed. Though the aforesaid submission appears to be to have some force, on a closer scrutiny, this Court is of the view that the age factor cannot be totally ignored as all the petitioners have become over-aged and from the date of the advertisement, nearly 24 years have passed. This Court has also noticed that any direction for consideration of the case of the petitioners in any new vacancies would be in violation of the rules of recruitment wherein all eligible candidates are to be given an equal opportunity. It is a settled principle of law that fresh vacancies have to be filled up in a valid recruitment process by maintaining fairness and transparency wherein an equal opportunity is to be given to all eligible candidates. This Court has already observed that the fact that the petitioners did not report has not been challenged and it is an undisputed proposition of fact. 15. This Court has also noticed that the Speaking Order dated 19.04.2022 has assigned reasons. On a perusal of the said Speaking Order, this Court has noticed that all the relevant factors including reference to Rule 21 of the Assam Police Manual Part III wherein there is a requirement of filling up the post of Constables by strong and healthy young men between the age of 18 and 25 has been taken into consideration. It has also been observed that the petitioners are likely to be more than 45 years of age. The lack of vacancies has also been observed as there was no order of the Court to keep any post reserved. Though the interpretation/understanding in the Speaking Order on the observation of the Court namely, “matter should be allowed to set at rest and ought not be carried any further” in the order dated 24.05.2004 in WP(C)/720/2001 may not be correct, the other factors cannot be held to be irrelevant, extraneous or perverse and rather this Court is of the opinion that all those reasons cited are germane to the issue, relevant and in consonance with the law in force governing the field. 16. It is a settled law that a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only required to examine the decision making process. 16. It is a settled law that a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is only required to examine the decision making process. In other words, it is the legality of the decision and not the soundness and in the present case, the impugned Speaking Order dated 19.04.2022 is found to be backed and supported by reasons which are germane and cogent. 17. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioners, more so when a long period of almost 24 years have elapsed since the initiation of the recruitment process vide the advertisement dated 17.01.2000. 18. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.