High Court · 2012

Heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners invol ved in all the writ petitions except W.P.(C) No. 5329/2011 in which I have heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Cho kraborty, Mr. A. Paul, Ms. P. Gogoi, Mr. N. Baruah, Mr. N.J. Dutta and Mr. J. Ah med, learned CGCs appearing on behalf of the respondents. All the writ petitions pertaining to appointment of Constable (GD) in th 2. e CRPF have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. All the petitioners appeared in the selection conducted for the purpose of selection and appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF, but havi ng not been appointed, have filed the instant writ petitions for appropriate dir ection for their appointments and alternatively to cancel the selection. Be it s tated here that the selected candidates are not parties to this proceeding. Howe ver, Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the order passed on 29.07.2011 in W.P.(C) No. 3750/2011, submits that in view of the inte rim direction there is no requirement to add the selected candidates as party re spondents in this proceeding.

4. In the said order dated 29.07.2011, it was provided that the appointment to the posts in questions would be subject to further order as might be passed in the case. It was also provided that the persons who might be appointed pursua nt to the impugned selection should also be made known about this proceeding. Apart from the fact that the aforesaid direction was passed only in one 5. of the writ petitions, namely W.P.(C) No. 3750/2011 and not in all other writ pe titions, the aforesaid observation made in the order dated 29.07.2011 may not de ny the right to hearing the selected and appointed candidates. Thus, in the even t of setting aside and quashing the selection, the appointees not only involved in W.P.(C) No. 3570/2011 would be affected, but other appointees involved in ot her writ petitions will also be affected. In absence of any participation of the selected and appointed candidates, I am of the considered opinion that there ca nnot be any interference with their selection and appointment.

6. Although on the above ground alone the writ petitions are liable to be d ismissed, independent of the said ground I have considered the writ petitions on their own merits.

7. In all the writ petitions the basic ground urged is that since the petit ioners had been called for medical examination, it was presumed that they were a ll selected candidates, but for which they would not have been called for medica l examination. According to the petitioners, since they had been called for said medical examination, depending upon the outcome of the same, they should have b een appointed. Referring to the particular stand of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 2183 8. /2011 that one candidate bearing Roll. No. 3090100192 had been called for medica l examination although his name did not figure in the merit list subsequent to t he written test and the response of the respondents to the same in the counter a ffidavit, Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted th at the respondents committed illegality in conducting the selection inasmuch as they had called additional 56 candidates whose names were not included in the ea rlier list from which the candidates had been called for medical examination. He submits that if the candidates who obtained minimum qualifying marks had been c alled for medical examination, there was no requirement to call additional 56 ca ndidates for medical examination. According to him this fact would go to show th at those 56 candidates were additionally called for to facilitate their appointm ents to the deprivation of the petitioners. Countering the above argument, Mr. S. Chokraborty, learned CGC submits t 9. hat the additional 56 candidates belonging to OBC (26) and ST (30) candidates ha d been called for alongwith the general category candidates to which the petitio ners belong. He submits that after calling the candidates for medical examinatio n when it was found that another 56 candidates bellowing to two categories, i.e. OBC and ST, securing quailing marks had been left out, they were also called fo r medical examination. In the above context, learned CGC has referred to the par ticular procedure adopted towards accommodating the reserved category candidates against the posts meant for the general category candidates, they having secure d qualifying marks meant for general category candidates. Both Mr. Majumdar and Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the reserved category candidates having been provided with relaxation in the matter of partic ipation in the selection, they could not have been clubbed with the general cate gory candidates irrespective of the qualifying marks secured by them which might be at per with the general category candidates.

10. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, same will have to be supported by necessary pleadings. On per usal of the writ petitions, I do not find any such pleading so as to substantiat e the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. If some of t he candidates belonging to the reserved category candidates had secured qualifyi ng marks at per with the general category candidates and they did not obtain any relaxation in age etc., it cannot be said that inclusion of their names alongwi th the general category candidates irrespective of the reserved category to whic h they belong to, vitiated the selection.

11. Mr. S. Chokraborty, learned CGC has produced the chart showing the cut o ff marks for appointment and the marks secured by the petitioners. In W.P.(C) N o. 3750/2011, the marks obtained by the 30 petitioners as against the cut off ma rks are as follows: Cut off marks Petitioner No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 38 35 35 37 35 37 38 35 38 38 37 37 34 39 38 36 39 39 35 41 40 37 35 36 36 Marks obtained 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 37 37 41 41 41 41 41 48 48 41 41 36 36 36 26 27 28 29 30 ------------------------------------------------------- 36 37 41 36 37 36 35 40 36 34 Be it stated here that the petitioner No. 17, Atowar Rehman belonging t 12. o general category has withdrawn himself from the said writ petition and he has filed separate writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 5329/2011 referred to above. In W.P.(C) No. 2692/2011, the petitioner has secured 36 marks against cu 13. t off marks 36. Although he could secure the cut off marks, but he could not be appointed in view of the fact that there were many candidates selected securing 36 marks and as per the policy decision of the respondents, appointments against available vacancies have been made on the basis of the date of birth, i.e. olde r in age has been given preference than younger in age. Exercising that policy s ome candidates securing cut off marks have been accommodated although some of th em could not be appointment for want of vacancies. 14. In W.P.(C) No. 3938/2011, the petitioner secured 37 marks against cut of f marks 41. Similarly, in W.P.(C) No. 3754/2011 the two petitioners secured 37 a nd 38 as against the cut off marks 41.

15. In W.P.(C) No. 2183/2011, the six petitioners secured the marks 39, 38, 40,35,35 and 40 against cut off marks 41. Similarly in W.P.(C) No. 1794/2011, th e 13 petitioners secured 35, 35, 36, 40, 40, 36, 40, 37, 39, 35, 35, 38 and 37 r espectively against the cut off marks 36, 36, 36, 41, 41, 41, 41, 41, 41, 37, 36 ,41 and 41 respectively. In W.P.(C) No. 2478/2011 and W.P.(C) No. 5329/2011, the three petitioners secured 35, 35 and 39 against the cut off marks 36, 36 and 41 .

16. It is in the above circumstances, the petitioners could not selected and appointed. As regards the basic plea of the petitioners that since they had bee n called for the medical examination, they were to be selected, the respondents have stated that medical examination was conducted in terms of the guidelines fo rmulated by the respondents under which the candidates equal number of vacancies increased by average failure rate during medical examination determined on the basis of the past experience were to be called for medical examination as per th e merit list of the written test.

17. Merely because the petitioners had been called for medical examination, it cannot be said that they were all selected candidates. When it has been shown that the selected candidates who have been appointed secured particular cut off marks which is higher than the marks obtained by each one of the petitioners, i t cannot be said that the petitioners have been deprived of the selection and ap pointment. 18. ions and accordingly, they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit