Relaxation of physical standards for candidates from reserved categories does not disentitle them from being considered on their own merit under the General Category quota.

JUDGMENT :

S. Muralidhar, J.

The challenge in this petition is to Notification No. 45013/9/2009-Pers.I, dated 6th December, 2017 published by the Ministry of Home Affairs ("MHA"), Government of India, setting out the rules for the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination ("LDCE") to be held by the Union Public Service Commission ("UPSC") (Respondent No.2) for the purposes of filling up vacancies to the post of Assistant Commandants (Executive) ["AC (E)"] in the Central Industrial Security Force ("CISF") for the year 2018.

2. The Petitioner also challenges the final list dated 25th July, 2018 of recommended candidates and seeks a consequential direction to the Respondents to place the Petitioner in the rank below the General Category ("GC").

3. At the first hearing on 24th September 2018, while directing notice to be issued in the petition, the Court directed impleadment of the candidate at serial number 29 of the final list of qualified candidates for the post of AC (E) as a co-Respondent.

4. The brief facts are that the Petitioner was appointed in the CISF as Sub-Inspector on 8th December, 2010. He undertook mandatory basic training at NISA, Hyderabad. The Petitioner was then posted at VSSC, Thumba on 19th January, 2012. At the time of filing the present petition, he was on deputation with NDRF and posted at 4th Battalion, NDRF, Arakkonam, while being attached at NDRF HQ, Delhi.

5. The Petitioner sat for the LDCE for the post of AC (E) in the GC and cleared the written examination in the year 2018. The Department of Personnel & Training ("DoPT") issued an Office Memorandum ("OM") dated 4th April, 2018 stating, inter alia, that the reserved category candidates who were selected on the same standard as applied to the GC candidates will not be adjusted against the reserved vacancies.

6. Soon after the written examination, the successful candidates were called for a physical test. The Petitioner was one such candidate. Thereafter, the personality test (interview) was notified on 27th June, 2018. When the final results were announced on 25th July, 2018, the Petitioner did not qualify.

7. The Petitioner protested against the selection of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who belonged to the Scheduled Tribe ("ST") category, but were appointed against the GC vacancy. His objection was that the minimum height for a GC and SC candidate was 165 cm, whereas for an ST candidate, it was 162.5 cm. It was contended by the Petitioner that if an individual claimed any relaxation under any reserved category, he could not be considered in the GC. In effect, the attempt of the Petitioner was to show that selection of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the GC was invalid and the Petitioner being next in the line of consideration must then get the post.

8. It must be noticed here that while issuing notice in the present petition on 24th September, 2018, the Court directed that the appointment of Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 would be subject to the outcome of the present petition.

9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is pointed out that as per the recruitment rules notified on 17th February 2009, the method of recruitment for the post of AC ( E) in the CISF were as under:

"(a) 33% by promotion.

(b) 17% by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for Central Industrial Security Force conducted by Union Public Service Commission, failing which by promotion.

(c) 02% by absorption from Public Sector Undertakings where Central Industrial Security Force is inducted, failing which by direct recruitment.

(d) 48% by direct recruitment through Central Police Forces (Assistant Commandants) Examination conducted by Union Public Service Commission (including 10% for Ex-Servicemen or Short Service Commissioned Officers)."

10. By a notification dated 6th December, 2017, the MHA issued the impugned instructions regarding the filling up of 29 vacancies of AC (E) in the CISF under the LDCE quota. 23 vacancies were in the GC, 4 in the SC and 2 in the ST.