WP(C) 1702/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms. R . Borah, learned CGSC. The petitioners are the aspirants for the post of Constable (GD) in the CRPF. According to them, they having cleared all the tests, i.e. physical test, written test, viva voce test and medical test, they ought to have selected and a ppointed. The respondents in their counter affidavit have stated that although t he petitioners could qualify in the tests, but their names did not figure in the final merit list as they did not come within the zone of consideration on the b asis of the cut off marks fixed. In paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit, it ha s been stated that as per the requirement policy and the procedure thereof, the candidates who qualified in the physical measurement, written examination, medic al examination and interview are considered for inclusion in the final merit li st on the basis of the marks obtained by them. According to the stand of the res pondents, the petitioners although could qualify in all the segments, but they c ould not come to the final merit list as they did not secure the qualifying mark s. Learned counsel for the petitioners upon a reference to Annexure-B adver tisement and the contention stipulated therein, has drawn my attention to Clause (f) under Part-II so as to contend that the final selection of the candidates w as to be made on the basis of the cut off percentage of marks as indicated in th e said Clause in terms of which the cut off percentage of marks for the ex-servi ceman and ST/SC candidates are 35% and 33% respectively. The aforesaid cut off marks specified in the advertisement is the minimu m percentage of marks. It cannot be said that irrespective of vacancy position w hosoever secured 35% and 33% respectively will have to be appointed. The aforesa id percentage of marks prescribed in the advertisement is to maintain the minimu m standard of the selection and to maintain the minimum standard, the respondent s are to make the final selection in reference to the number of vacancies. If t he petitioner did not come within the zone of consideration in reference to the number of vacancies, it cannot be stated that they have been debarred illegally from being appointed. This specific plea of the respondents has not been denied by the petitioners by filing any rejoinder affidavit. In view of the above, the writ petition are dismissed.