Disposed

Gobinda Basumatary v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC7 Jun 2022WP(C)/1829/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order disposed of a writ petition challenging the petitioner's ineligibility for a CAPFs post due to a revised cut-off mark. The Court directed the Staff Selection Commission to review cut-off marks after a related interim order was dismissed and to consider the petitioner's appointment if eligible.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Staff Selection Commission to review cut-off marks, consider petitioner's case, and pass consequential appointment order if eligible.

Gobinda Basumatary Vs the Union of India and 2 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2022)

¶1

Page No.# 1/5

¶2

GAHC010043442021

¶3

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

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/1829/2021

¶5

GOBINDA BASUMATARY

¶6

S/O SABIN BASUMATARY VILLAGE NO. 2 KADAMGURI, PO RATANPUR, DIST GOLAGHAT, ASSAM 785705

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS

¶9

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI 110001

¶10

2:THE CHAIRMAN STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK 12 CGO LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 110003

¶11

3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION HOUSEFED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI 78100

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R TAHBILDAR

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, C.G.C.

¶14

BEFORE

¶15

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

Order

Page No.# 2/5

07.06.2022

Heard Mr. AR Tahbildar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R Devi, learned CGC.

¶20

Pursuant to a notice dated 21.07.2018 issued by the Staff Selection Commission, published in the Employment News/ Rozgar Samachar inviting online applications from the intending eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR) Examination, 2018, the petitioner submitted his application and participated in the process. The petitioner was assigned the roll number 5107005722.

¶21

Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the written examination, computer based examination, physical efficiency test, physical standard test and medical examination. After completion of all the stages of examinations, the respondent Staff Selection Board published a final selection list on 21.01.2021 except for the State of Kerala. In the final select list dated 21.01.2021, the petitioner was recommended for appointment to force ITBP (Code-E) in unreserved category for the State of Assam under General Area. The final score secured by the petitioner is 45.4425.

¶22

Thereafter, on 28.01.2021, another communication was issued whereby pending final result for the State of Kerala was declared. The said communication reveals that in view of the Kerala High Court’s order dated

¶23

Page No.# 3/5

¶24

20.01.2021 passed in WP(C) 24526/2020 and other 35 cases, 200 vacancies were kept unfilled for the State of Kerala.

¶25

Accordingly, the result of the State of Kerala was not declared when the result of other States were declared on 21.01.2021. The said declaration of result dated 28.01.2021 further reflects that the result of State of Kerala was not declared due to non-availability of the details of the petitioner candidates before the Kerala High Court like category, area of vacancy etc.

¶26

Though the said communication shows that it was issued for the purpose of declaring result of State of Kerala, however, the paragraph 8 of the said communication reflects that as per order dated 11.12.2020 passed in WP(C) 4178/2020 by this court, one male vacancy in General Area of Assam State was kept intact. Accordingly, the cut off so far relating to Assam was revised and the petitioner was declared to be not qualified and one Jonab Ali’s name was included, whose name did not figure within the earlier cut off. Being situated thus, the present writ petition is filed assailing such change in cut off.

¶27

The respondent Union of India has filed an affidavit-in-opposition. At paragraph 7 it took a stand that the petitioner was selected for appointment under unreserved category on the basis of result declared by the Staff Selection Commission on 21.01.2021. It is a further stand that as per this Court’s order dated 11.12.2020 passed in WP(C) 4178/2020, one vacancy for male in General Area of Assam State was kept vacant and accordingly the Commission raised the cut off mark of the State of Assam. It is also a stand at paragraph 8 that the

¶28

Page No.# 4/5

¶29

petitioner could not make it to the final list due to raising of cut off mark. The cut off marks for unreserved male candidates for the State of Assam for the post under Code-E was 45.44250 as per pre-revised result dated 21.01.2021, which was subsequently raised to 45.4472 in revised list. Thus from the aforesaid statement of the Union of India, it is clear that the cut off mark was revised in anticipation of accommodation of the petitioner in WP(C) 4178/2020 and as a post was directed to be kept vacant.

¶30

One candidate namely Sunil Verma approached this court challenging noninclusion of his name in the select list in spite of scoring higher marks and rejection his candidature on medical ground. This court by order dated 11.12.2020 directed as an interim measure to keep one post of Constable (GD) vacant under general category pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.07.2018. The said writ petition was, however, dismissed by this court by its order dated 10.08.2021.

¶31

In the aforesaid backdrop, it is clear that the cut off mark was revised and raised in view of the pendency of the writ petition as well as on an anticipation that in the event if the petitioner Sunil Verma in WP(C) 4178/2020 was to be accommodated. However, in view of the subsequent development of dismissal of the writ petition preferred by said Sunil Verma now the Union of India is required to once again review the cut off marks.

¶32

Accordingly, it is directed that the Staff Selection Commission shall make a review of cut off marks in view of dismissal of the case of Sunil Verma and

¶33

Page No.# 5/5

¶34

consider the case of the petitioner and if the petitioner comes within the cut of marks, consequential order appointing him shall be passed.

¶35

In the aforesaid term, this writ petition stands disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Gobinda Basumatary v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gobinda Basumatary v. the Union of India and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

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.

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

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