JUDGMENT :

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.

(Common Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 23.01.2017 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.21304 and 21306 of 2014.)

1. The Writ Appeals are preferred by the Staff Selection Commission challenging the order dated 23.01.2017 passed in W.P(MD)Nos.21304 and 21306 of 2014.

2. The Writ Petitioners are the unsuccessful candidates who have applied for the post of Constable (General duty) in CISF, CRPF, BSF & SSB in CAPFS & Rifle man(GD) in Assam Rifles for the year 2012. Both the Writ Petitioners are belongs to SC Category, applied for the above post giving preference to Border Security Force (BSF). After clearing the Physical Efficiency Test and Physical Standard Test, the writ petitioners attended the written examination and based on the marks scored, they were called for Medical Examination. Thereafter, the results were published, in which the Writ Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.21304 of 2014 scored 43' marks and Writ Petitioner in W.P(MD)No.21306 of 2014 scored 47' marks. The cut-off mark for the SC category for the post of Constable is 43'.

3. According to the writ petitioners, many of the candidates, who had scored lesser marks were found in the selection list. However, their names were not found. Therefore, representations were given by the writ petitioners to the second appellant, who informed them that another selection list would be published and that several of the left-out candidates like the writ petitioners will be included in the list. However, even in the said list, the writ petitioners were not added. Hence, the writ petitioners approached this Court seeking for a Writ of Mandamus directing the second respondent to consider the names of the Writ Petitioners for the appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in CAPFS & Rifleman (GD) Assam Rifles, for the year 2012.

4. The writ petitions were contested by the second respondent stating that after the qualifying list was taken, final result was processed and finalized in consultation with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) as per the MHA Guidelines. It was further stated in the counter affidavit that allocation was made by the Commission to different police organizations on the basis of merit-cum-option given by the candidates for different posts subject to availability of vacancies in the State/UT concerned.

5. It was specifically pointed out that the writ petitioners had exercised their option only for the post of preferences 'A' for the State Category No.31 ie., Tamil Nadu and that they were not selected for the post of Constable (GD) in BSF preferred in their application as they did not score sufficient marks fixed by the Commission in the written examination for vacancy type 'G'-General under SC & UR Categories in respect of Tamil Nadu.

6. The said writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge directing the respondents/appellants herein to accommodate the writ petitioners/respondents in the posts, falling under 'E' and 'F' categories based on the marks secured by them in the written examinations, for which they are otherwise suitable and eligible to be appointed within a period of three months.

7. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeals are filed by the Staff Selection Commission.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also pointed out that the highest marks for type 'G' under SC & UR were 74' and 75' and the lowest marks were 68' and 54' respectively. The learned counsel for the appellants further argued that the selection process is already over and several years have gone by and it was opened to the respondents/writ petitioners to participate in the next examination and secure a job. It was also fairly conceded by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Court had directed to keep one post for the writ petitioners subject to the result of the Writ Petitions.

9. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, the recruitment to the post of various