WP(C) 2342/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr.S.K. Medhi, learned counsel along with Mr. A. Ahmed, learned co unsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. B. Das, learned CGC. The three petitioners aspiring for appointment as Constable (GD) in the CRPF, have filed this writ petition, for a direction to the respondents to appoi nt them pursuant to their selection and medical examination in which they were f ound medically fit. Referring to the cut-off marks fixed in the related document s, it is the case of the petitioner that they having secured the said cut-off ma rks, there was no reason not to appoint them. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been stated th at although the petitioners have successfully qualified in the tests including t he written examination and also declared medically fit but their names could not be included in the final select list of General/OBC/SC category due to securing less marks in recruitment tests in comparison with other candidates. Be it stat ed here that for appointment to the post of Constable (GD), the minimum mark was kept as 35 for SC/ST/OBC candidate and 38 for general candidate. Be it also sta ted here that the petitioners are General, OBC and SC category candidates respec tively. The cut-off marks from which the appointments could be made, are as foll ows :- S/ No Name of the candidates Category Total marks obtained Cut of m arks 1 Choudhury Hamim Shubhani General 38 41 2 Pintu Chanda OBC 35 36 3 Jwel Kanti Roy SC 35 37 In view of the above, although the petitioners had secured the minimum c ut-off marks, which are 38 and 35 respectively but in view of the cut-off marks over which the candidates have been appointed, they could not be appointed. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the stand of the respondents in paragraph 3(F) of the counter affidavit as well as the speci fic averments in the writ petition that there are still vacancies against which the petitioners could be appointed, submits that since there are vacancies and t he petitioners being successful candidates, the CRPF authority should take actio n in the matter for their appointment. On this, Mrs. B.Das, learned CGC, submits that it is up to the authorities of the CRPF to take decision in the matter and this Court exercising it power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Cons titution of India will not issue any mandamus. Apart from the petitioners, there may be other candidates who have also obtained minimum marks fixed for general and reserved category candidates. In th e event of any consideration being made by the CRPF authority to make further ap pointments against available vacancies, if any, certainly they will also conside r the case of the petitioners along with other similarly situated candidates. With the above observations, the writ petition stands disposed of, witho ut however, any order as to costs.