Back
2024 Supreme(Gau) 1114
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
The Regional Director (North Eastern Region) Staff Selection Commission And Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Umor Ali S/O. Ayub Ali And Ors. – Respondents
Review.Pet./62/2023
Decided On : 16-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mrs. A Gayan
For the Respondent: N Chakrabarty, Shri R. Islam
IMPORTANT POINT
A candidate must secure marks above the cut-off to qualify for appointment, clarifying the interpretation of eligibility criteria in recruitment.
Headnote:
Review - Appointment - Article 226 - The Court clarified that a candidate must secure marks above the cut-off to be eligible for appointment, emphasizing the importance of the correct interpretation of eligibility criteria in recruitment processes.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner challenged a rejection slip for a Constable position based on a date of birth mismatch, claiming eligibility after scoring above the cut-off. The Court initially directed appointment, which was later reviewed due to a misunderstanding of the cut-off criteria.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the writ petitioner did not meet the actual cut-off mark for appointment, which was higher than initially understood. The review clarified that only candidates scoring above the cut-off are entitled to appointment.
Issues: Whether the court's initial direction to offer appointment was justified given the actual cut-off marks and the petitioner's score.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court established that a candidate must exceed the prescribed cut-off marks to be eligible for appointment, correcting the earlier misinterpretation of the eligibility criteria.
Result: The review application is allowed, and the direction for appointment is set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.
The instant review application has been preferred qua the judgment and order dated 05.02.2021 passed by this Court in WP(C)/2535/2020. The applicant herein was the principal respondent in the writ petition. The review application has been filed with respect to one part of the judgment whereby appointment was directed to be offered to the opposite party no. 1 / writ petitioner.
2. To appreciate the grounds of review, it would be convenient to recapitulate the facts projected in the writ petition.
3. The writ petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Constable (GD) in various Paramilitary Forces which was initiated by an advertisement dated 21.07.2018. The age of the candidates was to be within 18-23 years as on 01.08.2018. It was projected that the cut-off mark for unreserved category candidate in which the writ petitioner belonged was 35% and the writ petitioner claimed to be successful in the Physical Test which was held after the Written Test scheduled on 18.02.2019. After completion of the Physical Test, a Medical Test was held on 01.02.2020 and as per the writ petitioner, he was found to be fit in all respects. However, a rejection slip was issued on 19.02.2020 on the ground of mismatch of the date of birth in the online application which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The said writ petition was allowed by the aforesaid order dated 05.02.2021 whereby this Court had noticed that there was certain trivial anomaly so far as the date of birth is concerned and the said anomaly otherwise did not materially affect the eligibility of the petitioner so far as the prescription of age. Since this Court was apprised that 35% was the cut-off mark for being appointed, this Court, while setting aside the rejection slip dated 19.02.2020 had directed the respondents to offer appointment letter to the writ petitioner. It is the second part of the judgment which is the cause for review.
4. I have heard Ms. A. Gayan learned CGC. I have also heard Shri R. Islam, learned counsel for the opposite party / writ petitioner.
5. Ms. Gayan, the learned CGC for the applicant has, at the outset, clarified that so far as setting aside the rejection slip dated 19.02.2020 is concerned, the applicant is not aggrieved. She however submits that it is only the part of the order by which direction has been given to offer appointment to the writ petitioner in respect of which, review has been sought for. It is submitted by the learned CGC that under the notice for recruitment, the mode of selection has been clearly stated. Under Clause 11 pertaining to mode of selection, it was clearly reflected that selection would be based on the aggregate marks scored by the candidates in the Computer Based Examination. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to the Clause 9 (xii) wherein the cut-off for eligibility to selection was laid down. It is stated that for General Category candidates, the cut-off was 35%. The learned CGC has also drawn the attention of this Court to the enumeration of candidates done in a Tabular Form in paragraph 9 of the review application. It is submitted that in terms of the directions of this Court, a reconsideration of 5 nos. of candidates was made and 3 candidates namely Shahanur Ali, Abu Kasem and Zakir Hussain Ahmed were found to have obtained more marks than the cut-off mark. However so far as the writ petitioner is concerned, he had obtained marks of 44.5811 whereas the cut-off mark for general category was 45.44732. The learned CGC has submitted that an error apparent on the face of it had crept in the judgment under review whereby this Court was given the impression that 35% mark was the cut-off for being appointed. She reiterates that 35% mark for General Category candidates would only bring such a candidate within the zone of consideration and depending on the ratio of number of candidates vis-à-vis the vacancies, cut-off mark is worked out and in this case, the opposite party
