Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 21 July, 2022
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010076952021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/811/2021
MUKTI NATH RABHA AND 10 ORS
S/O LATE GUNINDRA RABHA
R/O VILL. BARJHARA NO. 1
P.O. BARJHARA NO. 1
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN 783120
2: DIPAK KUMAR NATH
S/O SRI MANGLESWAR NATH
R/O VILL. GENDRABIL
P.O. BORO GENDRABIL
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN 783370
3: BIPLAB BARMAN
S/O SRI NAGEN BARMAN
R/O VILL. BHELAKOBA NO. 1
P.O. SAPATGRAM
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN 783337
4: RAJIB DAS
S/O SRI JITENDRA DAS
R/O VILL. BAGRIGURI
P.O. CHITHILA
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/6
PIN 783354
5: PRASENJIT DAS
S/O SRI KHAGEN CH. DAS
R/O VILL. SATBIL
P.O. BINYAKHATA
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN 783336
6: KANISHKA NATH
S/O GOBINDA NATH
R/O VILL. GENDRABIL
P.O. BORO GENDRABIL
DIST.KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN 783370
7: BUDHIMONTA NATH
S/O SRI BIMAL CH. NATH
R/O VILL. JOYDEVPUR
P.O. DHANPUR
DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM
PIN 783337
8: KRISHNA PADA ROY
S/O ANIL CH. ROY
R/O VILL. ASHARIKANDI
P.O. KARTIMARI
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN 783337
9: ASHOK ROY
S/O SRI ANIL CH. ROY
R/O VILL. ASHARIKANDI
P.O. KARTIMARI
DIST. KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN 783337
10: PRITAM RABHA
Page No.# 3/6
KAMALESWAR RABHA
R/O VILL. MOJAIPARA
P.O. DWRAKA
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN 783120
11: MADHURI RABHA
D/O SRI NIRMAL RABHA
R/O VILL. DARAPARA
P.O. CHOTOMATI
DIST. GOALPARA
ASSAM
PIN 783126
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
THE DEPTT. OF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
NORTH BLOCK
CENTRAL SECRETARIAT
NEW DELHI
PIN 110001
AND IT IS REPRESENTED BY THE SECY.
GOVT. OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS.
2:THE CHAIRMAN
THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
BLOCK NO. 12
4TH FLOOR
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI 110003
3:THE UNDER SECY.
THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
BLOCK NO. 12
4TH FLOOR
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI 110003
4:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
THE NORTH EAST REGION OF INDIA
THE REGIONAL OFFICE AT DISPUR
Page No.# 4/6
HOUSEFED COMPLEX
WIRELESS
GUWAHATI 06
DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM 781006
5:DIRECTOR GENERAL
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF)
NEW DELHI.
------------
Advocate for : MR. L K BORAH
Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
21.07.2022
Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mrs. R.
Devi, learned CGC for all the respondents.
2. The case in brief is that the petitioners had taken part in the selection process
for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces in
pursuant to the Advertisement dated 21.07.2018. Though the petitioners were
reserved category candidates, they had secured more marks than some of the selected
general category candidates in the selection process. However, appointment orders
were not issued to the petitioners, on the ground that they had availed of the chest
and height relaxation prescribed for all candidates for the State of Assam. As such, the
stand of the respondents was that the petitioners could have been considered only for
the reserved category posts and not for the general category posts.
3. The petitioners counsel has relied upon the Judgment & Order dated 07.06.2022
passed in WP(C) No. 1684/2021 'Dibyajyoti Pathori & Anr. Vs. Union of India & 8 Ors.'
wherein, this Court has held that the relaxation in qualifying standard availed by the
reserved category candidates shall not disentitle them for consideration against general
category posts, if they have secured more marks than the general category candidates.
He has also relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Delhi High Court in
Page No.# 5/6
Hemant Pokhriyal Vs. Staff Selection Commission & Ors., WP(C) No. 4982/2021
decided on 01.10.2021, which has been implemented by the State respondents and
the Judgment dated 07.12.2021 passed by the Tripura High Court in WP(C) No.
117/2021 etc. 'Arpan Chowdhury Vs. Union of India & Ors.', which are to the same
effect as the judgment & order dated 07.06.2022 passed in WP(C) No. 1684/2021.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the present case is a
covered case, the petitioners who have secured more marks than the last selected
general category candidate, should be given appointment orders in the 11 posts of
Constable (GD), that have been kept vacant pursuant to the interim order dated
10.02.2021 passed by this Court.
5. Mrs. R. Devi, learned CGC fairly submits that the present case is a covered case
and that the petitioners can be appointed against general category posts, provided
their marks are higher than the last selected general category candidate. She however
submits that the petitioner Nos. 1 & 5 cannot be appointed to general category posts
in view of the fact that they have availed age relaxation, which was applicable only to
reserved candidates. She also submits that the petitioner No. 11 cannot be appointed
to a general category post, as she secured less marks than the last selected general
category candidate.
6. Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage submits that
the petitioner Nos. 1 & 5 may be allowed to withdraw from the present writ petition,
with liberty being given to them to file a fresh writ petition.
7. On considering the submissions made by the counsels for the parties, and on
perusing the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, this
Court finds that the present case is a covered case. Accordingly, this Court is of the
view that the relaxation in height and chest availed by the petitioners, cannot disentitle
them for consideration against general category vacancies, if they had secured more
marks than the last selected general category candidates.
8. Accordingly, in view of the fact that 11 posts of Constable (GD) had been
directed to be kept vacant vide interim order dated 10.02.2021, the State respondents
Page No.# 6/6
are directed to issue necessary orders appointing the petitioners to the posts of
Constable (GD), except for the petitioner Nos. 1, 5 & 11. The appointment orders in
respect of the petitioners, except for the petitioner Nos. 1, 5 & 11, should be issued
within a period of 1 (one) month from today. Their seniority should be counted as per
their merit position in the selection process.
9. The prayer of the counsel for the petitioners for withdrawal of the petitioner
Nos. 1, 5 & 11 from the present writ petition is allowed and the prayer for filing a fresh
writ petition on behalf of the petitioner Nos. 1 & 5 is allowed.
10. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
