JUDGMENT : Suman Shyam, J By this common judgment and order, we propose to dispose of two writ appeals, i.e. W.A. No. 323/2021 and W.A. No. 50/2022, since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals. The facts and circumstances, giving rise to filing of the two writ appeals, as appearing from the materials available on record, shorn of unnecessary details, are narrated here-in-below. 2. The Inspector General of Police (Admn.) of Assam Police had published advertisement notice dated 20-02-2009 inviting applications for recruitment in the posts of Armed Branch Constable in the Assam Police (for ONGC security) Battalion/ 24th Assam Police (IR) Battalion and 1002 vacant posts of Armed Branch Constable. According to the advertisement notice, the recruitment rally was to be conducted in different Police districts/ Battalions in the month of June, 2009. The advertisement notice, inter alia, provided that 10% of the vacancies would be reserved for women candidates. In response to the advertisement notice dated 20-02-2009, a large number of candidates including the writ appellants had submitted their applications. It appears that the appellants are candidates from the Sivasagar district of Assam. 3. The selection procedure, which was conducted district-wise, comprised of (a) physical measurement and fitness test and (b) personal interview. After completion of the selection process and publication of the employment notice containing the roll numbers of the selected candidates, as many as 167 unsuccessful candidates, pertaining to Sivasagar district, had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010, inter alia, contending that there were large scale anomalies in the selection process, and by providing cut-off marks subsequently, the respondents had changed the rules of the game. 4. After hearing the arguments of both the parties, the learned Single Judge had disposed of W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010 by the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 with a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners for appointment in the post of Armed Branch Constable (AB Constable) with a further direction that the respondent shall not fill up any post of Armed Branch Constable without considering the case of the petitioners. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction passed by the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 the Addl. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction passed by the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 the Addl. Director General of Police (Admn.) Assam had conducted an enquiry into the matter where-after, he had arrived at the conclusion that many of the writ petitioners either (a) did not apply for the recruitment test, or (b) did not appear in the recruitment test, or (c) failed in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), or (d) failed in viva-voce interview, or (e) obtained marks less than the cut-off marks, for which they were not selected. As such, by issuing a speaking order dated 21-10-2019, the Addl. Director General of Police (Admn.) had opined that the writ petitioners did not come within the zone of consideration for appointment as AB Constable. It was also mentioned in the order dated 21-10-2019 that “this dispose of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court order dated 22-02-2019”. 6. In the meantime, by issuing advertisement notice dated 25-04-2018, the respondent authorities had invited fresh applications for filling up a number of posts of AB Constable as well as Unarmed Branch Constable in the Assam Police. Subsequently, by issuing a corrigendum notice dated 21-08-2020 the Addl. Director of Police (Admn.) had also notified that the expression “this dispose of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court order dated 22-02-2019” appearing in the order dated 21-10-2019 would stand omitted and the same may be read as “further action will be taken in the matter subject to outcome of the writ appeal being preferred before the Hon’ble High Court against the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010 and W.A. No. 323/2021”. 7. Aggrieved by the speaking order dated 21-10-2019 as well as corrigendum dated 21-08-2020, 126 candidates, who had applied for the post of AB Constable from the Sivasagar district, had approached this Court once again, by filing W.P.(C) No. 4133/2020, inter-alia, contending that the speaking order dated 21-10-2019 contravenes the directions issued by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010. According to these writ petitioners, the respondents have failed to consider their case for appointing them in the post of AB Constable in terms of the order dated 22-02-2019. 8. According to these writ petitioners, the respondents have failed to consider their case for appointing them in the post of AB Constable in terms of the order dated 22-02-2019. 8. From the records of this case, it appears that four writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010 had also filed a contempt petition numbered and registered as Contempt Case (C) No. 698/2019 before this Court alleging willful violation of the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019. It also appears that assailing the fresh selection process initiated by the authorities for filling up the vacant posts of AB Constable by issuing advertisement notice dated 25-04-2018 as well as addendum issued on 19-12-2019, those four writ petitioners had also filed W.P.(C) No. 2725/2020 wherein, an interim order was passed by the Court on 17-07-2020 directing the respondent authorities not to fill up 04 posts of AB Constable in the ensuing selection process for the district of Sivasagar. Another writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3020/2020 was also filed by some of the petitioners with similar grievance. It also appears that Cont. Case (C) No. 698/2009 has been closed by this Court on 26-05-2023. However, W.P.(C) No. 2725/2020 and W.P.(C) No. 3020/2020 are still pending disposal before this Court. 9. By the judgment and order dated 08-10-2021 the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4133/2020 by observing that the petitioners had failed to make out any case for interference. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 08-10-2021, the writ petitioners have preferred W.A. No. 323/2021. 10. It further appears that during the pendency of W.A. No. 323/2021, the State of Assam, along with the Director General of Police as well as Inspector General of Police (Admn.) had preferred an appeal against the judgment and order dated 20-02-2019, which was numbered and registered as W.A. No. 50/2022. In the said writ appeal, the appellants have contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to record a specific findings in the order dated 22-02-2019 as regards any illegality/ irregularity in the selection process conducted for the district of Sivasagar nor is there any finding of fact so as to indicate as to which are the candidates who had secured marks above the cut-off marks but were not selected. According to the appellants, the finding of learned Single Judge that the selection process is vitiated by irregularities is perverse and therefore, the judgment and order dated 20-02-2019 is liable to be set aside. Due to the similarity of issues, both the writ appeals were heard together. 11. Addressing arguments on behalf of the writ appellants in W.A. No. 323/2021, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel has argued that in view of the findings and observations made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment and order dated 20-02-2019 and the specific direction issued therein, the respondents were duty bound to issue orders of appointment in favour of his clients. However, instead of doing so, by the speaking order dated 21-10-2019, the respondents have not only rejected the claim of the writ petitioners but have also recorded findings of fact which were contrary to the direction passed by the learned Single Judge. According to Mr. Choudhury, by the impugned speaking order 21-10-2019, the respondents have not only sat in appeal over the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 22-02-2019 but have also committed contempt of this Court. 12. Mr. Choudhury further submits that realizing the mistake committed by the authorities, corrigendum notice dated 21-08-2020 was issued. However, the aforesaid rearguard action on the part of the respondents, according to Mr. Choudhury, cannot justify their action in not complying with the directions passed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22-02-2019 in letter & spirit. According to Mr. Choudhury, in view of the order dated 22-02-2019, the respondents were duty bound to issue appointment orders in favour of the appellants and therefore, the learned Single Judge has committed manifest illegality in dismissing the writ petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 08-10-2021. 13. Mr. D. Mazumder, learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam appearing for the appellants in W.A. No. 50/2022, on the other hand, has argued that the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010 is not based on any proper finding of facts recorded on the basis of materials on record nor has the learned Single Judge recorded any finding as regards the right of the writ petitioners, if any, to be appointed in the post of AB Constable. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Mazumder, the impugned judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 is vitiated by perversity and hence, liable to be interfered with by this Court. 14. It is also the submission of Mr. Mazumder that in the absence of the selected candidates being made parties in the writ petition, the question of interfering with their selection/ appointment as AB Constable, after the lapse of nearly 15 years, would not arise. Hence, no writ of mandamus could have been issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22-02-2019 to appoint the writ petitioners, that too, without displacing the selected candidates. 15. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have also gone through the materials available on record. Since the genesis of these two appeals lie in the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010, we propose to discuss the contents of the aforesaid judgment first in point of time. 16. On a careful reading of the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 we find that the learned Single Judge had rejected the arguments made on behalf of the writ petitioners on the question of violation of the reservation quota meant for the women candidates. However, the argument of the writ petitioners that the authorities have changed the rules of the game by subsequently fixing the cut-off marks found favour with the learned Single Judge, inasmuch as it was observed that the respondents, having fixed a “cut-off mark”, have failed to strictly adhere to the same. It was further observed that some of the candidates who had secured marks above the “cut-off mark” had not been selected. However, the learned Single Judge has not recorded any finding of fact as to who were those candidates who had secured marks above the cut-off mark but had not been selected. 17. Coming to the question of selection and appointment of the writ petitioners in the W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010, the learned Single Judge has observed that since the selected/ appointed candidates were not parties to the writ proceeding nor was there any interim order passed in the writ petition, it would be unfair to dislodge the selected candidates without giving them any opportunity of being heard. On such basis, the learned Single Judge had declined to interfere with the selection and appointment of AB Constable for the district of Sivasagar. On such basis, the learned Single Judge had declined to interfere with the selection and appointment of AB Constable for the district of Sivasagar. However, having held as above, the learned Single Judge had issued the following direction by the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019, which are reproduced herein-below for ready reference:- “1) The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for their appointment to the post of Armed Branch Constable or in any other equivalent post in the vacancies available i.e. current and next available vacancies. If the vacancies are limited, the petitioners will be considered in a phase manner till all of them are considered. 2) If it is found that the petitioners in the meantime have become overaged, the respondent authorities shall give them age relaxation as may be required. 3) It is made clear that the respondents without considering the case of the petitioners shall not fill up any post of Armed Branch Constable.” 18. As noted above, after the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 was passed, the Addl. Director General of Police had conducted an enquiry and found that the petitioners were not entitled to an order of appointment as AB Constable. Accordingly, by the order dated 21-10-2019, the relief prayed for by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010 had been declined. 19. While considering the challenge made by the writ petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 4133/2020 which was instituted by assailing the speaking order dated 21-10-2019 as well as the corrigendum dated 21-08-2020, it was urged that the right of the writ petitioners to be appointed as AB Constable has been illegally denied by the authorities. Taking note of the case projected by the writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge had observed, in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment that the only issue arising for determination in the writ petition is pertaining to the validity of the speaking order dated 21-10-2019 issued by the Addl. Director General of Police (Admn.). Taking note of the case projected by the writ petitioners, the learned Single Judge had observed, in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment that the only issue arising for determination in the writ petition is pertaining to the validity of the speaking order dated 21-10-2019 issued by the Addl. Director General of Police (Admn.). Having identified the above issue, the learned Single Judge had recorded the following findings in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the impugned judgment and order dated 08-10-2021, which are reproduced herein-below for ready reference:- “21) As indicated herein before, it is seen from the Speaking Order dated 21.10.2019 that 156 number of posts were allotted for Sivasagar District out of which 8 (eight) posts (i.e. 5%) were reserved for appointment on compassionate ground and therefore, recruitment for 148 posts of AB Constable was conducted in Sivasagar District pursuant to advertisement dated 20.02.2009 and that a total of 142 candidates were selected category-wise. It must be remembered that none of the appointments made in the said selection process was set aside. Therefore, if the judgment under reference is interpreted to mean that all 167 petitioners in W.P. (C) 2725/2010 are to be appointed then out of 156 posts earmarked for Sivasagar, the total appointment would be to the extent of 323 persons, as such, the interpretation as sought to be given by the learned counsel for the petitioner would lead to an anomalous situation where appointments to be made in connection with recruitment drive of 2009 would lead to excess appointment in relation to the then sanctioned and available vacant posts. 22) The Court is compelled to take note of the fact that as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the Speaking Order dated 21.10.2019 on the premise that it runs contradictory to the mandate of the judgment in W.P.(C) 2725/2010. However, the contents of the said speaking order relating to the marks obtained and/or secured by the petitioners are not questioned at all. The said speaking order contains 12 columns, viz., Serial No. (1) (2) name of the petitioners (3) Category (4) Roll no. (5) 16 km race for male and 0.80 km race for women, max. marks- 15, qualifying marks-8 for both (6) 100 mtrs. sprint for male and 60 mtrs. sprint for women, max. marks- 15, qualifying marks-8 for both (7) long jump, max. (5) 16 km race for male and 0.80 km race for women, max. marks- 15, qualifying marks-8 for both (6) 100 mtrs. sprint for male and 60 mtrs. sprint for women, max. marks- 15, qualifying marks-8 for both (7) long jump, max. marks- 10, qualifying marks-4.5 for both (8) high jump, max. marks- 10, qualifying marks-4.5 for both (9) viva voce and interview, total marks- 50, qualifying marks- 25 for both (10) Total marks obtained (11) Category wise cut off marks General- 68.5 SC- 63 ST(P)- 65 ST(H)- 56 OBC/MOBC- 66 Women-74.5 (12) Recruitment result of the petitioners and comments. It is seen that the respondent no. 2 had already assigned speaking reasons why the petitioners were not selected. Therefore, it is seen that in this writ petition, no attempt has been made by the petitioners to show which petitioner had scored higher than the last selected candidate in his/her respective category and/or was shown to be deserving and yet was selected and appointed. The petitioners have also not made any attempt to demonstrate as to which successful and/or selected candidate was undeserving, but were appointed nonetheless. Similarly, no finding was given by this Court as to which of the petitioner. Therefore, on the face of it, the contents of the said Speaking Order dated 21.10.2019 cannot be faulted with. 20. In the impugned judgment and order dated 08-10-2021, the learned Single Judge has further observed that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate from the judgment dated 22-02-2019 that any finding has been returned by the Court, indicating as to which of the petitioners were illegally not selected. Having observed as above, the learned Single Judge has further held as hereunder:- “25) In the considered opinion of the Court the restrictive interpretation of the directions contained in the said judgment dated 22.02.2019 in W.P.(C) 2725/2010, so as to completely exclude the respondent no. 2 from revisiting marks would lead to two illegalities, firstly, (i) in respect of 148 posts advertised, the total appointment of AB Constable in 2009 recruitment process in respect of Sivasagar District would be 323 persons against 156 sanctioned posts/ vacancies to be filed up by direct recruitment in the said District. 2 from revisiting marks would lead to two illegalities, firstly, (i) in respect of 148 posts advertised, the total appointment of AB Constable in 2009 recruitment process in respect of Sivasagar District would be 323 persons against 156 sanctioned posts/ vacancies to be filed up by direct recruitment in the said District. Secondly, (ii) the otherwise undeserving petitioners, who had been unsuccessful in the recruitment process for the year 2009 would be continued to be appointed in the future vacancies in AB Constables of Assam Police in Sivasagar District till such period of time till all the petitioners are appointed, as if a new category or reservation has been made for the otherwise unsuccessful petitioners.” 21. Referring to the findings and observations made in paragraphs 14 to 20 of the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019, the learned Single Judge has also observed that the interpretation of the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 sought to be projected by the writ petitioners was not correct and if the same is accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the undeserving persons. On the basis of such findings, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 4133/2020. 22. From an analysis of the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019, we also find that although some observations had been made by the learned Single Judge in the judgment dated 22-02-2019 as regards alleged irregularities in the selection process leading to exclusion of candidates securing marks above the cut-off mark, there is no mention in the judgment as to which are those candidates who had secured more than the cut-off mark nor is there any finding indicating as to which candidates were illegally selected and appointed pursuant to the impugned selection process. In the absence of any specific finding of fact as regards any infirmity in the selection and appointment of any undeserving candidate in the selection process, issuance of writ of mandamus for appointing any other candidate against those vacancies, in our considered opinion, would be wholly impermissible in the eyes of law. At the same time, unless the selection and appointment of the successful candidates are set-aside by the Court for cogent reasons, the question of appointing the writ petitioners in their place also cannot arise. At the same time, unless the selection and appointment of the successful candidates are set-aside by the Court for cogent reasons, the question of appointing the writ petitioners in their place also cannot arise. We are, therefore, in complete agreement with the observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 25 of the order dated 08-10-2021 to the effect that implementation of the order dated 22-02-2019, in the manner sought by the writ petitioners/ appellants, would lead to a situation where 323 persons would have to be appointed against 156 sanctioned post for Sivasagar district. 23. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the directions contained in the operative part of the judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 suffers from serious infirmity inasmuch as the learned Single Judge had fallen into a serious error in law in issuing the writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of the writ petitioners for appointment as AB Constable against the notified vacancies without interfering with the selection and appointment of selected candidates. Such being the position, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the impugned judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010 is unsustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be set aside. 24. We are also of the opinion that although the language employed in the speaking order dated 21-10-2019 to the effect that “this dispose of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court order dated 22-02-2019” was not proper, yet, having realizing the mistake, the competent authority had issued corrigendum dated 21-08-2020 omitting the said reference from the impugned speaking order dated 21-10-2019. We see no reason as to why, such corrective measure of the authorities should not be accepted by this Court to be a bona-fideaction of the State. 25. Insofar as the merit of the findings recorded in the speaking order dated 21-10-2019 is concerned, it appears that the same is based on an elaborate exercise of fact finding done by the Addl. Director General of Police (Admn.), whereby, relevant facts have been brought on record. The learned counsel for the writ appellants in W.A. No. 323/2021 has not been able to point out as to why, such finding of facts recorded against the petitioners/ appellants by the competent authority should not be accepted to be correct. Director General of Police (Admn.), whereby, relevant facts have been brought on record. The learned counsel for the writ appellants in W.A. No. 323/2021 has not been able to point out as to why, such finding of facts recorded against the petitioners/ appellants by the competent authority should not be accepted to be correct. If that be so, the writ petitioners/ writ appellants cannot claim any right to be appointed in the posts of AB Constable pursuant to the above mentioned selection process since their candidatures have also been found to be deficient. 26. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find ourselves in agreement with the views and opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 08-10-2021 holding that the writ petition is devoid of any merit. As such, W.A. No. 323/2021 stands dismissed. 27. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned judgment and order dated 22-02-2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2725/2010 stands quashed and set aside. Consequently, W.A. No. 50/2020 filed by the State stands allowed. There would be no order as to cost.