BARKET HUSSAIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking quashment of Order No.R.II/2014-EC-V-(SWP No. 2861/2014) dated 21.06.2013, to the extent it rejects the claim of the petitioner against the post of Constable GD.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of this petition are that respondent No.5 issued an Advertisement Notification for an open recruitment rally of young male/female candidates of J&K State as Constable (General Duty) in CRPF held on 02.04.2012 to 03.04.2012. The total number of posts advertised, were 431. The breakup of the total vacancies for the said posts was as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_98_LAWS(J&K)10_2018_1.html</FRM> <FRM>JUDGEMENT_98_LAWS(J&K)10_2018_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Being eligible, the petitioner applied under ST category. He appeared in the open recruitment rally on 03.04.2012 and qualified the Physical Standard Test (Ground Test) and Written Examination. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared at Group Centre, CRPF, Bantalab on 07.07.2012 for Medical Examination and was found medically unfit. He applied for Review Medical Examination with medical certificates, wherein he was declared medically fit for recruitment in CRPF as Constable GD. After a long wait when nothing was done, the petitioner along with others had filed a writ petition before this Court, being SWP No. 2861/2013 titled Mohd Razaq and others v. Union of India and others which came to be disposed of at the threshold vide Order dated 06.01.2014 directing the respondents to reconsider the cases of the petitioners therein for appointment as Constables in CRPF in light of the Review Medical Certificates forming annexures-"L", "M" and "N" to the petition. The respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner and passed Order being Order No.R.II.09/2014-EC-V-(SWP No. 2861/13) dated 21.06.2014, whereby they rejected the case of the petitioner for selection against the post of Constable GD because of tie of marks with the private respondent. In the said Order, it is mentioned that petitioner had secured 28 marks and the last selected candidate in ST category had also secured 28 marks, and in case of tie of marks, the candidate older in age gets preference, therefore, the petitioner could not be recruited as private respondent had been already selected with the same marks.