AMLAN JYOTI BOROOAH versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 23-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009) 1 S.C.R. 593 
AMLANJYOTIBOROOAH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 387 of 2009) 
JANUARY 23, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Appointment -
Post of Sub-Inspector of Police - c 
Selection procedure - To hold written exams and candidates 
qualifying therein to appear in physical test followed by 
interview - Selection Committee holding interview prior to 
holding of physical test - Correctness of - Held: In view of 
the nature of job, physical ability test was extremely important 
D 
- Passing in physical test is sine qua non for selection of 
candidates to the said post - It was a competitive test - Thus, 
merit list should have been prepared not only on basis of 
written test and interview but also physical ability test. 
Appointment -
Selection process -
Change in, by 
E 
Selection Committee - Candidate participating in selection 
process without any demur - Estoppel, applicability of - Held: 
Candidate accepted the change in the selection procedure 
sub silentio - He did not challenge the appointment of 
candidates made but challenged appointment of candidate 
F 
made pursuant to increase in number of vacancies from time 
to time - He cannot now be permitted to turn round and 
contend that procedure adopted was illegal - He is estopped 
and precluded from doing so. 
Applications were invited for filling up the vacant-
G 
11, 
posts of Sub-Inspector of Police. As per the procedure, 
candidates possessing necessary qualifications were to 
be called for written exams and the candidates qualifying 
593 
H 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A therein were to appear in physical test followed by 
interview. Appellant and private respondents applied for 
the post. The dates were fixed for written test and 
physical ability test. Written test was held. Thereafter, 
Selection Committee did not hold physical test but called 
B the appellants and private respondents for interview. 1803 
candidates were short listed and the select list was 
published. It had life of two years. Appellant ranked 750 
in the list. Thereafter, sanction was accorded for 
appointment of 174 Sub-Inspector of Police. The eligible 
C candidates were called for physical ability test. 169 
candidates cleared the physical test/medical test and were 
appointed. During the period the select list was active, 88 
additional vacancies arose from the said select list, in 
view of the insurgency situation in the State. Names of 
0 the candidates appearing in the aforesaid select list from 
serial no. 175 onwards were taken and again select list 
was published. 84 candidates out of the said select list 
were asked to appear in the physical test. 75 candidates 
were found suitable for appointment. Appellant filed writ 
petition challenging the selection of 84 candidates to the 
E post. During pendency thereof, 74 persons joined the 
post and have been working in the said post. However, 
Single Judge of High Court set aside the appointment of 
54 candidates. Division Bench of the High Court upheld 
the appointment of private respondents, however, set 
F aside the judgment of the Single Judge directing them to 
fill up remaining 14 vacancies by holding physical and 
medical test of the candidates from the select list 
containing the names of 1803 candidates. Hence the 
G 
H 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the advertisement, the candidates were 
required not only to qualify in the written test but also the 
t 
physical ability test. A plain reading of the advertisement 
,.-
AMLAN JYOTI BOROOAH v. STATE OF ASSAM AND 
595 
ORS. 
clearly goes to show that the interview was to be 
A 
conducted only after holding of the said two tests. In tune 
with the said requirements only, the candidates were 
asked to appear in the written test on 25/26.4.1998 and 
in the physical test on 27/28.4.1998. However, there 
cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a Selection 
B 
Committee in a given situation, may lay down a 
procedure for the purpose of short listing the candidates 
but that does not mean that for the said purpose the order 
of holding a requisite test would be changed. In terms of 
a decision which was taken on 7.4.1999, the Selection c 
Committee thought to take interview prior to holding of 
the physical ability test. Physical ability test keeping in 
view the nature of the job required to be performed by 
the candidates was an extremely important one. Passing 
in the physical ab

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.