Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6763 of 2021 Petitioner :- Pradhuman Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Arun Kumar Pal
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
This Court vide order dated 06.07.2021 had granted a week's time to learned A.S.G. to seek instructions in the matter. On the next date on 14.07.2021, no one appeared on behalf of the Union - respondents. On 22.07.2021, this Court had directed that the matter be placed on 12.08.2021 in the additional cause list at top of the list for final hearing. On 12.08.2021, this Court had granted one week and no more time to file counter affidavit.
Despite several opportunities as granted, no one has appeared on behalf of Union - respondents, nor any counter affidavit has been filed, as such this Court has no other option but to proceed further on the basis of averments made in the writ petition against the respondents.
The present writ petition alleges that the advertisement dated 21.07.2018 was issued inviting the applications for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in Assam Rifles, BSF, CISF, DRPF, ITBP and SSB. In terms of the advertisement, the petitioner being desirous of appointment applied under the OBC category.
The application form clearly discloses that the petitioner had applied under the OBC category and was awarded Roll Number also. The petitioner claims that written examination was held on 21.02.2019 and the result thereof was declared in September, 2019. As the name of the petitioner was appeared in the select list, he was qualified the physical examination and he was declared qualified. The petitioner claims that he also qualified the medical examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was finally selected and marks awarded to the petitioner were 67.37 marks (after normalization), whereas the last cut-off marks under the OBC category was 66.70 as is clear from perusal of Annexure No.7.
The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having obtained more marks than the candidate who was the last in the cut-off marks for OBC candidate, the name of the petitioner was not included in the final select list, which has led to the filing of the present writ petition.
The merit list (Annexure No.7) clearly shows that marks obtained by the selected candidate under the OBC category being 66.70528, whereas, the marks finally scored by the petitioner, and as filed as Annexure No.8, are 67.37175. Thus, on the face of it, non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner is prima facie arbitrary.
In view of the fact that cut-off marks obtained by the petitioner are more than the last cut-off marks obtained by the selected candidate under the OBC category, the petition deserves to be allowed. The respondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner in the select list on the basis of marks obtained by the petitioner. As the select list has already been forwarded for appointment, it is directed that the name of the petitioner shall also be considered as a selected candidate by the respondent no.1.
The said exercise shall be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of a copy of this order before respondent no.1.
The Court deprecates the casual manner of the respondents, who are absent and failed to assist the Court, when the matter was taken up in the revised list.
The writ petition stands allowed, in terms of the said order.
Order Date :- 24.8.2021 Atul