Allahabad High Court
Yogendra Kumar vs Union Of India & Others on 29 October, 2013
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Reserved on 17.09.2013
Delivered on 29.10.2013
Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18697 of 2012
Petitioner :- Yogendra Kumar
Respondent :- Union Of India & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh, Ajay Parkash
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,B.S.Dwivedi,V S Dwivedi
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner, and Sri K.J. Shukla, learned counsel appearing of respondent-Union of India in Connected Writ Petition No. 3283 of 2012. None appeared in this case despite having been called in revised. I have also perused the record.
2. Since the pleadings are complete, as requested by learned Counsels for parties, I proceed to hear and decide this case under the Rules of the Court, at this stage
3. Petitioner has assailed selection and final result of successful candidates declared by Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as "SSC") for appointment to the post of Constable (G.D.) in various Para-Military Forces like, Border Security Force (in short "BSF"), Central Industrial Security Force (in short "CISF"), Central Reserve Police Force (in short "CRPF"), Sashastra Sima Bal (in short "SSB"), for which advertisement was published in Employment News dated 5.2.2011. The grievance of petitioner is that he applied for CRPF. He is a reserved category candidate, and claimed benefit against vacancies reserved for Other Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as "OBC"). Petitioner had secured 61 marks. While another candidate securing 61 marks has been declared qualified and selected but not the petitioner, hence selection made by respondents is illegal.
4. Respondents have filed counter affidavit. It is not disputed therein that petitioner has secured 18 marks in part-A and 61 in total, yet has failed to find place in select list. The reason assigned is that there is a tie and when more than one candidate have secured same marks, manner in which tie candidates shall be dealt with, are already provided in the advertisement, which reads as under:
"11. RESOLUTION OF TIE CASES
(a) The tie is resolved by the Commission by referring to the marks in Part A of the written paper i.e. a candidate having more marks in Part A is given preference.
(b) If the tie still persists, the candidate older in age gets preference.
(c) If the tie still persists, it is finally resolved by referring to the alphabetical order of names, i.e. a candidate whose name begins with the alphabet which comes first in the alphabetical order gets preference."
5. Para 11 (a) of the instructions shows that in case of tie, the candidate securing higher marks in Part-A of written paper shall be preferred. In case, in Part-A also, more than one candidates have secured same marks, then the candidate older in age would get preference. If even the age component is same, the last way of resolving such cases is by referring candidates in alphabetical order and the candidate whose name comes first, in alphabetical order, would be given preference. It is said that the other candidates whose total marks tie with petitioner, but declared successful, have secured more marks in Part-A and, therefore, petitioner could not be given a place, in the select list. The reply contained in para 10 of the counter affidavit reads as under:
"10. That the petitioner as per the results available on website, has scored 18 marks in Part ''A' and 61 in total. However, he failed to find place in the final select list because, the total marks obtained by Shri Yogendra Kumar is 61 with 18 marks in Part-A. The post preference opted by the petitioner is ''C' i.e. CRPF and his category is OBC for which total of 336 candidates were selected in OBC category in State code (33) in CRPF with marks of last selected candidate being 61 i.e. Shri Sunil Kumar, Roll No. 3011000776 whose marks in part A of written examination is 20. It is further submitted that in reserved list, for CRPF in OBC category, total of 447 candidate were selected with marks of last selected candidates being 61 (Marks of Shri Narendra, Roll No. 2406504900 in written part is 61 and marks in Part A is 19). In view of the method adopted for resolving the tie-criteria, Shri Yogedra Kumar could not be selected as his marks in part-A was less than the other selected candidates both in select list & reserve list. It is further submitted that marks of the candidate appeared in written examination with marks obtained in Part-A has already been posted on the website ssc.nic.in of the SSCs Headquarters."
6. In the rejoinder affidavit, nothing substantial has been said on this aspect. The procedure which SSC has disclosed for dealing tie cases, i.e. the manner provided in instruction number 11, has not been challenged as arbitrary or illegal. In absence of such challenge, this Court has to consider the process of selection applied by the respondents in the manner in which the guidelines/instructions have been made known to all the candidates and everything has been dealt with in the same and uniform manner.
7. Since petitioner's case is of tie and his non selection vis-à-vis those who are selected is founded on an intelligible criteria, I neither find any irregularity in non selection of petitioner nor any deficiency in this context in final result declared by respondents.
8. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is bound to fail. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.
Dt. 29.10.2013
PS
