JUDGMENT AND ORDER Ujjal Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. A Roshid, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Datta, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to include his name as a More Other Backward Class (MOBC) candidate in the selection proceeding for appointment as Constable (Armed Branch) in the Assam Police, pursuant to advertisement dated 24.12.2014. 3. Case of the petitioner as projected in the writ petition is that he had passed the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate (HSSLC) examination in the year 2009 from the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council. He also belongs to the Koch community, which is recognised as MOBC in the State of Assam. A copy of the caste certificate issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong has been annexed to the writ petition in support of his caste status. Advertisement dated 24.12.2014 was issued by the State Level Police Recruitment Board, Assam Police Headquarters on 24.12.2014 for recruitment of Constable (Armed Branch) in the Assam Police. The advertisement was for 6748 vacancies and it was mentioned that recruitment would be carried out district-wise with district-wise distribution of vacancies. It was mentioned that recruitment rally would be conducted in the districts of Assam for selection of candidates. It was also mentioned that applicants should submit their applications either online or through paper applications. Reservation for various categories were also mentioned, which included 27% for Other Backward Class (OBC) and More Other Backward Class (MOBC). 4. Since eligibility criteria is not an issue in this writ petition, detailed reference to the same is considered not necessary. 5. Petitioner is a resident of Bokalia in the district of Karbi Anglong and he responded to the said advertisement by filing paper application for consideration from Karbi Anglong district. It may be mentioned that in respect of Karbi Anglong district, the number of vacancies notified was 146. 6. The scheme of selection as mentioned in the advertisement indicated a two-tier stage of selection comprising of Physical Standard Tests (PST) and Physical Efficiency Tests (PET) at the first stage and then written test. It may be mentioned that in respect of Karbi Anglong district, the number of vacancies notified was 146. 6. The scheme of selection as mentioned in the advertisement indicated a two-tier stage of selection comprising of Physical Standard Tests (PST) and Physical Efficiency Tests (PET) at the first stage and then written test. Those candidates qualifying in the Physical Standard Tests (PST) and Physical Efficiency Tests (PET) would be called to appear in the written test in order of merit in the ratio of 5 (five) times the number of vacancies allotted in respect of each category. For the Physical Standard Tests (PST) and Physical Efficiency Tests (PET), maximum marks allotted were 60 (sixty) and qualifying marks was 32 (thirty-two). 25 (twenty-five) marks were allotted for written test and 15 (fifteen)marks for extra-curricular activities and special skills, total being 100 (hundred) marks. 15 (fifteen) marks earmarked for extra curricular activities and special skills included 5 (five) marks for educational qualification, 5 (five) marks for NCC/Home-Guard/Sports and 5 (five) marks for Diploma/Technical qualification from ITI/Polytechnic or other recognised Institute or in Computer Application from a recognised Institute. According to the petitioner, he qualified in the Physical Standard Tests and Physical Efficiency Tests. Thereafter, he was called to appear in the written test on 28.06.2015, where also he appeared. 7. When the final select list was published petitioner's name was not included. Petitioner found from the internet that he was considered as a general category candidate. He was awarded 44 marks for the Physical Efficiency Tests (PET) and 18 (eighteen) marks in the written test, thus, totalling 62 (sixty-two) marks. He was not awarded marks under the heading - "Extra-Curricular Activities and Special Skills". 8. Aggrieved by his non-selection, petitioner submitted a representation before the Superintendent of Police, Karbi Anglong on 29.07.2015, making the grievance that though he belongs to MOBC he was shown and considered as a general category candidate to his prejudice. 9. With the above grievance, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 10. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is stated that result of the recruitment process was declared on 16.07.2015 and the final select list was uploaded in the internet on the same date. In respect of general category candidates, the cut-off mark was 62.5. 10. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. It is stated that result of the recruitment process was declared on 16.07.2015 and the final select list was uploaded in the internet on the same date. In respect of general category candidates, the cut-off mark was 62.5. In other words, those securing 62.5 and above under the general category were selected. Petitioner secured 62 marks; hence, he was not selected. It is stated that petitioner had submitted his application on 27.12.2014 but he did not mention about his caste in the standard application form while applying for the post. Caste certificate was also not enclosed in the application; as a result, petitioner was treated as a general category candidate. Accordingly, admit card was issued to the petitioner where he was shown as a general category candidate. In all the stages of recruitment, he was shown as general category candidate. Petitioner had participated throughout the selection process as general category candidate and did not register any protest. Regarding awarding of marks for educational qualification, it is stated that petitioner was not entitled to any marks as he has passed the Higher Secondary examination in the third division. Regarding extra-curricular activities, it is stated that since petitioner was neither an international level player nor a national level player, he was not awarded any mark. Regarding representation submitted by the petitioner, it is stated that the same was forwarded to the Additional Director General of Police (T & AP), Assam-cum-Chairman, State Level Recruitment Board on 30.07.2015. 11. In his reply affidavit, petitioner has stated that he was entitled to some marks for educational qualification as well as for NCC/Home Guard/Sports, since petitioner is a district level player. It is also stated that representation of the petitioner has not yet been considered. Petitioner has stated that one vacancy in Karbi Anglong is still available as one of the selected candidate, namely, Sri Bikash Bezbaruah, did not join pursuant to his selection. 12. Petitioner has also filed additional affidavit, wherein, he has stated that the last selected candidate under the OBC and MOBC category had secured 59.50 marks. If the petitioner was considered as MOBC candidate, he having secured 62 marks would have been selected. 13. 12. Petitioner has also filed additional affidavit, wherein, he has stated that the last selected candidate under the OBC and MOBC category had secured 59.50 marks. If the petitioner was considered as MOBC candidate, he having secured 62 marks would have been selected. 13. This Court in the course of the present proceedings had passed an interim order on 30.09.2015, directing that one post of Constable (Armed Branch) in the district of Karbi Anglong should not be filled up pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.12.2014. 14. Submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. Therefore, a detailed reference to the submissions so made is considered not necessary. However, the submissions so made have received the due consideration of the Court. 15. It may be noted that following the order of this Court dated 12.08.2015, Ms B. Datta, learned Government Advocate has produced the standard form of application submitted by the petitioner before the Court in original, which has been perused. 16. Short point for consideration is whether non-selection of the petitioner as an OBC or MOBC category candidate in the facts and circumstances of the case is justified. 17. To appreciate and to answer the above question, it would be apposite to briefly refer to and analyse the relevant provisions of the advertisement under consideration. As already noticed, intending candidates were given option to submit their applications either online or through paper applications. It was explained under the heading- "How to apply". It was mentioned that candidates should apply online through the Assam Police Website though candidates could also submit paper applications in standard application form at the office of the Superintendent of Police of the district from where the candidates wished to appear in the selection test. A candidate whose application was found to be in order would be called for physical tests. It was also mentioned that no documents, testimonials/caste certificate etc. were required to be submitted with the application form, but when the candidate would report at the recruitment venue for Physical Standard Tests (PST) and Physical Efficiency Tests (PET), he/she was required to bring all essential documents in original along with one set of photocopies of the same. It was also mentioned that no documents, testimonials/caste certificate etc. were required to be submitted with the application form, but when the candidate would report at the recruitment venue for Physical Standard Tests (PST) and Physical Efficiency Tests (PET), he/she was required to bring all essential documents in original along with one set of photocopies of the same. A list of testimonials/documents which were required to be submitted when appearing in the Physical Standard Tests (PST), including certificate of caste from the competent authority in respect of the candidates belonging to ST(P)/ST(H)/SC/OBC & MOBC, was mentioned. 18. Having noticed the above, it may also be stated that petitioner has placed on record the caste certificate dated 14.11.2003, issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Karbi Anglong, certifying that he belongs to Koch community, which is treated as MOBC in the State of Assam. 19. Respondents in their affidavit have not controverted or disputed the caste certificate of the petitioner. Stand taken in the affidavit is that petitioner did not indicate in his application form that he belongs to MOBC and also did not enclose any copy of the caste certificate with his application. However, as already noticed above, it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement itself that no documents, testimonials and caste certificate were required to be submitted with the application form. Those were required to be produced at the venue of recruitment. There was no requirement of the petitioner to enclose his caste certificate along with the application form. 20. At this stage, the original copy of the standard form of application submitted by the petitioner may be taken note of. Petitioner had submitted his application in the standard form of application as prescribed under Assam Gazette Part-IX. In Column 9 (B); the applicant (petitioner) was required to mention as to whether he was a member of SC/ST (Answer "Yes" or "No") with an explanation that if the answer was "Yes" a copy of the caste certificate was required to be enclosed. Since the petitioner did not belong either to SC or ST category, he filled up the said column with the remark - "No". Other than this, there was no column in the standard form of application, where the applicant (petitioner) was required to disclose his MOBC status. 21. Since the petitioner did not belong either to SC or ST category, he filled up the said column with the remark - "No". Other than this, there was no column in the standard form of application, where the applicant (petitioner) was required to disclose his MOBC status. 21. It is also not the stand of the respondents that during the recruitment process petitioner did not produce his caste certificate. Stand taken is that while the petitioner was treated as a general category candidate in various stages of the selection process he did not raise any objection. Question of raising objection by the petitioner at those stages of the selection process did not arise as because petitioner had qualified in the various stages of the selection process. 22. On due consideration, Court is of the view that present is not a case, where petitioner seeks alteration of his caste status. This is a case where the petitioner has sought consideration of his case on the basis of his existing caste status which is not disputed. For the reasons indicated above, MOBC status of the petitioner was not indicated in the standard form of application as there was no provision for the same. Therefore, case of the petitioner is required to be considered as an MOBC category candidate. 23. Coming to awarding of marks under the heading- "Extra curricular activities and special skills" nothing was mentioned in the advertisement as to how 5 (five) marks would be awarded for educational qualification and another 5 (five) marks for NCC/Home-Guard/Sports. The affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 is also silent as to the criteria adopted for awarding of marks under the aforesaid heading. It has been stated that since the petitioner has passed his Higher Secondary examination in the third division he was not eligible for marks under educational qualification. Regarding sports, it is stated that since petitioner was not an international or national level player he was not entitled for marks. Coming back to the educational qualification, the advertisement discloses that there would be maximum 5 (five) marks under the said heading. Selection was for the post of Constable. Minimum educational qualification prescribed was HSLC or Class-X passed from a recognised Board. Therefore, awarding of marks under the heading - "Educational qualification and Special Skills" must have a co-relation to the educational qualification prescribed. Selection was for the post of Constable. Minimum educational qualification prescribed was HSLC or Class-X passed from a recognised Board. Therefore, awarding of marks under the heading - "Educational qualification and Special Skills" must have a co-relation to the educational qualification prescribed. Therefore, being a matriculate or Higher Secondary passed would certainly entitle a candidate to some marks under the aforesaid heading. A master degree holder or above is not expected to participate in a recruitment process for appointment as a Constable though because of the present unemployment scenario presence of large number of graduates in such recruitment process cannot be ruled out. Moreover, there was no preferred criteria for award of marks under the heading- "Educational qualification and Special Skills". Further, nowhere it was mentioned that only national or international level players would be entitled to marks under the NCC/Home-Guard/Sports heading. 24. Coming to the facts of the present case, it is seen that even if the petitioner is treated as a general category candidate, he having secured 62 marks as against the last selected candidate under the said category, who secured 62.5 marks, a fraction of marks under the heading "Extra-curricular activities and special skills" would have made a material difference to the petitioner. However, if the petitioner is treated as MOBC category candidate, even without awarding of marks under the heading- "Extra curricular activities and Special Skills", by virtue of marks secured by him, he would stand selected. 25. That being the position, respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 are directed to take on board the caste certificate of the petitioner and reconsider the candidature of the petitioner, either by treating him as MOBC category and/or by awarding him proportionate marks on account of educational qualification and sports against the vacancy, which was directed not be filled up vide the order dated 30.09.2015. Petitioner shall appear before the respondent No. 5 within 30 (thirty) days from today, where after, his case shall be reconsidered in the manner indicated above. 26. The original copy of standard form of application of the petitioner is returned back to Ms. Datta, learned Government Advocate, Assam. 27. Writ petition is allowed, but without any order as to costs.