A single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging non-appointment of petitioners to CRPF constable posts due to inadequate scores below the category cut-off marks in Advertisement No.1/2008.
Writ petition dismissed without any order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/2
GAHC010005252010
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C) 2644/2010
1:SHYAMANTA BARO and ANR.
ROLL NO. 0812513010408203, S/O GANJEMA BARO, R/O NIZ SHAYAMABARI, P.S.DHULA, DIST DARRANG,ASSAM
2: BINAN BARO ROLL NO. 0812513010407573 S/O RABIRAM BORO R/O VILL. NIZ MAGULBESHA P.O. MUDAIBARI DIST UDALGURI BTC, ASSAM
VERSUS
1:THE UNION OF INDIA and ORS REP.BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF CENTRAL GOVT. OFFICE COMPLEX NEW DELHI 3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTH EAST SECTOR CRPF SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA 4:THE DY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF GROUP CENTRE AMERIGOG, GHY
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.D DEKA
Advocate for the Respondent : C.G.C.
Page No.# 2/2
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY
JUDGMENT
08-02-2018.
The learned Advocate Mr. H. Bezbaruah, appearing for the learned counsel Mr. R. Mazumdar submits that the petitioners failed to secure appointment to the post of CRPF (G.D.) constable, in pursuant to the Advertisement No.1/2008 (Annexure-A). The counsel refers to the counter affidavit filed on 1.9.2000, to point out that the cut off mark for the ST category candidate was 51, whereas the two petitioners could respectively score only 43 and 49 marks. Therefore, Mr. Bezbaruah fairly submits that their score was inadequate for selection.
Similar submission is made by learned Central Govt. counsel, Mr. S.K. Medhi, by referring to the averments in para-9, of the counter affidavit filed by the IG, CRPF.
Since the inferior performance of the petitioners was the reason for their non-selection, this case need not detain us further and the same is accordingly dismissed, without any order on cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners were entitled to appointment as CRPF constables despite failing to secure sufficient marks.
Whether the dismissal of the writ petition for non-selection needs determination.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyamanta Baro and Anr.
The Union of India
Hrishikesh Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
