Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 813 (GAU)

PAPU KHANIKAR v. UNION OF INDIA

2017-06-19

NELSON SAILO

body2017
JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as well as Mr. A. Das, the learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioners in brief is that they responded to the advertisement issued by the respondent authorities in the advertisement No. 1 for the year 2008 for filing up the post of constable under the CRPF. Against the vacancy for the State of Assam (Male) there were 312 posts in all. The advertisement further provided that the number of candidates to be considered against the vacancy would be the total number of vacancy advertised plus 2% of the vacancies of the category would be considered after medical examination. The petitioners accordingly participated in the selection process and they were also medically examined. However, the petitioners were not selected and therefore being aggrieved, they have approached this Court. 3. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners amongst others had also furnished their respective caste certificate under the OBC category for consideration by the selection committee and therefore they ought to have been selected to the post of constable under the CRPF. 4. Mr. A. Das, the learned CGC appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioners failed to obtain marks above the cut-off range and moreover, the caste certificate produce by the petitioners were not in the standard format prescribed by the advertisement No. 1 for the year 2008. The format was clearly prescribed as annexure-2 of the advertisement. In support of her submission, she refers to paragraph 8 of the affidavit-in-opposition, whereby the respective marks obtain by the petitioners have been highlighted. She therefore submits that in such a situation, the petitioners having failed to obtain marks required as well as having failed to produce the caste certificate in terms of the advertisement, the petitioners cannot have any legitimate grievance for not being appointed. 5. Mr. S. Borthakur, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that had the caste certificate produced by the petitioners, more particularly by the petitioner No. 4 if accepted, the petitioner No. 4 surely would have been selected for the post. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available in the records. 6. I have heard both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available in the records. The admitted position is that the petitioners failed to obtain the minimum cut-off marks for the category of the caste concerned. The cut-off for the OBC category has been reflected as 45 marks while for the General category the cut-off is 53 marks. With regard to the proposition that had the caste certificate of the petitioners been accepted, at least, the petitioner No. 4 would have been selected for the post, the same will be of no relevance at this juncture considering the fact that the selection pertains to the year 2008 and writ petition having been filed only 2010. Therefore, no positive direction can be issued at this stage. Moreover, no interim relief was granted by this Court, when the notice was issued. 7. In that view of the matter, this writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to apply for the post of constable in the CRPF as an when such posts are notified subject to their fulfilment of the eligibility criteria as may be prescribed. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No Cost.