Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8483 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And 2 Ors on 12 November, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010038742021




                                                                 2025:GAU-AS:15282

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                               Case No. : WP(C)/1451/2021

            RULI PATHAK AND ANR
            D/O- NAKUL PATHAK, VILL- CHENGAHIRAPARA, P.O. CHENGA, DIST.-
            BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN- 781305

            2: PARASH DAS
             S/O- SHRI HITEN DAS
            VILL AND P.O.- CHENGA
             DIST.- BARPETA
            ASSAM
             PIN- 78130

            VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
            REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
            HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001

            2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
             REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
             BLOCK- 12 CGO COMPLEX
             LODHI ROAD
             NEW DELHI
             PIN- 110003

            3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER)
             STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
             HOUSEFED COMPLEX
             LAST GATE - BASISTHA ROAD
             P.O.- ASSAM SACHIVALAYA
             DISPUR
             GHY
            ASSAM- 78100

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. B PATHAK, MR B HAZARIKA,MR. R THADANI,MR V
                                                                          Page No.# 2/6

KUMAR

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I., MR H GUPTA (R-1,2,3)



                                    :::BEFORE:::
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

                                   JUDGMENT (ORAL)

12.11.2025

Heard Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the final selection list dated 21.01.2021, published pursuant to the Notice dated 21.07.2018 by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for recruitment to various posts of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF).

3. Initially, the writ petition was filed by two petitioners, namely, the present petitioner and one Shri Parash Das. However, during the pendency of this proceedings, the name of petitioner No. 2, Shri Parash Das, has been struck off from the array of petitioners.

4. The short issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, who admittedly secured marks below the prescribed qualifying/cut-off, could be selected and appointed in view of Note-II under Sl. No. 2 of the recruitment Notice dated 21.07.2018, which provides that 10% of the vacancies are Page No.# 3/6

earmarked for Ex-Servicemen and if suitable Ex-Servicemen candidates are not available, such vacancies shall be filled by non-Ex-Servicemen candidates of the respective categories.

5. The petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste candidate, has applied for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPF, pursuant to the aforesaid recruitment notice dated 21.07.2018. The petitioner has appeared in the recruitment test; however, her name did not appear in the final selection list published on 21.01.2021.

6. Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner has participated in the recruitment process and secured total marks of 34.70105 and in view of the available vacancies in the CAPF and the provision in Note-II of Sl. No. 2 of recruitment Notice dated 21.07.2018, the petitioner ought to have been considered and selected for appointment to the post of Constable (GD). He submits that the Note-II appended to Sl. No. 2 for vacancies and reservation of the recruitment Notice clearly provides that 10% vacancies are earmarked for Ex-Servicemen and in case of non-availability of suitable Ex- Servicemen candidates, vacancies reserved for Ex-Servicemen would be filed by non-Ex-Servicemen candidates of respective categories. There are many vacancies remain unfilled and the petitioner having been secured 34.70105, she could have been selected and appointed as Constable (GD) in Border Security Force (BSF), Assam Rifles or Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).

7. Per contra, Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC for the respondents, submits that since the petitioner has obtained marks less than the last selected candidates of Page No.# 4/6

Scheduled Caste (Female) category, she was not selected. The petitioner herself admitted that she has secured only 34.70105 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in the Scheduled Caste (Female) category has obtained 36.32473. He submits that Note-II of Sl. No. 2 of the recruitment Notice dated 21.07.2018 provides for 10% vacancies for the Ex-Servicemen and if no suitable Ex- Servicemen candidates are available, same can be filled up by non-Ex- Servicemen candidates of other categories. However, for filling up of 10% vacancies earmarked for Ex-Servicemen, one has to secured the prescribed qualifying/cut-off marks. Moreover, all the advertised posts have been duly filled up and the unfilled vacancies, if any, have already been carried forward to the next recruitment process. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim for selection or appointment and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record.

9. Pursuant to the Notice dated 21.07.2018, issued by the Staff Selection Commission, for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in the Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Secretariat Security Force (SSF) and rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles as per the recruitment scheme formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the relevant Memorandum, the petitioner has applied and participated for the post of Constable (GD). Admittedly, the petitioner has secured a total mark of 34.70105, whereas the cut off marks for selection and appointment for the post of Constable (GD) in Page No.# 5/6

CAPF and Riflemen in Assam Rifles is 36.32473. Consequently, in the final result notification dated 21.01.2021 issued by the Staff Selection Commission, the name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of selected candidates.

10. The recruitment Notice dated 21.07.2018 indeed provides that 10% of the vacancies are earmarked for Ex-Servicemen and in the event of non-availability of suitable Ex-Servicemen candidates, such vacancies shall be filled up by non- Ex-Servicemen candidates of respective categories. The petitioner appears to be from other category as she belongs to Scheduled Caste of Assam.

11. Record reveals that the recruitment process, including the declaration of merit list of selected candidates of all the categories for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPF's and the Riflemen in Assam Rifles, was conducted by the Staff Selection Commission in a fair and transparent manner. Since the petitioner failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks, having obtained 34.70105 marks as against the prescribed cut-off marks of 36.32473 for the candidates of Scheduled Caste (Female) category, it is clearly seen that she could not be selected in the merit list for the post of Constable (GD) in the CAPF.

12. Regarding being had to the vacancies and reservation wherein 10% vacancies were earmarked for Ex-Servicemen and in case of non-availability of suitable candidates from the Ex-Servicemen category, same can be filled up by Non-Ex-Servicemen candidates from other categories, it is seen that same could be filled from those candidates who would qualify or secure the cut-off marks. As noted above, the petitioner, having been secured only 34.70105, which is less than the cut off marks, she cannot be treated as a qualified candidate for Page No.# 6/6

consideration, even if Ex-Servicemen vacancies remained unfilled. That apart, the respondents have categorically stated that all advertised posts have been filled up and any remaining unfilled vacancies have been carried forward to the next recruitment process.

13. Considering above, the claim of the petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in CAPF, in my view cannot be accepted as the petitioner is not qualified to be selected and appointed having been scored less than the cut off marks. More so, the post having been filled up and unfilled vacancies having been already carried forward to next recruitment process, no relief can be granted to the petitioner.

14. In view of above, I am of the considered view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner for selection or appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in terms of the notice of recruitment issued by the Staff Selection Commission dated 21.07.2018. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost(s).

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant