Gauhati High Court
Tilok Roy vs The Union Of India And 7 Ors on 19 October, 2022
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010204302022
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/6645/2022
TILOK ROY
S/O- MANOMOHAN ROY,
VILL- GHUNGHUNAKHATA,
P.O- FUTKIBARI, P.S- SAPATGRAM, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM,
PIN-783345, ROLL NO-5105083826
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 7 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-1
2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN
BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI
03.
3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
HOUSE FED COMPLEX
DISPUR
GHY-6.
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
BSF
BLOCK NO-10
CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD
Page No.# 2/5
NEW DELHI
03.
5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
SSB
5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG
EAST BLOCK
R.K PURAM
NEW DELHI-22
6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CRPF (RECRUITMENT)
EAST BLOCK-07
LEVEL 4
SECTOR-01
R.K PURAM
NEW DELHI-66
7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
ITBP
BLOCK NO IV
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI-03
8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
CISF
BLOCK NO. 13
CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI
03
Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED
Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.
Page No.# 3/5
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA
ORDER
Date : 19-10-2022
Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
S.K. Medhi, learned CGC appearing for all the respondents.
The case of the petitioner is that he took part in the selection process for
recruitment to the post of Constables (G.D) in the Central Armed Police Forces,
in pursuance to the advertisement dated 21.07.2018. Though the petitioner
belongs to the OBC category and had secured more marks than the last
selected general category candidate in the selection process, the petitioner was
not considered for appointment to a general category post.
The petitioner's counsel submits that the respondents did not consider the
case of the petitioner for appointment to a general category post, on the ground
that the petitioner has availed of the height relaxation prescribed for the
reserved category candidates for the State of Assam.
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 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
Page No.# 4/5
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.
1584/2021. He also submits that the above cases have been relied upon and
followed by this Court in its Order dated 11.08.2022 passed in WP(C)
3764/2021.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the present case is a
covered case, the petitioner, who had secured more marks than the last selected
general category candidate, should be appointed against the general category
post in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).
Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned CGC fairly submits that the present case is a covered
case and that the petitioner can be considered against any vacant general
category post, provided the marks of the petitioner is higher than the last
selected general category candidate. He however submits that the petitioner
appears to have been sitting on the fence, as the judgments and orders relied
upon the by the petitioner's counsel relates to cases, which had been filed in the
year 2021. The petitioner on the other hand, did not approach this Court earlier
and has only come to this Court after finding out that similarly situated persons
have been granted their prayer after approaching this Court at the earliest
instance.
On considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the
parties and on perusing the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, this Court finds that the present case is a covered matter.
Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the relaxation in height availed by the
Page No.# 5/5
petitioner cannot dis-entitle him for consideration for appointment against a
general category vacant post, provided he has secured more marks than the last
selected general category candidate.
In view of the reasons stated above, the respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for appointment in a vacant post of
Constables (G.D) in any Central Armed Police Forces, within a period of 3
(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after
verifying whether the petitioner had secured higher marks than the last selected
general category candidate.
The above being said, the submission made by the learned CGC has some
merit, inasmuch as, persons who have not approached this Court earlier can be
said to be sitting on the fence and could attempt to ride piggyback on the
orders passed in cases pertaining to similarly situated persons. As such, this
case should not be treated as a precedent in similar cases that might be filed
hereafter.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
