IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. ( S) No. 1412 of 2014 -

Mahesh Prasad Verma son of Sri Dharam Mahto, resident of Village-

Dari, P.O.-Edla, P.S.-Simaria, District-Chatra .......Petitioner Versus

1. The Union of India through the Ministry of Personnel, P.G. &

Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, Staff Selection Commission, having office at Eastern Regional Office, Nizam Palace, 1^st MSO Building (8^th Floor), 234/4, Aacharya Jagdish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata-700020.

2. The Regional Director (ER), Staff Selection Commission, 1st MSO Building (8^th Floor), 234/4, Aacharya Jagadish Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata-West Bengal-700020

3. The Director General, Boarder Security Force (BSF) having office at Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

4. The Inspector General of Police, Boarder Security Force, Meru Camp, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S.-Hazaribag, District-Hazaribag .....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN ---

For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate For the Resp.-U.O.I : Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, CGC Mr. Ayush, A.C to A.S.G.I -----

09/19.01.2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the Petitioner praying for a direction upon the concerned Respondent for appointment on the post of Constable (GD), pursuant to advertisement published in Rozgar Career India dated 03.12.2011.

3. Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the Petitioner draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-5 and submits that the petitioner herein secured 38 marks and he was medically fit; however, two persons, namely, Sanjeet Kumar Verma and Umesh Prasad Verma, who secured 37 marks and were declared unfit; still they were appointed as Constable in CRPF, but the petitioner was not appointed.

4. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the petitioner applied for Constable under BSF and the concerned two candidates, namely, Sanjeet Kumar Veerma and Umesh Prasad Verma, whose names are reflecting at Annexure-5, they were appointed for the reason that the Petitioner has given preference for BSF and those two persons were given preference for CRPF and subsequently they were appointed under CRPF.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, it appears that from bare perusal of advertisement, it would appear that the allotment of CPO to the candidates selected from each State will be done from merit cum option depending on availability of vacancies in each CPO earmarked for State.

It further transpires that the merit-list of the candidates on the basis of marks obtained and choice given would show that the petitioner had not obtained required marks for his choice i.e., BSF. It further transpires from the averments made in the counter affidavit that in absence of choice of CRPF he could not be selected in CRPF as claimed by the petitioner now.

6. As a matter of fact, this issue has been decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Probir Ghosh and others, (2022)12 SCC 250, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in Paras 34 to 45, which are quoted hereunder:

“34. In Column 16 under Para 4.0 of Annexure II, which is the brochure containing instructions for filling up the application, candidates were called upon to carefully indicate preference for the post under different Forces. It was also made clear that option once exercised will be final and that no change will be allowed thereafter.

35. The preference for BSF was to be indicated by the alphabet “A”. The preference for CISF, CRPF, SSB, ITBP and Assam Rifles are to be indicated respectively by the alphabets “B”, “C”, “D”, “E” and “F”. The respondents are candidates who have clearly indicated their preference to one service only. Some candidates have indicated preferences to multiple services, as there was no prohibition under the Recruitment Notification to do so.

36. What the Staff Selection Commission did was, to confine the considerati