The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for a direction to be issued to the respondents to conduct the LDCE examination 2010 (Limited Department Competitive Examination) for promotion to the post of S.I. in the CISF afresh or to permit the petitioner to participate in the 'LDCE 2011' scheduled to be conducted on 24.04.2011 and for such other incidental reliefs.
2. The sequence of events reveals that the petitioner joined service as a constable in the CISF on 19.12.2003 and in the course of service as above, the petitioner acquired eligibility to participate in the 'LDCE - 2010', which was notified as per Ext. P1 dated 18.01.2010. But initially department refused permission to the petitioner stating that he had already undergone a 'minor punishment' in the year 2005. According to the petitioner the eligibility with reference to the ACR (Annual Confidential Report) had to be confined with reference to events of the last four years and as such, there was no rhyme or reason in having denied the opportunity. Met with the situation, the petitioner approached this Court by way of W.P(C) No.
28270 of 2010, wherein an interim order was passed on 15.09.2010, permitting the petitioner to participate in the examination. Subsequently, the petitioner sought to declare the result by filing I.A. No. 17734 of 2010, wherein Ext. P3 interim order was passed, directing the respondents to declare the result. Admittedly, the result was declared pointing out that the petitioner had failed in the second part (English language). Since no other relief was sought for in that writ petition, it was dismissed as infructuous.
3. The grievance projected in the present writ petition is that the course pursued by the respondents in conducting 'LDCE 2010' was not proper in so far as the total marks prescribed for Paper I as 200 and the total marks prescribed for Paper II as 50 were subsequently sought to be changed by the respondents fixing the total marks as 150 for paper I and 100 marks for Paper II. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner has approached this Court, projecting the grievance and seeking for a direction to conduct re-examination of LDCE 2010 or to permit the petitioner to participate in subsequent examination/LDCE 2011 notified as per Ext.P6.
4. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents resisting the relief sought for, particularly seeking to highlight the actual facts and figures. When the matter came up for consideration on 08.06.2011, an interim order was passed, whereby the petitioner was permitted to participate in the 'LDCE- 2011', provisionally, subject to the result of the writ petition. It is stated that the result is still to be published, which made the petitioner to file I.A No. 3769 of 2012, but because of the pendency of the matter, the result has not been published so far. As mentioned hereinbefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner contains an alternate prayer as well; either to conduct re- examination of LDCE 2010 or to permit the petitioner to participate in the subsequent examination. By virtue of the interim order dated 08.06.2011, the petitioner was permitted to participate in the subsequent examination, i.e. LDCE - 2011. Obviously, Ext. P3 interim order was passed, based on the orders passed by the Madras High Court in identical matters. If the result of the subsequent examination is not declared so far, it goes without saying that the proceedings have to be taken to a logical conclusion. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the petitioner has been reportedly inflicted with a minor punishment again, and if this be the position, it may have a bearing with regard to the fate of the petitioner. It is however pointed out that the petitioner is not in station, having been transferred to Assam/elsewhere.
5. Heard the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents as well.
6. After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondents to declare the results of the 'LDCE - 2011', participated by the petitioner pursuant to interim order dated 08.06.2011. It is open for the respondents to consider the eligibility of the petitioner to get qualified for selection, with reference to the subsequent developments as well, with regard to imposition of punishment, if any and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
kmd Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)