Delhi High Court
Jaibir Singh vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 March, 2018
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2525/2017
JAIBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Dhankar and
Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
ORDER
% 14.03.2018
1. This order is in continuation of the order dated 05.2.2018, on which
date, learned counsel for the respondents had produced the original record to
substantiate her submission that the petitioner herein could not be recruited
as a Ct. (GD) in CAPFs-2012 for the reasons that he had obtained 83 marks
in the „unreserved category‟ from the General Area of Haryana (Code-13)
whereas the marks of the last selected candidate from the State of Haryana
in all the CAPFs reflected that in the Assam Rifles, the marks of the last
candidate from the „un-reserved category‟ from the State of Haryana was
fixed at 83. When the petitioner had cleared his Review Medical Board, he
was considered for appointment in the Assam Rifles but it turned out that by
then, there were no vacancies in the said Force for offering an appointment
to the petitioner from the State of Haryana.
2. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the marks of the last selected „un-reserved category‟ candidate from the
State of Haryana in the Assam Rifles was not 83, but lower and further,
having regard to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
another candidate, namely, Rajesh having Roll No.22201576048 was
selected by the respondents though the marks secured by him in the written
examination was same as secured by the petitioner i.e, 83 marks, the
respondents were directed to clarify the aforesaid position by filing an
affidavit.
3. Ms. Arora, learned counsel for the respondents submits that an
additional affidavit has been filed in compliance with the directions issued
on 05.2.2018, where it has been clarified in para 4 that the marks of the last
selected candidates in all categories for all the CAPFs for the General Area
of Haryana (Code-13) in the „un-reserved category‟ were 86 for BSF, 88 for
CISF, 85 for CRPF, 86 for SSB, 84 for ITBP and 83 for Assam Rifles.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents clarifies that the petitioner had
submitted only a single post preference option "C" i.e., CRPF in his
application form and the cut off marks for the post preference „C‟ in the „un-
reserved category‟ was 85 marks from the State of Haryana in the Select
List. Since the petitioner had secured 83 marks, which was less than the last
selected candidate belonging to the same category and State, he could not be
selected for the said post. She submits that the despite the same, the
candidature of the petitioner was considered in the Reserved List-1 and
Reserved List-2, but he could not be selected in the said lists also for the
reason that no vacancies for „un-reserved category‟ under the State of
Haryana were left to be filled up as till then, all the vacancies pertaining to
State of Haryana (Code-13), had already been filled up through the Select
List and Reserve List, updated on 17.10.2012.
5. As for the claim of the petitioner that another „un-reserved‟ candidate
from the General Area of the State of Haryana, namely, Mr. Rajesh, was
selected for Assam Rifles though the marks secured by him were the same
as secured by the petitioner, i.e. 83 marks. Learned counsel for the
respondents submits that it has been clarified in the additional affidavit that
unlike the petitioner, the aforesaid candidate had opted for all the posts
preferences i.e., all the CAPFs and therefore, his candidature was considered
in the Select List against all the posts preference and he was selected for
preference „F‟ i.e., Assam Rifles on merits, as he had secured 83 marks,
which was the marks secured by the last selected candidate.
6. In view of the averments made by the respondents in the counter
affidavit and the clarifications furnished by the respondents subsequently in
the additional affidavit, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not
entitled to any relief.
7. The petition is accordingly dismissed.
HIMA KOHLI, J
PRATIBHA RANI, J
MARCH 14, 2018
ap/rkb
