Gauhati High Court
Ashok Kumar Rabha & 17 Ors vs The Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 2015
Author: Ujjal Bhuyan
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND
ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WP(C) NO.2125/2011
Petitioners :
1. Sri Ashok Kumar Rabha
S/o Sri Dharani Rabha,'
R/o Chipahipara,
P.O.-Borduar Bagan,
Dist-Kamrup,Assam.
2. Mantu Rabha
S/o- Sri Thaneswar Rabha,
R/o-Baghmara, Chaygaon,
Dist.- Kamrup, Assam.
3. Kamal Rabha,
S/o- Sri Indra Rabha,
R/o- Vill. Ratanpur,
Dist.- Kamrup, Assam,
4. Samsul Ao,
S/o- Sri Limahum, R/o- Vill Krishan Nagar,
Kahilipara, Guwahati,
Dist.-Kamrup, Assam.
5. Bijit Rabha,
C/o Sri Rameswar Rabha R/0- Vill Lochana,
Gosaighat, Dist.- Kamrup, Assam.
6. Biplab Rabha,
S/o-(not known), R/o- Vill Rowmari, Singra,
Dist-Kamrup, Assam.
7. Dipmoni Deka,
S/o- Sri Uruka Deka, R/o- Vill- Dimoruguri Gaon,
Jagi Bhakat Gaon, Dist.-Morigaon, Assam.
WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 1 of 12
8. Janmoni Bangthai
S/o- Dutiram Bangthai, R/o- Vill Nabahatia,
Block Mayong, P.O.-Borkulai, Dist.-Morigaon,
Assam.
9. Jiban Chandra Rabha
S/o- Sri Tuni Ram Rabha, R/o- House No. 123,
Baliljana, Dwarka, Dowapara,Dist.- Goalpara,
Assam.
10. Parmeswar Rabha
S/o- Sri Dharani Rabha, R/o- Bhaish Khuli,
Baliljana, Bhalukdubi, Dist-Goalpara,
Assam.
11. Narat Brahma
S/o- Sri Munindra Brahma, R/o- Vill Simlaguri,
House No.2, P.O.- Dotma, Dist.- Kokrajhar,
Assam.
12. Nijwm Brahma,
S/o- Sri Ranendra Brahma, R/o- Vill Intibil,
Dotma, P.O.- Laudonga, Dist.- Kokrajhar,
Assam.
13. Mopidur Rahman
S/o- Sri Ajial Hoque, R/o- Vill Nowarbhita,
P.O.- Dotma, Dist.- Kokrajhar, Assam.
14. Albert Borgoyari,
S/o- Sri Uttam Borgoyari, R/o- Vill Titaguri,
P.O.- Titaguri, Dist.- Kokrajhar, Assam.
14. Manaj Kumar Brahma
S/o- Sri Kalicharan Brahma, R/o- Vill Burshijhora,
Dotma, Dist. - Kokrajhar, Assam.
15. Dhiraj Rabha
S/o- Sri Kesab Rabha, R/o- Vill Ratanpur,
Chaigaon, Dist.- Kamrup, Assam.
WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 2 of 12
17. Jayanta Kumar Nath
Sri Dull Nath, R/o- Mekanor Chuburi,
P.O. Bihaguri, Dist.- Sonitpur, Assam.
18. Jayanta Nath
S/o-Lt. Puneswar Nath, R/o- Mekanor Chuburi,
P.O.- Bihaguri, Dist.- Sonitpur, Assam.
By Advocates:
Mr. S. K. Medhi,
Mr. S. R. Rabha.
Respondents :
1. Union of India represented by Secretary to the Govt. of India, Home Department, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Director General of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Dhaula Kuan, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police (DIGP), Group Centre, CRPF, Amerigog, 9th Mile, Guwahati-781023.
By Advocate:
Mr. S. Chakraborty, CGC.
BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN.
Date of hearing : 19.02.2015
Date of Judgment : 19.02.2015.
WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 3 of 12
J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R
Heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.
2. 18 petitioners have joined together and filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to include them in the final select list on the basis of their performance in the recruitment process and medical fitness and, thereafter, to appoint them in the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).
3. Case of the petitioners is that they are matriculates and eligible for appointment to the post of Constable in CRPF. In July, 2010 an advertisement was issued for filing up vacancies in the post of Constable (General Duty) in the CRPF. Sequence of the recruitment process was laid down, starting from height test to written examination whereafter merit list was to be published. Candidates whose names found place in the select list would then be subjected to medical examination and only those candidates medically certified as "FIT" would be finally selected. Minimum cut off marks were declared as under:-
General/Ex-servicemen: 35% WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 4 of 12 SC/ST/OBC : 33%
4. Petitioners applied pursuant to the said advertisement. Thereafter, they appeared in the CRPF Group Centre, Guwahati on 12.10.2010 and qualified in the height test, race, identity check, checking of testimonial/documentation, physical standard test and physical efficiency test. On being short listed, they were called upon to appear in the written test on 28.11.2010. Petitioners were thereafter called to appear in the medical test on 29th/30th January, 2011. According to the petitioners, the factum of them being called for medical test was indicative of their qualifying the written test. Thereafter, petitioners appeared in the medical test. But petitioners were not informed what happened thereafter. However, petitioners claim that they were declared fit in the medical test.
5. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed seeking the above direction.
6. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the scheme of the recruitment process and contends that calling a candidate for medical examination is indicative of the candidate qualifying in the written examination and being enlisted in the merit list. Once they are qualified as fit following medical examination, the selected candidates are required to be appointed. Making a reference to the counter affidavit WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 5 of 12 filed by the respondents, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that all the candidates secured more marks than the minimum cut off marks as prescribed in the scheme of recruitment i.e. 35% for General/Ex- Servicemen and 33% for SC/ST/OBC. Therefore, there is no justification in denying appointment to the petitioners.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Chakraborty learned Central Government Counsel refers to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents and submits that all the petitioners except petitioner No. 6 Sri Biplab Rabha, petitioner No.17 Sri Jayanta Kumar Nath and petitioner No. 18 Sri Jayanta Nath had secured lesser marks than the last selected candidate in their respective categories though they had secured more marks than the minimum qualifying marks. Therefore, they could not be finally selected. In respect of petitioner No. 6, Sri Biplab Rabha, it is contended that Sri Rabha belongs to the ST category and secured 41 marks which was the marks secured by the last selected candidate belonging to the ST category i.e. Sri Bakul Daimary. Since marks of both the candidates were equal, the older candidate in age was given preference which is a permissible criteria as per the recruitment rules. Accordingly, Sri Bakul Daimary was selected over Sri Biplab Rabha. Likewise, in respect of petitioner Nos. 17 & 18 Sri Jayanta Kumar Nath and Sri Jayanta Nath, it is submitted that they belong to the OBC category and WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 6 of 12 has secured 36 marks which was the marks secured by the last selected candidate belonging to the OBC category viz, Shri Kiran Ray but Sri Kiran Ray was older. Therefore, he was selected. He, therefore, submits that there is no illegality in the selection process and the claim of the petitioners are untenable. No relief as sought for can be granted to the petitioners, he submits.
8. In reply, Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the stand taken by the respondents would amount to changing the rules of recruitment after commencement of the recruitment process. He submits that as per recruitment procedure, 35% marks was prescribed as minimum cut off marks for General/Ex-servicemen category and 33%marks was prescribed as the minimum cut off marks for SC/ST/OBC categories. The stand now taken by the respondents that notwithstanding securing the minimum cut off marks as per the recruitment procedure, a candidate must secure more than the marks secured by the last selected candidate is beyond the terms of recruitment and, therefore, such a procedure would not be valid in the eye of law. In support of his submission, Mr. Medhi, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Hem ani M alhotra Vs High Court of Delhi reported in (2008) 7 SCC 11 .
WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 7 of 12
9. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Central Govt. Counsel by way of clarification submits that since past experiences have shown that number of candidates who were found unfit in medical examination were high, the authority always calls excess candidates for medical examination to obviate any possibility of the finally selected candidates falling short of the requisite vacancies.
10. Submissions made have been considered.
11. There is no dispute that petitioners had successfully qualified up to the stage of written examination whereafter their names were enlisted in the merit list. They were also called for medical examination and the respondents have not disputed medical fitness of the petitioners. Stand taken by respondents is that marks obtained by the petitioners were found lower than the last selected candidate in their respective categories and, therefore, the petitioners could not be finally selected. It is stated that out of the 18 petitioners 15 had submitted their applications before the Group Centre at Guwahati and 3 before the Group Centre at Khatkhati. The particulars of the petitioners and the marks obtained by them are as under:-
WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 8 of 12
Petitioners who appeared before the Group Centre, Guwahati.
Sl. Name of candidate & Father's name Allotted Roll No. CAT Total Marks
No. obtained
1. Ashok Kumar Rabha, 2130100160 ST 39
S/o Dharani Rabha
2. Rafiqul Islam, 2130105291 ST 39
S/o Mojaffar Hussain
3. Kamal Rabha, 2130105343 ST 37
S/o Indra Rabha
4. Samsul Ao, 2130105294 ST 38
S/o Limchun Ao
5. Biju Rabha, 2130100756 ST 37
S/o Rameswar Rabha
6. Biplab Rabha, 3130102209 ST 41
S/o Pushpa Rabha
7. Dipmoni Deka, 3130100053 OBC 35
S/o Uruka Deka
8. Jiban Chandra Rabha, 2130104307 ST 37
S/o Tuni Ram Rabha
9. Parmeswar Rabha, 2130104319 ST 36
S/o Lt. Dharani Rabha
10. Narat Brahma, 2130104629 ST 36
S/o Manindra Brahma
11. Nijwan Brahma, 2130104881 ST 36
S/o Ranendra Brahma
12. Mopidur Rehman 4130104046 GEN 37
S/o Ajijur Haque
13. Albert Borgoyary, 2130104636 ST 39
S/o Uttam Borgoyary
14. Manoj Kumar Brahma, 2130104887 ST 38
S/o Kalicharan Brahma
15. Dhiraj Rabha, 2130104568 ST 39
S/o Keshab Rabha
Petitioners who appeared before the Group Centre, Khatkhati:-
Sl. Roll No. & Name of the Category Marks Marks obtained by No. candidate obtained by the last candidate the petitioner of that category in in Written the merit list (Last Examination Cut off Mark) 01. Janmoni Bangthai, (Roll ST 40 41 No. 2090102936) WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 9 of 12 02. Jayanta Kumar Nath, OBC 36 36 (Roll No. 3090102909) 03. Jayanta Nath, (Roll No. OBC 36 36 3090102908)
12. Respondents have further stated that the marks obtained by the last selected candidate belonging to various categories are as under:-
Sl No. Category Cut-off marks
01. General 41 marks and above
02. OBC 36 marks and above
03. SC 37 marks and above
04. ST 41 marks and above
13. From the above, it is evident that none of the petitioners could secure more or equal marks than the last selected candidate in their respective category except petitioner No. 6 Sri Biplab Rabha, petitioner No. 17 Sri Jayanta Kumar Nath and petitioner No. 18 Sri Jayanta Nath. This has been explained by the learned Central Government Counsel by saying that Sri Biplab Rabha and Sri Bakul Daimari, both belonging to the ST category, had secured 41 marks. Under the rules of recruitment, the candidate with older age will be placed higher in merit list in case of a tie in marks. In general instruction 3 (viii) appended to the advertisement which deals with merit list, it is provided that merit list in each category will be prepared separately in respect of each State on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the written test. In case of tie in marks, the candidate with older age will be placed higher in the merit list. Date of WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 10 of 12 birth of Sri Biplab Rabha is 31.12.1991 whereas date of birth of Sri Bakul Daimari is 31.01.1986. Being older in age, Sri Bakul Doimari was preferred over Sri Biplab Rabha. Similarly, in the OBC category, the last selected candidate Sri Kiran Ray secured 36 marks and his date of birth is 15.02.1987 whereas dates of birth of petitioner Nos. 17 and 18 are 30.01.1989 and 28.02.1988 respectively. Being senior, Sri Kiran Ray was preferred over petitioner Nos. 17 and 18.
14. Though in the rules of recruitment, it was mentioned that the minimum cut off marks for candidates belonging to the General/Ex- Servicemen is 35% and for SC/ST/OBC is 33%, in the understanding of the Court, the said cut off marks are the minimum bench marks which a candidate must secure for being enlisted in the merit list. Securing lesser marks than the minimum cut off marks prescribed will disentitle a candidate from being placed in the merit list. Candidates securing the minimum cut off marks prescribed and above will come within the zone of consideration.
15. Having crossed the minimum cut off marks, final selection will depend on the number of vacancies and the number of candidates securing the minimum cut off marks and above. Therefore, merely because a candidate secures the minimum cut off marks as prescribed in the rules of recruitment, it would not ipso facto enable him or her to claim WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 11 of 12 appointment. As pointed out above, the fixation of minimum cut off marks is in the form of minimum bench marks which a successful candidate will have to obtain. After crossing the bench marks so fixed, final selection will depend on the various factors, as discussed above, such as the number of vacancies vis a vis the number of enlisted candidates. If the number of enlisted candidates is in excess of the vacancies earmarked for the particular category, the vacancies will have to be filled as per merit. Therefore, contention of Mr. Medhi that there was a change in the rules of selection after the recruitment process commenced does not appear to be correct. Reliance placed on Hem ani M alhotra (supra) is therefore misplaced.
16. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. No cost.
JUDGE Aparna WP(C) No. 2125 of 2011 Page 12 of 12