WP(C) 5499/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms Rini Gos wami, learned Central Govt. Counsel. The petitioner, who is aspirant for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Central Reserve Police Force, has filed this writ petition praying for a directi on to the respondents to appoint him against normal waste vacancies. The facts are in a narrow campus. The petitioner had offered his candidature for the aforesaid post in acceptance of which, he was invited for selection that co mprised of Physical Efficiency Test followed by Written Examination and Oral Int erview. The petitioner participated in all the segments, he having been found to have cleared each one of the segments. However, he was found medically unfit an d on the basis of his appeal for re-medical examination a review medical examina tion was carried out in which he was found medically fit. In the meantime, the S elect List was published, which naturally did not include the name of the petiti oner as he was found medically unfit. However, when he was found fit on a review medical examination, the petitioner agitated his grievance for appointment on t he basis of his merit position. According to the petitioner, even if he could not make it to the final Select Li st on the basis of the cut-off-marks fixed, but in view of the fact that many of the selected candidates did not join the offered post, his case is required to be considered against such vacancies, which is described as normal waste vacanci es. Referring to the stand of the respondents in their counter affidavit that th e petitioner did not do well in the written examination, another plea advanced b y the petitioner is that the selection of candidates must be on the basis of the total marks secured in all the three segments i.e. Physical Efficiency Test, Wr itten and Oral Interview. Ms Goswami, learned C.G.C. has produced the letter dated 27.4.2011 addressed to her by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, C.R.P.F., Guwahati, in which, it has been stated that as against the cut-off-marks of 53, out of 10 0 for appointment to the post of Constable (General Duty), the petitioner having secured only 40 marks, his name could not be included in the merit list. Be it stated here that the respective marks for each one of the aforementioned catego ries i.e. Physical Efficiency Test, Written and Oral Interview are 25, 50 and 25 respectively. So far as the last category of oral interview is concerned, ther e is further division of 10 + 15, out of which 10-mark is earmarked for special qualification and 15 for oral interview. According to Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, since many of the selected candidates, whose names were included in the Select List, did not j oin, there are enough vacancies to accommodate the petitioner. On this, Ms Goswa mi, learned C.G.C submits that since the authority has fixed the cut-off-mark as 53 for appointment, there is no question of making any appointment of the candi dates who secured marks below 53. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petition er submits that since in the advertisement, the cut-off-mark was specified as 35 for general category candidates, in case of available vacancies, the authoritie s in the C.R.P.F. is required to consider the cases of those candidates who secu red marks below 53 but above the cut-off-mark i.e. 35. The above aspect of the matter has not been dealt with in the aforementioned let ter dated 27.4.2011. In view of the above, the relief prayed for by the petitioner for his appointmen t on the basis of the marks secured by him, cannot be granted. However, the resp ondents may examine his case in reference to his plea that his case is required to be considered against normal waste vacancies. Such examination will be on th e basis of the parameters and yardsticks fixed by the authorities. No opinion is expressed in this regard. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.