WP(C) 3316/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. B. Das, learned CGC. The seven petitioners involved in this writ petition are aggriev ed by non-inclusion of their names in the final merit list for appointment to th e post of Constable (GD) in CRPF for the year 2008. Out of the 7 petitioners, th e petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 belong to OBC category while the petitioners No. 5 and 6 are of general category. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that the petitioners having failed to secure the cut off mark for final selection, their names could not be included in the final merit list. The petitioners have secure d 42, 45, 38, 49, 51 and 52 respectively as against the cut off mark of 53 and 4 5 for general category and OBC category respectively. If we go by the said cut o ff mark none of the petitioners could come within the zone of consideration and accordingly their names were not included in the merit list. However, the petiti oners No. 4 and 7 have contended that although they belong to OBC category, but they were considered as general category candidates. The respondents in their counter affidavit have admitted this fa ct. However, it has been stated that the said two petitioners could not be consi dered as OBC category candidate as they failed to submit OBC certificate in the prescribed format. Merely because the petitioners No. 4 and 7 did not submit OBC ce rtificate in the prescribed format of the CRPF, same by itself cannot negate the ir status as OBC. In this connection, leaned counsel for the petitioner have pla ced reliance on the order dated 27.5.2011 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 105/ 11 (Pulak Nath Vs. Union of India) in which under similar circumstances, the cas e of the petitioners was directed to considered as OBC category candidates. The petitioners No. 4 and 7 having secured 49 and 52, they are well within the cut o ff mark of 45 specified for OBC. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directin g the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners No. 4 and 7 as OBC cat egory candidates. It will also be open for the respondents to verify their cast certificate from the authority concerned, if so advised. At this stage, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners s ubmits that as against the earlier vacancy position of 312, now total vacancy po sition is 574. If the said vacancies are taken into consideration, the petitione rs may come within the zone of consideration for appointment. However, no opinio n is expressed in this regard. If the authority decides to fill up more vacancy from the select list in question or by way of inclusion of further names in the select list on the basis of the merit, I see no reason as to why the case of the petitioner, if they come within the zone of consideration shall not be consider ed. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stan ds disposed of. As regards the decision relating to the petitioners No. 4 and 7, the authority will pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible, prefera bly within two months.