Court disposed writ petition of OBC candidates excluded from CAPF selection despite higher merit than unreserved candidate. Directed respondents to issue warrant orders for appointment or create supernumerary posts.
Direction to issue appointment orders within 6 months or create supernumerary posts if vacancies unavailable.
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.# 1/5
GAHC010212252023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5803/2023
PHUREN GOGOI AND ANR SON OF MILAN GOGOI, R/O- VILL- GENDHALI BEBEJIA, P.O.- SAMAGURI, DIST.- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 782140.
2: BINAY DUTTA SON OF LATE RATUL DUTTA
R/O- VILL- DHUNIA GAON P.O. AND P.S.- AMGURI
DIST.- SIVASAGAR ASSAM PIN- 785680
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI, PIN- 110001.
2:THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS
NEW BLOCK NEW DELHI
Page No.# 2/5
PIN- 110001.
3:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003.
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POILCE FORCE CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110066.
5:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REGIONAL OFFICE HOUSEFED COMPLEX
DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S SUTRADHAR
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
ORDER
Date : 08-12-2023
Heard Mr. S. Sutradhar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. S S Roy, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
The writ petitioners herein are candidates belonging to the OBC category. In response to the advertisement notice dated 21-07-2018, issued for the purpose of filling up the posts of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF), the petitioners had submitted their
Page No.# 3/5
candidature and had also taken part in the selection process. However, upon completion of the selection process the names of the petitioners did not find place in the select list although they had secured more marks then the last selected/ appointed unreserved category candidate.
According to the petitioners’ counsel the benefit of reservation was not extended to the petitioners on the ground that relaxation was earlier granted to them on account of measurements of height and chest. Mr. Sutradhar submits that the said relaxation was given to all the candidates belonging to the Northeastern region of India and therefore, the same could not have been substituted for the benefit of reservation which was statutorily available to the petitioners as OBC candidate. Mr. Sutradhar has also invited the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Manoranjan Roy & Anr. Vs. UoI & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 3468/2023] and series of other similar writ petitions wherein, similar grievance of the writ petitioners were redressed and a direction was issued upon the respondents to issue orders of appointment to such reserve category candidates as expeditiously as possible. Mr. Sutradhar, therefore, submits that similar order be passed in the present case as well.
Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC has submitted, in his usual fairness, that the case of the petitioners would come within the ambit of earlier orders passed by this Court in the case of Manoranjan Roy (Supra) and to that extent, he does not resist the prayer made by the petitioners. However, at this point of time, vacancies may not be available so as to accommodate the petitioners and therefore, a writ of mandamus, directing appointment of the petitioners, may not be issued in the facts of this case.
The said submission of the learned CGC has been countered by Mr. Sutradhar by placing reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court
Page No.# 4/5
rendered in the case of Gaurav Pradhan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors . reported in (2018) 11 SCC 352 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that if the appointment orders to the un-reserved category candidates were denied without any valid basis, they should be appointed, if necessary by creating supernumerary posts.
In the case of Gaurav Pradhan (Supra), the Supreme Court had taken note of the fact that the candidates who were found to have been selected and were entitled to be appointed on the basis of merit were sought to be denied their orders of appointment by taking the plea that vacancies were not available I find that that was a case where the petitioners, who were part of the merit list, were entitled to be appointed against unreserved vacancies but the vacancies were filled up by migration of SC/ST/OBC who had availed relaxation of age. Having found that the petitioners could establish their right, the Supreme Court has made the following observation and direction:-
“51. We, thus, for adjusting the equity between the parties, issue the following directions:
51.1 The appellant-writ petitioners who as per their merit were entitled to be appointed against unreserved vacancies which vacancies were filled up by migration of SC/ST/OBC candidates, who had taken relaxation of age, should be given appointment on the posts. The State is directed to work out and issue appropriate orders for appointment of such candidates who were as per their merit belonging to general category candidates entitled for appointment, which exercise shall be completed within three months from the date, copy of this order is produced.
51.2 The State shall make appointments against the existing vacancies, if available, and in the event there are no vacancies available for the above candidates, the supernumerary posts may be created for
Page No.# 5/5
adjustment of the appellants which supernumerary posts may be terminated as and when vacancies come into existence.
In view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of by providing that the respondents may issue orders of appointment to the writ petitioners, appointing them as Constable (GD) in any division of the Central Armed Police Forces, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 06 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. However, if vacancies are not available, then in that event, supernumerary posts, in the light and observation made in the case of Gaurav Pradhan (Supra), be created for accommodating the petitioners.
With the above observation, this writ petition stands disposed of
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
3 issues framed by the court
Whether OBC candidates entitled to reservation but excluded on height/chest grounds securing higher marks than unreserved candidates are eligible for appointment.
How to balance the equity for merit candidates denied appointment due to merit-migration when vacancies are unavailable.
Whether State is directed to issue warrant orders of appointment or create supernumerary posts for displaced candidates.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Manoranjan Roy & Anr. Vs. UoI & Ors.Relied on¶27
Manoranjan Roy & Anr. Vs. UoI & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 3468/2023]
Gaurav Pradhan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & OrsRelied on¶32
Gaurav Pradhan & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (2018) 11 SCC 352 · Who else cites this
PHUREN GOGOI AND ANR
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
