IMPORTANT POINT
Candidates indicating preference for one service and failing to meet cut-off marks cannot claim selection in others, as upheld by the Supreme Court.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. R. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned CGC appearing for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner, by way of instituting the present proceeding has inter alia, prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his case for appointment against any post put up for recruitment vide the advertisement dated 24.01.2015, in any of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) so involved, by considering the marks scored by him in the selection process. The petitioner has accordingly, prayed for a review of the select list dated 02.02.2017 for inclusion of his name therein by reckoning the marks scored by him in the selection process.

3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding is noticed as under:-

The Staff Selection Commission had issued an advertisement on 24.01.2015 for conduct of recruitment against the advertised posts of Constable (GD) in Border Security Force (BSF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Sahastra Seema Bal (SSB), National Investigation Agency (NIA) and Secretariat Security Force (SSF) and Rifleman in Assam Rifles. The selection process as per the advertisement was to consist of Physical Standard Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Examination and Medical Examination. The closing date for submission of application for candidates from the North-Eastern Region, in terms of the said advertisement was stipulated as 02.03.2015. The applicant submitted his application in pursuance to the said advertisement and exercised a limited option for consideration of his case against the vacant posts of Constable (GD) advertised for the BSF. The petitioner, thereafter, participated in various stages of the selection process and on conclusion thereof, the results being declared, the petitioner was found to have secured 44 marks in his written examination. The cut-off marks for OBC (male) candidates in the BSF being 52, the petitioner not having secured the minimum cut-off marks, his case was not considered for inclusion in the select list as published against the vacancies of Constable (GD) for the BSF.

The grievance of the petitioner is that persons securing marks lower than him in the recruitment process were accommodated in the other CAPFs, whereas, his case for such appointment was not considered by the respondent authorities.

4. The respondent authorities have contended in the present proceeding that the petitioner having only exercised a limited option in his application for recruitment against the vacant posts of Constable as advertised for the BSF, he having not secured the cut-off marks mandated for recruitment as a OBC category candidate against the posts, as available for recruitment to BSF, he was not included in the select list so prepared. The petitioner not having exercised his option for any other post, the case of the petitioner was thereafter, considered against the default option as available in the advertisement. However, the vacancies as available in his category having been filled up in the other CAPFs, the petitioner could not be favoured with an appointment.

5. In view of the rival contentions raised by the parties to the proceeding, the issue arising in the present proceeding is as to whether, a candidate who had indicated preference to a particular service can be kept out of consideration for appointment to the other services, despite such candidate having secured more marks than the selected candidates in those other services.

6. The above issue is no longer res-integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs Probir Ghosh and Ors. , reported in (2022) 12 SCC 250 , on consideration of the said issue had held that the rec