The level of performance for Ex-serviceman candidates should not be affected by relaxation of standards.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner seeks setting aside of the result declared on 06.04.2023 for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Assistant Commandant) Group - A, Gazetted (Combatised) (Non-Ministerial) and further seeks a direction to the respondents to declare the result for Ex-serviceman candidates with separate cut off at par with other reserved category candidates.

2. Respondents had issued an online detailed advertisement for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (Assistant Commandant). The total posts advertised were 20; 11 posts in the unreserved category, 2 posts in the economically weaker Section, 3 posts in OBC and 4 posts in SC. In the remarks, it was stated that ten percent of overall vacancies were reserved for Ex-serviceman. Vacancies were subsequently increased to 36 and accordingly, 4 posts were reserved for Ex-serviceman.

3. The advertisement specifically provided that that in case there was large number of applicants, respondent BSF shall hold a written examination of 2 hours consisting of multiple choice question of 100 marks to shortlist the candidates for interview stage. The qualifying marks in the written examination were declared to be 50% for Gen/OBC and 45% for SC/ST category candidates.

4. The petitioner applied for the said post, took the examination and scored 49% marks. Petitioner was declared as unsuccessful since he did not meet the cut off of 50%. Petitioner had applied in the vertical of the unreserved category, and in the horizontal of the Ex- servicemen category. The advertisement does not specify any different cut-off for Ex-serviceman category other than the cut off mentioned for the Gen/OBC category at 50% and SC/ST category at 45%. Since petitioner does not belong to either SC or the ST category, petitioner was required to obtain 50% marks to qualify in the written examination. Since petitioner did not score cut off of 50%, he was not shortlisted for future participation in the selection process.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 6A of Ex Serviceman (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, which reads as under:

"6A. Lower Standard for Selection

In the case of direct recruitment, if sufficient number of candidates belonging to the ex-servicemen are not available on the basis of general standard to fill all the vacancies reserved for them, candidates belonging to the category of ex-servicemen may be selected under a relaxed standard of selection to make up the deficiency in the reserved quota subject to the condition that such relaxation will not affect the level of performance by such candidates."

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the standard should have been lower/relaxed and the respondents should have prescribed a lower standard for filling up the vacancies. This he contends on the ground that there were only 7 Ex-servicemen candidates, who were shortlisted for the 4 vacancies. He submits that as per his instructions, only one of the 7 has qualified for further round and 6 have not qualified.

7. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Rule 6A of the Ex Serviceman (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 categorically states that the candidates belonging to the category of Ex-servicemen may be selected under a relaxed standard of selection provided such relaxation does not affect the level of performance by such candidates. One mode of testing the level of performance of candidates was the written examination where the qualifying marks specified by the respondent was 50%.

8. Admittedly, petitioner did not score the qualifying marks and scored less than qualifying marks. By directing the respondents to further relax the standards and the qualifying marks would imply that the level of performance of such candidates would be required to be lowered which would militate against the said Rule 6A.

9. Further, we may note