WRIT PETITION 1155/2008 on 5 January 1984

WP(C) 1155/2008BEFOREHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

Heard MR. K.K. Parasar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. D. Barua, the learned Central Govt. Counsel appears for the respondents.2.The petitioner offered his candidature for the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF by responding to the advertisement No.1/2006 (page.14). But claiming unfair denial of appointment, the candidate has approached the High Court.

3. The recruitment process in the instant case was started for 1115 vacancies and the applicants were subjected to written test, physical test, medical test and viva-voce test. For the available 608 general category posts, 584 candidates who scored more than 45 marks were appointed. For the balance 24 vacancies those who scored 44 marks were considered and the petitioner was one of those with 25 others, who scored 44 marks.

4. But as available posts were only 24 and 25 had secured, the cut off score of 44 marks the appointment of the 25 eligible candidates for the available 24posts was considered on the basis of their respective dates of birth.

5. In the counter affidavit filed on 22.04.2008, the Addl. DIG of the CRPF,Guwahati has indicated that 24 candidates whose birth dates ranged from 05.01.1984 to 03.02.1988 were appointed by following the yardstick of seniority of age. The 24th in the list i.e. Rekib Ahmed was born on 30.06.1988 and was older tothe petitioner with identical score of 44 marks. But the junior could not be accommodated for non-availability of the 25th post of CRPF (GD) Constable. 6.The petitioner does not contradict the averments made in the counter affidavit. Moreover, I find that the shortlisting of the candidates with identicalscore of 44 marks was done in a transparent manner on the basis of seniority and since limited vacancies were available, the petitioner had to be left out. This is found to be a fair process and no illegality is noticed in the adopted procedure.

7. Consequently, I do not see any merit in the petitioner’s claim and accordingly the case is dismissed without any order on costs. The Registry should segregate the records of the disposed of cases and dispatch them to the record room .