Allowed

Dipjyoti Das and 2 Ors. v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Jun 2022WP(C)/1688/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the exclusion of ST/NE region candidates from general category vacancies due to relaxed physical standards. The court held that such candidates scored higher marks and are eligible for general vacancies despite the relaxation.

What did the court decide?

Respondent authorities to accommodate petitioners against vacant posts if they obtained marks above the cut-off of the last general category candidate, within six weeks.

Dipjyoti Das and 2 Ors. Vs the Union of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/8

¶2

GAHC010043452021

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1688/2021

¶5

DIPJYOTI DAS AND 2 ORS S/O. BHADRAKANTA DAS VILL. RANGACHILA P.O. MACHKHOWA P.S. AND DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN-787058 ROLL NO.5105046388.

¶6

2: TAPASH BISWAS S/O. SUBHASH BISWAS VILL. OUJARI P.O. BAGHARA P.S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 ROLL NO.5105086913.

¶7

3: BUDDHADEV SUTRADHAR S/O. SWAPAN KUMAR SUTRADHAR R/O. SAPATGRAM WARD NO.1 P.O. AND P.S. SAPATGRAM DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783337 ROLL NO.5105010429. VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY OF MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVT. OF INDIA

¶9

Page No.# 2/8

¶10

NEW DELHI 01. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REP. BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO.12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03. 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION GUWAHATI ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY.-06. 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO.10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03. 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SASHATRA SEEMA BALL 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 22. 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03. 7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE BLOCK NO. IV CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03. 8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE

¶11

Page No.# 3/8

¶12

BLOCK NO.13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03. 9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶13

ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA 11. -----------Advocate for : MR. R MAZUMDAR Advocate for : ASSTT.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶16

For the petitioner	: Mr. R. Mazumdar. Advocate.
For the Respondents	: Mr. S. K. Medhi. CGC.
Date of Hearing	: 07.06.2022
Date of Judgement	: 07.06.2022

¶17

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶18

Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. K. Medhi, learned CGC appearing for the Union of India.

¶19

The petitioners participated in a selection process for recruitment of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. Such selection process was initiated by

¶20

Page No.# 4/8

¶21

Staff Selection Commission by its advertisement dated 21.07.2018. The petitioners belongs to ST categories and from North Eastern Region, more particularly from Assam.

¶22

The petitioners are aggrieved by non-inclusion of their names in the select list dtd.21.01.2021, published by the Staff Selection Commission.

¶23

The selection test included Physical Standard Tests (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Written Examination. The grievance raised by the petitioners are that though they successfully came out in all segments without availing any individual and additional relaxation granted the selection process, their candidature had been rejected on the ground that they had taken benefit of relaxed standard as provided to SC/ST and OBC candidates.

¶24

5. The background fact of the litigation can be summarized as under:

¶25

(i) The Staff Selection Commission by Employment Notice dated 21.07.2018 sought application from intending illegible candidates for filling up 54953 numbers of vacancies for the post of Constables (G.D) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assasm Rifles (AR).

¶26

(ii) The scheme of Examination, under Clause 9 (III) provides for required Physical standard. The said clause shows that for the General, SC & OBC candidates, the minimum height for male candidate is 170 cm and female candidate is 157 cm. In case of ST candidates, the same is declared to be 162.5 cm for male and 150 cm for female. A separate standard was provided for some

¶27

Page No.# 5/8

¶28

States, including the State of Assam, which is 165 cm for male and 155 cm for female. The measurement of chest, a relaxed standard of 75.5 CM was provided for candidates belonging to some States, including State of Assam.

¶29

(iii) Clause -10, which is the General Instructions and are required to be complied with by the candidates during the examinations. Clause 10 (xiii) provides that those SC, ST, OBC and Ex-Serviceman candidates, who are selected on their own merit without relaxed standards, along with candidates belonging to other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserved category vacancies and such candidate will be accommodated against the unreserved vacancies as per their position in the overall Merit List.

¶30

(iv) Clause -10 (xiv) provides that those SC, ST, OBC and ExServiceman candidates, who qualifies on the basis of relaxation i.e., age limit etc. are to be adjusted against the reserved vacancy.

¶31

The petitioners claims that they secured more marks than their respective General category candidates. However, they have been refused appointments on the ground that as they belong to reserved categories and availed relaxed standards, they cannot be appointed against vacancies meant for the General category candidates.

¶32

As per the advertisement, separate standard in respect of northeastern regional candidates and SC/ST and OBC candidates were given. On the basis of such relaxed standard, the petitioners participated in the selection

¶33

Page No.# 6/8

¶34

process.

¶35

It is no more res integra that the state and its instrumentalities are within its jurisdiction and competence to prescribe relaxed standard for reserved category candidates, including on the basis of region. The relaxed standard in question as provided, are in respect of eligibility/qualifying standard, such as minimum measurement in heigh and chest. These are the eligibility criterias/qualifying standard without which, a candidate is not qualified to participate in the other tests such as computer Proficiency Test, Physical Test, Written Examination etc. And the marks are awarded on the basis of performance in the said tests and not on the basis of the qualifying standards. Therefore, the final determination of rank in the select list is based on the marks obtained in the tests and not on the basis of relaxed qualifying standard. Thus, participating in the aforesaid tests and obtaining the marks don’t have any nexus with the relaxed standard, which is a general relaxation for all ST/SC candidates and candidate from North Eastern State.

¶36

There is no dispute that the petitioners herein had scored higher marks then last General Category Candidates. The relaxation in standard was general relaxation and not individual relaxation like date of birth. The petitioners herein competed with the General Category Candidates in the examination securing more marks then the General Category candidates.

¶37

No concession was given in respect of marks in selection tests to the categories in question by giving relaxed qualifying standard in respect of height/Chest. Such relaxation had only enabled them to participate in the examination as special category candidates and they competed with general category candidates and secured more marks than last general

¶38

Page No.# 7/8

¶39

category candidates. Therefore, the reserved category candidates, who obtained more marks than that of the last general category candidate secured, need to be considered against vacancy meant for general category candidates inasmuch as same is provided in the advertisement itself under clause 10(iii).

¶40

In a similar factual background, the Delhi High Court in Hemant Pokhriyal Vs- Staff Selection Commission and Ors. in WP(C) No. 4982/2021 and decided on 1^st October, 2021, held that relaxation given in height or chest are available to candidates from a specific region, where the candidate belong to reserved or un-reserved category, cannot lead categorization of the candidates exclusively for SC, ST and OBC, ignoring their meritorious position amongst other category candidates. This Court is in Total agreement with such view of the Delhi High Court.

¶41

The present petitioners, appeared in the same region with relaxed standard and faced the same selection process with other categories. Therefore, the relaxation in qualifying standards for their categories shall not disentitle them for consideration against reserved category vacancies, if they have secured more marks then the General Category candidates.

¶42

The learned counsel for respondent Union India has fairly submitted that they have already implemented the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Hemant Pokhrial (Supra).

¶43

In the aforesaid backdrop, this writ petition is allowed. As posts were kept vacant under interim orders of this Court, it is directed that the respondent authorities should accommodate the petitioners, against those vacancies. While doing so, the respondent authority will verify the case of the

¶44

Page No.# 8/8

¶45

petitioners herein and their marks and if they have obtained marks above the cut off mark of last general category candidates, as discussed herein above, they will be accommodated against those posts. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order to be furnished by the petitioners.

¶46

With the above decision, observation, reasons and direction, this writ petition is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Comparing Assistant

Dipjyoti Das and 2 Ors. v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipjyoti Das and 2 Ors. v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Deka Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Nripen Baruah Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Dr. (Ms) Nandita Lahkar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Indrajit Rajkhowa and 18 Ors. Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Gobinda Basumatary Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Dibyajyoti Pathori and Anr. Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.