JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Special Counsel, Staff Selection Commission, representing the appellants, and Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel representing the respondent.

We have also gone through the impugned judgment and the material placed on record.

2. The instant intra-court writ appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 25.06.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby WP(C) No. 816/2014 preferred by the respondent herein was accepted and the appellants herein, being the appointing authority, were directed to recommend the writ petitioner/respondent herein for appointment as Constable (GD) either in the CRPF or in the ITBP against the post which had been directed to be kept vacant vide interim order dated 19.02.2014.

3. The short controversy involved in this intra-court writ appeal may be outlined as below:

The Staff Selection Commission issued a Recruitment Notice for appointment to the posts of Constable (GD) and Rifleman in CRPS, ITBP, Assam Rifle etc. which was published in The Employment News/Rozgar Samachar dated 03.12.2011. The respondent herein, being an un-reserved category candidate belonging to a non-border district of Assam, participated in the selection process. He was initially declared unfit in the detailed medical examination. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal and was declared medically fit in the review medical examination. He obtained 44 marks in the written examination. However, since he had not exercised option of “preference” for any particular force in the application form, the Selection Commission did not include him in the initial select list and his name was kept for allocation in the Reserve List (II) on the basis of merit and subject to availability of vacancies in the respective category. The respondent herein was not selected in the Reserved List (II) as well and, hence, he approached this Court by filing the captioned writ petition No. WP(C) 816/2014, which was allowed by the judgment dated 25.06.2018 as indicated above. The said judgment is the subject-matter of challenge in this intra-court writ appeal.

The only ground which is projected by the appellants for denying selection to the respondent is that he had not exercised the option of “preference” for any of the forces to which the selections were advertised and, hence, he was not included in the first select list. Furthermore, as the respondent had obtained only 44 marks in the written examination, he was not selected in the Reserve List (II) as well.

4. Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Special Counsel, SSC, representing the appellants urged that the controversy projected in the case is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Probir Ghosh and Others, reported in (2022) 12 SCC 250. He urged that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in relation to the very same selection process was assailed by the Union of India by filing the aforesaid Special Leave to Appeal which has been allowed and, hence, the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

He further urged that in Annexure-II to the Recruitment Notification containing instructions for filling up Column No. 16 of the Application form, it was clearly provided as follows:

“Candidates should carefully indicate preference for post under different forces. Option once exercised will be final and no change will be allowed under any circumstances.”

Mr. Keyal urged that as the respondent did not select a preference in the column indicating preference of forces, his name was rightly not included in the select list. On these grounds, Mr. Keyal implored the Court to accept the writ appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order.

5. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Mazumdar, learned counsel representing the respondent urged that the ratio of the judgment in Probir Ghosh (supra) does not act to the detriment of the respondent’s claim for being sele