In recruitment ties, when specific rules are absent, age must be the primary factor for determining seniority and selection of candidates.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J. The petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Commandant¹ (EXE) in the Central Industrial Security Force² Limited Departmental Competitive Examination³ -2010 and 2011 under `General' category for the year 2010 pursuant to applications invited for the recruitment for the years 2010 and 2011 vide Ministry of Home Affairs⁴ Notification on 16.04.2011.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that though his name appeared in the list of successful candidates for the year 2010 in order of merit published by the Union Public Service Commission⁵ and also in the list of recruitment to the post of AC(EXE) through LDCE 2010-2011 issued by the Director General⁶ , CISF, both dated 21.11.2011, but unfortunately, based on revised scrutiny and certification by DG, CISF, the UPSC recast the said list of candidates in order of merit in supersession of the said list of 21.11.2011. The same resulted in deletion of the name of petitioner from the recasted list of successful candidates for the year 2010. Subsequently, the DG, CISF adopted and affirmed the recast list and published it on 10.02.2012.

3. The petitioner attributes the above to discrepancies and apprehends that the officials of CISF and UPSC are responsible for this. The petitioner is aggrieved, firstly as the maximum age limit for the said post of AC(EXE) in the CISF as per the Notification dated 16.04.2011 was 35 years and he would be barred by age if not selected and thus be disqualified after 2010 and secondly as the last candidate in the list of successful candidates for the year 2010 and the petitioner both secured same marks, i.e., there was a tie break inter-se them, but as there was no `tie breaker principle' in the Notification dated 16.04.2011, the name of the petitioner was deleted from the list of candidates. As per petitioner, his name was not reckoned by CISF as the CISF wrongly followed the then prevalent principle of UPSC whereby UPSC reckoned `marks' in the written paper rather than `age'/date of birth as the basis for selection of a candidate to the post of AC(EXE) in the case of a tie-break. The petitioner submits this was contrary to the usual practice of selecting a candidate on the basis of `age'/date of birth. To be noted that amongst the various grounds taken by petitioner, learned counsel has restricted the arguments only qua the second grievance enumerated hereinbefore. The same are being dealt in the foregoing paragraphs below.

4. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs:

"a) To issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing the FAX/E-MAIL Message No. E-32015(4)1/AC-LDCE-2010-2011/PERS.I/509 dated 10.02.2012 issued by Director General, CISF;

b) Issue a writ of Certiorari for quashing the list of finally qualified candidate for the post of CISF, Asst. Commandant LDCE-2010-2011 as published by respondent no. 2 though press note dated 31.01.2012;

c) issue writ of mandamus or such other appropriate directions & orders to the Respondent no. 2 to Respondent no. 1, thereby directing the Respondent no. 1 to restore/revive and adopt the list of successful candidates for recruitment to the post of Asst. Commandant (exe) through ace, Idce-2010-2011 published vide Fax/E-mail message No. e-32015(4)1/ac-ldce-2010-2011/pers.i/1967 dated 21.11.2011;

d) issue writ of mandamus or such other appropriate directions & orders to the Respondent no. 1 to restore/revive and adopt the list