Sankar Nomosudra and Anr v. The Union of India and 4 Ors

ORDER

03.02.2023

Heard Mr. S Sutradhar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. G Pegu, learned CGC for all the respondents.

¶2The petitioners' case is that they had appeared in the selection process for filling up the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). The examinations were held in the year 2018 in pursuance to Notice dated 21.07.2018.

¶3The petitioners, who belong to the SC and ST Category qualified in the PET, PST and Medical Examination.

¶4The petitioners' counsel submits that as per the mark-sheets, petitioner No. 1 got 45.94207, while the petitioner No. 2 got 48.35705 marks, which was higher than the marks secured by some of the un-reserved category candidates. The petitioners' Page No.# 3/4 counsel submits that the petitioners are entitled to be appointed against un-reserved category posts in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of RK. Sabharwal & Ors. vs. State Of Punjab & Ors, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 745.

¶5The petitioners' counsel submits that a similar matter has been disposed of vide Order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the Court in WP(C) No. 238/2023 and accordingly, a similar direction may also be passed in the present case.

¶6Mr. G Pegu, learned counsel for all the respondents, submits that he has got no objection with the prayer made by the petitioners' counsel.

¶7In WP(C) NO. 238/2023, the reserved category candidate therein had also secured more marks than the last general category candidate and in that view of the matter, this Court had directed the respondent authorities to verify the marks of the petitioner, with the marks obtained by the last general category candidate. Thereafter, if it was found that the reserved category candidate had obtained more marks than the last selected general category candidate, the reserved category candidate (petitioner therein) was to be accommodated against the general/un-reserved category post.

¶8In the present case, the question whether the petitioners secured more marks than the selected/appointed general category candidates needs to be verified by the respondents. Accordingly, in view of the above facts and keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court in RK. Sabharwal & Ors. (supra), where it was held that reserve category candidates can compete for non-reserved posts, this Court directs the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 to compare the marks of the petitioners herein, with that of the marks obtained by the un-reserved category candidates, who have been given appointment to posts pertaining to the State of Assam.

¶9If it is found that the petitioners have secured more marks than the general category candidates who have been appointed, the petitioners should be accommodated by the respondents against general category posts. Page No.# 4/4

¶10The entire exercise should be concluded within a period of 2 (months) from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶11The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/4 GAHC010018542023 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/532/2023o SANKARoNOMOSUDRAoANDoANRo S/O-oLATEoSUBASHoNOMOSUDRA,oR/O-oVILL-oGHARAMARA,oP.O-o CHAITANYANAGAR,oDIST-oKARIMGANJ,oASSAM,oPIN-o788720 2:oMANOJoSARANIA oS/O-oSRIoLOHIToSARANIA oR/O-oVILL-oDALANGDIA oP.O-oBATNA oDIST-oBAKSA oASSAM oPIN-o78136o VERSUSo THEoUNIONoOFoINDIAoANDo4oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVToOFoINDIA,oMINoOFoHOMEo AFFAIRS,oNEWoDELHI,oPIN-o110001 2:THEoUNIONoOFoINDIA oREP.oBYoTHEoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVToOFoINDIA oMINoOFoPERSONNEL PUBLICoGRIEVANCESoANDoPENSIONS oNEWoBLOCK oNEWoDELHI-o110001 3:THEoSTAFFoSELECTIONoCOMMISSION oREP.oBYoITSoCHAIRMAN oBLOCKoNO.o12 oCGOoCOMPLEX oLODHIoROAD oNEWoDELHI-110003 4:THEoDIRECTORoGENERAL oCRPF Page No.# 2/4 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110066 5:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR SSC REGIONAL OFFICE HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI- 78100 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SUTRADHAR Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I. B E F O R E HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA