Allahabad High Court
Ayush Kumar And 7 Others vs Union Of India And 2 Others on 18 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 ALL 754
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2220 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ayush Kumar and 7 others Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dhurva Kant Chaturvedi Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Dhruva Kant Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the Staff Selection Commission.
Present writ petition is preferred seeking following reliefs:-
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents specially the respondent no.3, Assistant Director (Legal) Staff Selection Commission (C.R.) Department of Personnel and Training) 21-23, Lowther Road, Prayagraj Pin-211002 to send the petitioners being qualified candidates in written test, physical test and medical examination to complete their training for the post of Constable (G.D.) in any unit of BSF, CISF, CRPF, SSB, ITBP or Assam Rifles against the vacant posts under Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination-2018 dated 21.07.2018.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3, Assistant Director (Legal) Staff Selection Commission (C.R.) Department of Personnel and Training) 21-23, Lowther Road, Prayagraj Pin-211002 to publish a list of petitioners being qualified candidates in written test, physical test and medical examination for the post of Constable (G.D.) in any unit of BSF, CISF, CRPF, SSB, ITBP or Assam Rifles against the vacant posts under Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination-2018 dated 21.07.2018."
The matter was taken up on 10.2.2021 and the Court had directed to learned counsel appearing for the respondents to seek necessary instructions in the matter.
When the matter is taken up today, Shri Dhruva Kant Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents has placed the detailed instructions dated 16.3.2021, wherein it has been stated that the Staff Selection Commission published an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Constable in CAPFs, NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination, 2018. The final result of the said examination was declared on 21.01.2021 and also published write up of the final result containing details of marks obtained by the last selected candidates i.e. State-wise, CAPF-wise, Category-wise, Area-wise, allocation of force to the recommended candidates etc. The petitioners have also appeared in the said examination. However, their names could not find place in the list of finally recommended candidates due to less marks than the marks obtained by the last selected candidates (cut of marks) of their respective category and respective State. All the general area vacancies earmarked for State of Uttar Pradesh in UR & SC category have already been filled up with the eligible candidates, who have scored more marks than the petitioners in their respective category. The petitioners failed to find place in the list of recommended candidates due to low merit as marks obtained by the petitioners were less than the marks obtained by the last selected candidates (cut of marks) of their respective category in their respective State. The instruction is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that in similar circumstance, learned Single Judge of this Court had proceeded to dispose of Writ A No.11917 of 2019 (Dharmendra Kumar and 5 others vs. Union of India and 2 others) alongwith several other writ petitions, on 20.8.2019 with certain directions. The same was subjected to challenge in Special Appeal Defective No.962 of 2018 (Vinay Kumar Singh and 360 others vs. Union of India and 2 others) connected with 17 other appeals and a Division Bench of this Court vide order 12.10.2020 had dismissed the aforesaid appeals with following observations:-
"The learned Senior Counsel is fair to admit that merit list was drawn unit/region wise but the argument is that if vacant posts remain in one unit or the region, the respondents were under obligation to divert the post so that no vacancies remain. In that regard, the figure of vacant post has been given but we find that in the light of the Government Order quoted above, the diversion of the posts was not permissible for the vacancies of North-East region, Jammu and Kashmir, Naxal and Militancy affected areas.
In the light of the Government decision, petitioner-appellants cannot claim diversion of the posts as a right. It is more so when it was not so provided in the advertisement so as to claim it as a matter of right. Diversion of posts from one unit to another was not for North-East region, Jammu and Kashmir, Naxal and Militancy affected areas.
Accordingly, if the petitioner-appellants were not adjudged against the vacant post of those areas, no illegality was committed by the non-appellants.
The issue now remains regarding bifurcation of the posts on its increase. Senior Counsel submits after the increase of the posts from 42,000 to 72,309 posts, bifurcation of post of different unit/regions was not made and accordingly, the suitability of the petitioner-appellants should have been adjudged against the increased posts.
As against the aforesaid, the counsel for the respondents has clarified that after initial advertisement, posts were increased based on the information about vacant post sent by different units/regions. Taking into consideration the vacancies in different units and organizations, the merit list was drawn with cut-off marks. The non-appellants were having details of the vacancies of different regions. The recruitment by Regional Centre of Commission Allahabad was limited to statue of Bihar and U.P. with State code 5 and for State of U.P. the code was 33. The petitioner-appellants applied to the vacancies notified by the Commission at Allahabad. It was not including the post for Naxal and Militancy affected area. The posts were diverted for other States but was not permitted for Jammu & Kasmir, North-East region, Naxal and Militancy affected area where only it remains vacant.
Accordingly, the petitioner-appellants have no right to seek appointment against the post remained vacant in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, North-East region, apart from the Naxal and Militancy affected areas. The denial of appointment to the petitioner-appellants in those areas cannot said to be illegal. It is settled preposition of law that mere standing in the merit or remaining successful in the recruitment does not give right to seek appointment. In this case petitioner was not even coming in merit.
No discrimination or illegality has been committed by the respondents in not filling of the post under different Commissions. The issue in that regard has been addressed by the learned Single Judge.
It is even in reference to 28,044 posts remained vacant. The post meant for Naxal and Militancy affected areas were separate even for the State of U.P. and not open for diversion to seek appointment.
Accordingly, the right claimed by the petitioner-appellants for the appointment on certain posts in the Naxal or Militancy affected ares in the State of U.P. cannot be accepted. Those posts were separately identified and notified hence right cannot be claimed unless an application for appointment in those areas would have been made. The posts were not otherwise diversable in the light of the order of the Government of India.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid, we do no find any reason to cause interference in the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge and accordingly all the appeals fail and are dismissed with no order as to costs."
In the facts and circumstances the Court is not inclined to proceed further in the matter.
The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.3.2021 RKP