Fulfillment of eligibility criteria, including possession of a domicile certificate, and obtaining more marks than the last selected candidate are crucial factors in the appointment process.

JUDGMENT

S.N. Pathak, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles examination.

2. The short facts of the case is that an advertisement was floated by the Staff Selection Commission for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles examination, 2015 and total vacancies advertised under the aforesaid advertisement was 62,390 post. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner having requisite qualification and eligibility criteria, applied for the same under the Scheduled Tribe Category and thereafter, admit card was issued to that effect. On receipt of the admit card, the petitioner appeared in the recruitment process and was declared successful in all the events i.e. Physical efficiency test & Physical Standard Test, written examination as well as Medical Examination. It is the specific case of the petitioner that she had submitted her domicile certificate at the time of Medical test itself otherwise she would not have been allowed to appear in the medical test in view of specific stipulation made in Advertisement at Note III (page No.3) which debars a candidate to appear in the Medical Test who fails to submit his/her domicile certificate at the time of medical test. However, despite fulfilling all the requisite criteria and obtaining more marks than cut off marks, her name did not find place in the list of recommended candidates for appointment . Aggrieved thereto, she made several representations before the respondents with a specific plea that in view of note III (Page 3) of the Advertisement she had already submitted domicile certificate otherwise she would have been debarred from appearing in the medical examination. The said representation of the petitioner was not considered and the respondents are sitting tight over the matter, hence, present writ petition has been preferred.

3. Mr. Shresth Gautam assisted by Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner is a fit candidate for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) as she fulfills all the requisite qualification and was declared successful in all the events and had obtained 57 marks, which is much higher than the marks obtained by the last selected candidate, which is 43 marks under the Scheduled Tribe Category, a letter of appointment ought to have been offered by the respondents. The ground of cancellation of her candidature is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of Note-III page 3 of the Advertisement itself. Learned counsel further submits that the grounds mentioned in the counter-affidavit is also not tenable in the eyes of law as nothing has been brought on record to show that Annexure D-2 as claimed by the respondents was ever issued to the petitioner. The averment made in the counter-affidavit regarding Annexure D-2 is out rightly denied in the rejoinder filed by the petitioner.

4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Madan Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the c contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and argues that in no way the case of the petitioner can be considered for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) as she did not fulfill the requisite criteria for appointment, the petitioner was not having the domicile certificate and she did not submit domicile certificate even after repeated communication made by the respondents. Learned counsel further submits that Annexure D/2 was issued to the petitioner, giving her last opportunity to submit the domicile certificate and in absence of the said certificate, she cannot be appointed.

5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. Nothing has been brought on