JUDGMENT : Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J. This matter relates to selection and appointment of B.S.F. constable. The writ petitioner is aggrieved against his non-selection although he was empanelled as first candidate in the select list. 2. Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that as per Recruitment Rules under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 the criterion for such selection is only physical ability test and nowhere in the said Rules any written test is prescribed, no cut-off marks is also prescribed. 3. Mr. Banerjee submits that his client was declared physically fit. Thereafter he passed through the written test and thereafter he has also passed through medical test after being empanelled as first candidate in the panel prepared for giving such appointment. He submits that the respondent authorities intentionally and carefully did not give appointment to the writ petitioner for having their own candidates being appointed in the service. 4. Mr. Banerjee submits that as per the notice issued by the concerned respondent, general category candidates were earmarked 33 in number, scheduled caste 15, scheduled tribes 3, O.B.C. 15 and total vacancy was 66 candidates. 5. Mr. Banerjee submits that his client applied for the general category and he was selected. After proper selection he passed through medical test. However, he was not taken as selected candidate and he was denied appointment most illegally and unfairly. 6. Mr. Banerjee pointed out although the vacancies are earmarked for general and reserved category separately but the concerned respondents most illegally and unfairly filled up generally category post by reserved category candidates. 7. Mr. Banerjee pointed out from annexure P1 of the affidavit-in-opposition that one Umesh Chandra Mahato, who was O.B.C., was given appointment in general category. One Somenath Mandi, who was scheduled tribe candidate, was given appointment under general category. One Tarun Majhi, who was scheduled caste candidate, was given appointment under general category. One Shib Sankar Gorai, who was O.B.C. candidate, was given employment under general category. One Trinath De, who was O.B.C. candidate, was appointed under general category. One Uday Bauri, who was scheduled caste candidate, was given appointment under general category. One Biswanath Santra, who was scheduled caste candidate, was appointed under general category. 8. Mr. Banerjee submits that the post for general category and reserved category were clearly disclosed and specifically mentioned in the notification which is annexure R2 to the affidavit-in-opposition. One Uday Bauri, who was scheduled caste candidate, was given appointment under general category. One Biswanath Santra, who was scheduled caste candidate, was appointed under general category. 8. Mr. Banerjee submits that the post for general category and reserved category were clearly disclosed and specifically mentioned in the notification which is annexure R2 to the affidavit-in-opposition. He submits that most illegally the respondent authorities denied appointment to the fittest candidates who have applied and contested as well as selected for the general category. According to Mr. Banerjee, the respondent authorities acted arbitrarily in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 9. Mr. Banerjee submits that under no circumstances general category could be filled up by scheduled tribe, scheduled caste or O.B.C. candidates. He submits that the posts reserved for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and O.B.C. were kept vacant. It was also submitted by Mr. Banerjee that although there were 66 vacancies but a panel of 62 candidates were prepared. Even in spite of such lessor number of candidates empanelled, the writ petitioner was not given employment deliberately. However, Mr. Banerjee pointed out that in the list disclosed in the affidavit-in-opposition it is shown that 50 selected candidates were given appointment. According to Mr. Banerjee, the respondent authorities treated the writ petitioner most illegally and unfairly. They have denied appointment to the petitioner to accommodate their favoured candidates. They have violated all norms and rules while giving appointment. They also kept the vacancies unfilled for the reasons best known to them. 10. Mr. Banerjee submitted that although it appears from the notification, written test was divided into two types, one is objective type for which 25 marks were fixed and the other type is descriptive type for which 25 marks were kept and his client passed in the test. According to him, there is no scope for awarding more than 50 marks in favour of any candidate and therefore, selecting any candidate securing more than 50 marks as claimed is absurd. 11. Learned Counsel for the respondent authorities submitted that scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and O.B.C. candidates since acquired higher marks they were given appointment in general category ignoring the post reserved for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe candidates. All those reserved posts were kept vacant. According to him, this is normal rule. However, he could not show any rule before this Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent authorities submitted that scheduled caste, scheduled tribe and O.B.C. candidates since acquired higher marks they were given appointment in general category ignoring the post reserved for scheduled caste, scheduled tribe candidates. All those reserved posts were kept vacant. According to him, this is normal rule. However, he could not show any rule before this Court. He also failed to show any rule, which authorises the respondents in taking written test. According to him, the selection was made on merit basis and a chart disclosed by him in the opposition will show merit position of the respective candidates. The reserved category candidates who secured higher marks were given appointment in the general category. According to him, there is no illegality and this is the normal rule. 12. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and considered the materials available on record. It appears from the notification that vacant posts are divided into four categories i.e. general category 33, scheduled caste 15, scheduled tribe 3, O.B.C. 15, thus total vacancy is 66. It also appears from the annexure that reserved category candidates were given appointment in the general category, which is contrary to norms and the rules applicable in giving such appointment. So far the test is concerned, I do not find any rule in the Recruitment Rules which suggest written test to be held for such selection rather physical ability test is sole criterion for such selection which the writ petitioner has crossed successfully. After passing physical ability test petitioner was allowed to appear at the written test and he became successful in the written test. Thereafter he was interviewed and finally he was selected for medical test and he has also passed through the medical test. Even in spite of that he was denied appointment in the general category whereas the general category posts were filled up by scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, O.B.C. candidates keeping reserved vacancy is unfilled, which is totally unfair and illegal and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. It also appears from the panel annexed to the writ petition that only 62 candidates were selected although there are 66 vacancies. Therefore, there is no reason for not giving appointment to writ petitioner. 13. It also appears from the panel annexed to the writ petition that only 62 candidates were selected although there are 66 vacancies. Therefore, there is no reason for not giving appointment to writ petitioner. It also appears from the disclosed chart in the affidavit-in-opposition that only 50 candidates were given appointment although the list of the panel annexed to the writ petition shows that selected candidates were 62. The respondent authorities have acted most illegally and unfairly denying appointment to the writ petitioner. They have applied pick and choose method and selected their favoured candidates. It appears form the facts that the writ petitioner has crossed all the hurdles including medical test. Therefore, he is entitled to get appointment as first empanelled candidate in the general category, which was denied to him. 14. In my view, the actions on the side of the respondent are all illegal and accordingly, I direct the respondent authorities to issue appointment letter in favour of the writ petitioner within two weeks from the date of communication of this order and to allow him to join the post. The appointment would be given on and from the date when the empanelled candidates were given appointment. 15. In view of such arbitrary action of the respondent authorities the writ petitioner had to move this writ petition and this writ petition is pending since 2007 and that is why the writ petitioner crossed the age bar. Therefore, the respondents are directed to give relaxation against the age bar of the writ petitioner and to issue appointment letter. Although the writ petitioner would be entitled to get financial benefit from this day but he will be entitled to get notional benefit on and from the date of appointment of the empanelled candidates since when the writ petitioner is entitled to get appointment, for calculation of his retiral benefits. 16. The writ petition is, thus, disposed of. There would be no order as to costs. 17. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the appearing parties on priority basis. Writ Petition allowed.