Qualification criteria mandate candidates must secure prescribed cut-off marks for selection; those below the threshold are ineligible, regardless of any remaining vacancies.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the final selection list dated 21.01.2021, published pursuant to the Notice dated 21.07.2018 by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for recruitment to various posts of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF).

3. Initially, the writ petition was filed by two petitioners, namely, the present petitioner and one Shri Parash Das. However, during the pendency of this proceedings, the name of petitioner No. 2, Shri Parash Das, has been struck off from the array of petitioners.

4. The short issue involved in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioner, who admittedly secured marks below the prescribed qualifying/cut-off, could be selected and appointed in view of Note-II under Sl. No. 2 of the recruitment Notice dated 21.07.2018, which provides that 10% of the vacancies are earmarked for Ex-Servicemen and if suitable Ex-Servicemen candidates are not available, such vacancies shall be filled by non-Ex-Servicemen candidates of the respective categories.

5. The petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste candidate, has applied for the post of Constable (GD) in CAPF, pursuant to the aforesaid recruitment notice dated 21.07.2018. The petitioner has appeared in the recruitment test; however, her name did not appear in the final selection list published on 21.01.2021.

6. Mr. V. Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the petitioner has participated in the recruitment process and secured total marks of 34.70105 and in view of the available vacancies in the CAPF and the provision in Note-II of Sl. No. 2 of recruitment Notice dated 21.07.2018, the petitioner ought to have been considered and selected for appointment to the post of Constable (GD). He submits that the Note-II appended to Sl. No. 2 for vacancies and reservation of the recruitment Notice clearly provides that 10% vacancies are earmarked for Ex-Servicemen and in case of non-availability of suitable Ex- Servicemen candidates, vacancies reserved for Ex-Servicemen would be filed by non-Ex-Servicemen candidates of respective categories. There are many vacancies remain unfilled and the petitioner having been secured 34.70105, she could have been selected and appointed as Constable (GD) in Border Security Force (BSF), Assam Rifles or Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF).

7. Per contra, Mr. H. Gupta, learned CGC for the respondents, submits that since the petitioner has obtained marks less than the last selected candidates of Scheduled Caste (Female) category, she was not selected. The petitioner herself admitted that she has secured only 34.70105 marks, whereas the last selected candidate in the Scheduled Caste (Female) category has obtained 36.32473. He submits that Note-II of Sl. No. 2 of the recruitment Notice dated 21.07.2018 provides for 10% vacancies for the Ex-Servicemen and if no suitable Ex- Servicemen candidates are available, same can be filled up by non-Ex- Servicemen candidates of other categories. However, for filling up of 10% vacancies earmarked for Ex-Servicemen, one has to secured the prescribed qualifying/cut-off marks. Moreover, all the advertised posts have been duly filled up and the unfilled vacancies, if any, have already been carried forward to the next recruitment process. Therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim for selection or appointment and as such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also pe