JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC and Mr. H. Deb, learned ASGI appearing for the respondents. 2. All these writ petitions, being W.P.(C) No.277 of 2017 [Apu Baishya vs. Union of India and Ors.], W.P.(C) No.279 of 2017 [Swapan Ch. Shil and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.], W.P.(C) No.280 of 2017 [Biplab Ruda Paul and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.] and W.P.(C) No.281 of 2017 [Sajib Roy and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors], are combined for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the challenge, raised in these writ petitions is identical in the resembling set of facts, with insignificant variation which will be recorded whenever would appear relevant. The Staff Selection Commission published the employment notification under No.F.No.3/1/2014-P&P (Vol-III) for recruitment to the post of Constable(GD) in BSF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, NIA and SSF and of Rifleman in Assam Rifles as per the recruitment scheme formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and as per the memorandum of understanding signed between the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Staff Selection Commission. In the said notification published in the Employment News dated 24.01.2015 [Annexure-A to the writ petition] the recruitment process has been elaborately described. In para-4(A) of the said notification dated 24.01.2015, the age limit has been stipulated as 18-23 years as on 01.08.2015, meaning a candidate had not been born earlier than 02.08.1992 and not later than 01.08.1997, but special provision for age relaxation for identified categories subject to eligibility [see para-4(B) of the said notification]. 3. From a reading of the said para which is followed by a table showing the mode of age relaxation, permissible beyond the upper age limit. From further reading of the said table it appears that for the candidates belonging to SC, ST and OBC there are relaxation for 5 years (SC & ST) and 3 years for OBC. The petitioners herein belonged to Others Backward Community (OBC) and as such, they were given the age relaxation to the extent of 3 years as they had all other qualification as prescribed by the principal notification of employment. In this regard, there is no controversy. The petitioners herein belonged to Others Backward Community (OBC) and as such, they were given the age relaxation to the extent of 3 years as they had all other qualification as prescribed by the principal notification of employment. In this regard, there is no controversy. But when the final selection list was published it was discovered by the petitioners that they were not selected even though the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.277 of 2017, namely Apu Baishya secured 45 marks in the written examination, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.279 of 2017, namely Swapan Ch. Shil got 43 marks, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.280 of 2017, namely Biplab Rudra Paul got 44 marks and the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.281 of 2017, namely Sajib Roy Paul got 42 marks. 4. Being aggrieved thereof, those candidates filed the instant writ petitions praying, inter alia, that the selection process in terms of the employment notification dated 24.01.2015 has been carried out unfairly inasmuch as the petitioners were entitled to get the selection but they had been discarded in defiance to the fairness principle as engrafted in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has categorically submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioners were eligible for selection for the post of Constable (GD), but they were initially age barred. But according to the policy, as above stated, they were provided the relaxation and they participated in the open competition and secured the marks as recorded above in the selection process. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel, having referred to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.1 & 5 has further submitted that from para-8 of the said reply it would transpire that the petitioners were found medically fit. Finally, in para-10 reason for non-selection has been disclosed by the respondents No.1 & 5. The relevant part of the para-10 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.1 & 5 in W.P.(C) No.277 of 2017 is extracted hereunder, for purpose of reference: “……. with reference to the statements and averments made in paragraph 2.5, I say that the contention of the petitioner is not correct. Sri Apu Baishya (Roll no.5601001983) is an OBC male candidate from Tripura State (State Code-33/Border Guarding District Code-12, Naxal Affected District Code-66) and scored 45 marks in written examination. with reference to the statements and averments made in paragraph 2.5, I say that the contention of the petitioner is not correct. Sri Apu Baishya (Roll no.5601001983) is an OBC male candidate from Tripura State (State Code-33/Border Guarding District Code-12, Naxal Affected District Code-66) and scored 45 marks in written examination. He was not selected since he had scored less marks than the last selected candidate in OBC category in Tripura State. The cut-off mark of the last selected OBC candidate (Male) from Tripura is as per detail given below: Category A-BSF B-CISF C-CRPF D-SSB E-ITBP F-AR OBC (Normal) No. Vac. 46 52 No. Vac. No. Vac. No. Vac. OBC (Border) 59 No. Vac. No. Vac. No. Vac. No. Vac. No. Vac. 6. Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel having acceded to the position, has submitted that the consideration for selection of the petitioners was restricted to, only in the OBC category but by defying the fundamental objective of the reservation policy, the petitioners were not considered under UR category. Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel has drawn the notice of this court towards the detailed disclosure made in respect of category, vacancy, type of vacancy, lowest marks and part of marks of the last selected candidate obtained in the selection process as tabulated in the said paragraph. Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel has drawn the notice of this court towards the detailed disclosure made in respect of category, vacancy, type of vacancy, lowest marks and part of marks of the last selected candidate obtained in the selection process as tabulated in the said paragraph. For purpose of reference, the said table is reproduced hereunder: State Code CAPF Type of Vacancy Category Vacancies Filled Lowest Marks Part-A Marks of last selected candidates 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 33 BSF G 9 17 17 50 17 33 BSF B 9 34 34 46 19 33 BSF G 1 5 5 48 21 33 BSF B 1 12 12 44 18 33 BSF G 2 10 10 43 15 33 BSF B 2 21 21 39 14 33 BSF B 6 1 1 59 23 33 BSF G 3 10 0 0 0 33 CISF G 9 69 69 42 20 33 CISF G 1 25 25 41 16 33 CISF G 2 36 36 33 11 33 CISF G 6 10 10 46 22 33 CISF G 3 14 0 0 0 33 CRPF G 9 71 71 43 18 33 CRPF G 1 24 24 41 17 33 CRPF G 2 75 40 33 17 33 CRPF G 6 2 2 52 20 33 CRPF G 3 17 0 0 0 33 SSB G 9 13 13 42 20 33 SSB G 1 5 5 41 16 33 SSB G 2 39 6 33 14 33 SSB G 3 6 0 0 0 33 ITBP G 9 8 8 42 18 33 ITBP G 1 3 3 41 15 33 ITBP G 2 5 2 34 15 33 ITBP G 3 2 0 0 0 33 AR G 9 1 1 54 21 7. It appears and there is no dispute that in the UR category under the state code-33, the lowest marks obtained by the last selected candidate as the Constable(GD) in ITBP, SSB, CISF is 42 whereas in BSF the lowest mark obtained by the last selected candidate is 46 [against the UR category candidate]. As regards the CRPF, the last selected candidate [UR] got 43. According to Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel, non-consideration of the petitioners under the UR category in the selection is grossly unconstitutional and hence interference from this court is essentially required. In support of her contention, Ms. As regards the CRPF, the last selected candidate [UR] got 43. According to Ms. Purakayastha, learned counsel, non-consideration of the petitioners under the UR category in the selection is grossly unconstitutional and hence interference from this court is essentially required. In support of her contention, Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel has placed her reliance on the decision of the apex court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119 where in a similar situation the apex court has laid down the fundamental principles to operate in such complex situation or how to operate the reservation principles so far the UR and the reserved category candidates are concerned when the reserved category candidates secured more marks than the UR category candidates etc. The relevant passage in respect of that interplay, is extracted hereunder : “In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any manner upset the "level playing field". It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the competitive examination. At the time when the concessions are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It commences when all the candidates who fulfill the eligibility conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated in the Preliminary Test as also in the Physical Test. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition.” 8. The apex court without any ambiguity has observed in this paragraph that by age relaxation and fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. It is only thereafter that successful candidates have been permitted to participate in the open competition.” 8. The apex court without any ambiguity has observed in this paragraph that by age relaxation and fee concession, the reserved candidates are merely brought within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belonged or whether he had been in the fray on any relaxation or exemption. All the candidates to be declared eligible had participated and come out successful in the Preliminary Test as also in the Physical Test. It is thereafter the successful candidates are permitted to participate in the open competition. 9. From the other side, Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC has appeared and in order to repel the submission made by Ms. R. Purakayastha, learned counsel has taken this court to the amended counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.2, 3 & 4 in W.P.(C) No.277 of 2017. It is to be noted at this juncture that the similar averments have been placed by the respondents in all the writ petitions. This court for purpose of convenience, has chosen to refer the averments from W.P.(C) No.277 of 2017. In para-8 of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.2, 3 & 4, it has been clearly stated as under : “Shri Apu Baishya, is an OBC candidate for the Constable (GD) 2015 Open Competitive Examination and is domicile in the Border District of Tripura. He cleared the PST/PET and thereafter took the Written Examination wherein he obtained 45 marks with 20 marks in Part A (General Intelligence Reasoning) as per Clause-8. II of the Examination Notice dated 24.01.2015 and was also declared medically Fit during the Detail Medical Examination (DME). However, although the Petitioner had opted for all the preferences – A(BSF), B(CISF), C(CRPF), D(SSB), E(ITBPF), F(AR), G(NIA) and H(SSF) in that order, he was not included in the Select List as the marks obtained by him was less than that of the last selected OBC candidates in all the Forces/CAPFs. However, although the Petitioner had opted for all the preferences – A(BSF), B(CISF), C(CRPF), D(SSB), E(ITBPF), F(AR), G(NIA) and H(SSF) in that order, he was not included in the Select List as the marks obtained by him was less than that of the last selected OBC candidates in all the Forces/CAPFs. The petitioner was not considered for the UR vacancies as he did not fulfil the UR age-criteria i.e. the Petitioner Date of Birth is 03.11.1989 whereas as per the Notice of Examination, in order to be considered against UR vacancy, candidates should not have been born earlier than 02.08.1992 and not later than 01.08.1997. The marks obtained by the last selected OBC candidate from the State of Tripura in different Forces wherever vacancies existed for this particular recruitment year are as below: Force/CAPF Marks of last selected candidates Force/CAPF Marks of last selected candidates BSF Border District = 59 General District = No vacancy SSB Border District = No vacancy. General District = No vacancy CISF Border District = No vacancy General District = 46 ITBPF Border District = No vacancy General District = No vacancy CRPF Border District = No vacancy General District = 52 AR Border District = No vacancy General District = No vacancy (ii) It is further submitted that being qualified in all the stages of the recruitment process does not automatically entitle a candidate for final selection. Final selection has been done from amongst all the candidates who had qualified in all stages of the recruitment process as per their merit-cum-preference subject to availability of vacancies in their respective categories in their State of Domicile. And the marks obtained by the candidates who were placed at the bottom of the merit lists of each CAPF State-wise and Category-wise are treated as the cut-off marks for the respective Categories (OBC, SC, ST, UR, Ex-serviceman) in the concerned CAPFs. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of the Petitioner to stick to the minimum cut-off percentage as indicated in the Notice of Examination for the purpose of screening.” [Emphasis added] 10. Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC has fairly submitted that this is the fundamental reason [as underlined in the extracted passage] why the petitioners were not selected as the Constable (GD) in the different forces from the state of domicile. Mr. Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC has fairly submitted that this is the fundamental reason [as underlined in the extracted passage] why the petitioners were not selected as the Constable (GD) in the different forces from the state of domicile. Mr. H. Deb, learned ASGI appearing for the respondents No.1 & 5 has supported the analogy as extended by Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the respondents No.2, 3 & 4. 11. Having appreciated the rival contentions as adverted by the learned counsel for the parties, this court finds that the primary question that arises is whether a candidate who has been granted the relaxation of the age for belonging to a reserved category can he be considered under the UR category after such relaxation. In the considered opinion of this court, the apex court in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) clearly laid down the law to the effect that when the age relaxation or any other concession is given to the reserved category candidates those are merely given to bring them within the zone of consideration so that they can participate in the open competition on merit. Once the candidate participated in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates who has come out successful or obtained the marks secured by the last selected candidate or cut-off marks, shall be declared eligible or suitable as the case may be. The case before the apex court in Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) was that the reserved category candidates were not permitted to participate in the physical test under the UR category as they were favoured with relaxation/concession. It is thus clear that a candidate belonging to the reserved category can be considered for recruitment under the UR category on merit even after he was afforded or extended the benefit of age relaxation or other concessions and he may simultaneously be considered under the reserved category to which he belongs. But admittedly, the respondents have not considered the petitioners under the UR category, even though it clearly transpires from the records that all the petitioners had secured more marks or equal marks in some of the forces in comparison or in relation to the candidate who was last selected one. But admittedly, the respondents have not considered the petitioners under the UR category, even though it clearly transpires from the records that all the petitioners had secured more marks or equal marks in some of the forces in comparison or in relation to the candidate who was last selected one. From the table, it has been clearly borne out that the last UR candidate got 42 or 46 but the petitioners despite obtained the same or higher marks were not considered under the UR category. 12. Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC has submitted that the selected candidates are not only selected but now they have been recruited and despite having knowledge of this development they have not been made parties in those proceedings. 13. Having considered the aspect of non-impleadment in the context, this court is of the view that for this the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to be fairly considered in the public employment. Hence, the respondents are directed to consider all the petitioners for recruitment under the post of Constable (GD) under UR category by creating 4(four) supernumerary posts, if vacancies are not available. On consideration, the petitioners shall be given the appointment from the date when the last UR candidate was recruited, but they will not get any financial benefit till they resumed the duty. From the date of their assumption of duty, they will be entitled to all financial benefits, but the benefits be notionally fixed from the date of appointment as would be made in compliance to this direction. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date when the petitioners shall submit a copy of this order to the respondents. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.