A candidate belonging to a reserved category must be considered for selection under that specific category if they meet the merit and preference criteria, rather than being exclusively treated as an unreserved candidate.

Order

1. On the request of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the action of the respondents in not considering the petitioner’s case in the category of SC while finalizing the merit list for the overall posts. The case of the petitioner was not considered under the SC category; instead, he was considered under the unreserved category.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he applied for various posts advertised in the common advertisement, which included posts of Constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force (BSF), Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), Secretariat Security Force (SSF), Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles (AR) and Sepoy in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). He secured approximately 126 marks and a final selection list was also published and prior to that he had also given his preference of posts. The final list reflects that his selection was for the post of BSF under the unreserved category. His grievance is that, persons who secured less than the petitioner’s marks were given selection for CISF within the SC category (Border Area). The petitioner also belongs to the SC category (Border Area) and he is entitled to be selected in the CISF, though he has been selected in the BSF under the open category. According to him, this is the result of erroneous treatment of the petitioner’s case as an unreserved candidate instead of the reserved category of SC (Border Area).

4. Having seen this anomaly, the petitioner has already made a representation to the authorities to consider his case under the Scheduled Castes category (Border Area), considering his rank and preference for the post he has given; however, such representation has not been decided yet and the respondent-authorities are issuing appointment orders to the selected candidates.

5. The petitioner has already been given an appointment order to the post of BSF. The immediate grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities be directed to consider his representation, and till the decision is taken on the representation, the respondents shall keep one post vacant for the post of CISF under the SC category (Border Area).

6. Having gone through the selection list as well as the merit list, the merit list shows that the petitioner secured approximately 126 marks, the persons who have been selected under the SC category (Border Area) in CISF have secured 121 marks, and the persons selected under the unreserved category in BSF have secured 124 marks. The selection of the petitioner was in the open category of BSF. It appears that the petitioner’s case was considered for the open category instead of the SC category, as he claims.

7. This Court finds that if the application of the petitioner is within the SC category (Border Area), the respondent-authorities are required to consider his case for the SC category (Border Area) instead of the open category, if otherwise entitled for the post in the order of preference. Therefore, this Court feels that the present writ petition can be disposed of instead of keeping it pending, with certain directions.

8. In the result, the present writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-authorities to consider the representation filed by the petitioner. T