Petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Constable against Advertisement No. 1 of 2011. Though the result was declared in September, 2014 but the petitioner was not selected. Thus, aggrieved petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 65319 of 2014. A direction was issued to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation. It is pursuant to this direction that the order impugned has been passed, which records that the petitioner's candidature has been found provisional since he did not furnish O.B.C. Certificate on the prescribed format. This order of Chief Security Commissioner dated 02.06.2015 is challenged in the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if petitioner's claim in the category of OBC candidate is ignored, yet he was entitled to be appointed as the petitioner has secured marks above the cut-off marks prescribed for the unreserved category. This assertion of fact is not disputed by Sri Rajnish Kumar Rai, who appears for the respondent.
Attention of the Court has been invited to the two orders annexed along with the counter affidavit. The first order is Annexure-7 to the counter affidavit dated 05.09.2016, which records in the first para that the petitioner was declared medically unfit, and in the second paragraph it is, however, stated that the dossier of all the candidates were received in the office containing their medical certificate, which did not include the name of the petitioner. It is also recorded in this order that there is no procedure for intimating rejection of petitioner's candidature. The other document is dated 02.11.2016, which records that the petitioner was called for document verification at Jhansi but his papers were found doubtful and thereafter the petitioner did not appear for medical examination.
The stand taken by the respondents in the order impugned as also above mentioned two annexuers to the counter affidavit are mutually inconsistent. The order impugned in the writ petition records that petitioner's OBC Certificate is not in the prescribed format and that would not carry any weight in view of the admitted case of respondents that petitioner had secured marks above the cut-off fixed for unreserved category.
In that view of the matter, even if the petitioner's candidature in OBC category is denied, the petitioner will be entitled to consideration of his claim in the unreserved category. His marks in the unreserved category were admittedly above the cut-off. So far as holding of medical examination is concerned, the above two letters are absolutely contrary to each other. No report of the medical examination has, otherwise, been annexed. According to the petitioner, he did appear in the medical examination and was found fit.
In view of the inconsistent stand taken by the respondents, which is at variance from each other, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have not considered the petitioner's claim in accordance with law, as the petitioner had admittedly secured higher marks than the cut-off fixed for unreserved category. The respondents were required to offer consideration to petitioner's claim. Since this has not been done, the action of respondents in discarding petitioner's claim cannot be said to be justified. The order impugned dated 02.06.2015 is hereby quashed.
According, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
A direction is issued to the respondents to subject the petitioner to fresh medical examination and to consider his claim for appointment within a period of four months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order before him.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Pkb/