WP(C) 2666/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. The grievance of the petitioner is that although he belongs to O BC category, but his case for appointment as Constable (GD) in the CRPF was not considered taking note of the said fact. In the counter affidavit filed by the r espondents, the plea taken is that since the petitioner did not submit the caste certificate (OBC) in the prescribed format, his case could not be considered un der the said category, but was considered as general category candidate. As an O BC category candidate the petitioner is entitled to get some relaxation. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that as an OBC category candidate the petit ioner might have been selected, but since he did not produce the caste certifica te in the prescribed format, his case could not be considered under the said cat egory. I have heard Mr. A. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. Borah, learned CGC. While Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petiti oner submits that the petitioner may not have submitted the OBC certificate in t he prescribed format given by the respondents, but the fact of the matter being that the petitioner is an OBC category candidate, his case ought to have conside red under the said category. He further submits that the petitioner does not hav e any hand in issuance of the certificate in the particular format and that in c ase of any doubt the CRPF authority could have verified the same with the author ity of the State Govt. On the other hand, Ms. R. Chokraborty, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. A dvocate submits that the respondents have acted in the matter strictly in accord ance with rules and the particular format having been prescribed, the petitioner ought to have submitted his caste certificate in the said format. Nobody has questioned the OBC certificate produced by the petiti oner on the ground that the certificate is a forged one or has been obtained fra udulently. Merely because the caste certificate issued in favour of the petition er by the competent authority is not in the prescribed format given by the respo ndents, it will be unjust to deny the petitioner for consideration of his case u nder the said category. In case of any doubt, the CRPF authority can very well v erify the same in consultation with the issuing authority. Since the petitioner would have got different consideration as an OBC category candidate, but his cas e was considered as a general candidate, I am of the considered opinion that his case needs to be considered afresh as an OBC category candidate applying the sa me yardsticks and parameters which have been applied to the case of the OBC cate gory candidate. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to ca rry a fresh exercise as expeditiously as possible preferably within 30.06.2011.