Sanjeev Kumar, J. - (1.) The petitioners claim that they along with the private respondents applied for the post of Constables in Indian Reserve Police 11th and 12 Battalions in response to an Advertisement Notice issued by respondent No.2 vide his No. DIP/K-2262 dated 27.06.2006. As per the said Advertisement Notification, as many as 2000 posts of Constables in the twin Battalions were to be filled up. The educational qualification prescribed was at least matriculation from any recognized institution, the age not less than 18 years and not above 28 years. So far as physical standards of male candidates were concerned, the same were indicated in the said advertisement notification in the following manner: Height: 5'-6" & above. Chest: 32" Expanded: 33 1/2
(2.) During the pendency of the aforesaid selection process, the official respondents decided to fill up 2000 posts of Constables in IRP 13th and 14th Battalions as well. Consequently, applications were invited by issuing another advertisement notice dated 26th August 2006. The other terms and conditions of the advertisement notification including the criteria of age and physical standards remained the same. It is stated that in view of the allegation of large scale bungling and irregularities, respondent No.4, the then Chairman of the Police Recruitment Board was suspended by the Government pending enquiry into such allegations of irregularities in conducting the physical endurance test. The Government even went to the extent of declaring the physical endurance test conducted under the supervision of respondent No.4 as null and void. It is contended that there was some intervention by this Court in SWP No. 216/2007 titled "Anil Kumar and ors vs State and ors which was decided by this Court on 20.02.2008 holding that except 49 candidates, no irregularity had come to be detected out of total 33,000 candidates who had participated in the selection process and that the respondents were not justified in declaring the whole of the physical endurance test as null and void. This Court vide order dated 20.02.2008 aforesaid quashed the order cancelling the physical endurance test partially and directed the newly constituted Selection Board to proceed with the selection process from the stage the earlier Selection Board had left. The Court further clarified that only such candidates in respect of whom the irregularities had been detected would be put to fresh endurance test. Be that as it may, the selection process was concluded and the select list impugned in this petiton was issued by respondent No.2.
(3.) The petitioners have been excluded from the selection and are, therefore, before this Court in this writ petition. The impugned selection has been challenged by the petitioners, primarily on the following grounds: i. That the impugned selection is unconstitutional as the same has been made by restricting the zone of consideration only to the candidates belonging to a particular District. In short, it is contended that the District-wise recruitment is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the candidates cannot be discriminated on the basis of their place of birth. ii. That the respondents through their advertisement notification had professed that the selection would be made on District wise basis but while drawing the select list, zone of consideration was further squeezed and the select list was prepared on Tehsil-wise basis. The select list prepared on Tehsil-wise basis, therefore, besides being unconstitutional, is contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement notice. iii. That in view of the factual antecedents leading to the detection of bungling and irregularities in the physical endurance test conduced by respondent No.4 and his subsequent suspension and finally the intervention of the Court, the physical endurance test conducted under the supervision of respondent No.4 has come under serious cloud.;