IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12734 of 2011 ============================================= Shafaque Jahan, d/o- Haidar Ali, r/o- Shah Colony, Mohalla- Alamganj, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India. 2. The Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi, through its Chairman. 3. The Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi. 4. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, New Delhi. 5. The Regional Director (C.R.) Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad. 6. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission(C.R.), Allahabad. 7. The Under Secretary, Staff Selection Commission (C.R.), Allahabad. Nos. 5 to 7 are 8-AB Beli Road, Allahabad (U.P.), 211002. .... .... Respondent/s ============================================= Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Rashid Alam For the Respondent/s : Mr. Raghib Ahsan(Asst.SG) ============================================= 3 14-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent Union of India and its officials. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which is taken on record. Petitioner has approached this court seeking appropriate direction upon the authorities particularly Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad (respondent No. 5) to consider her case for selection and appointment as Lower Division Clerk pursuant to the examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission, (CR), (for short “the Commission”) called Combined Higher Secondary Level (10 + 2) Examination, 2010. It is the case of the petitioner that she belongs to Other Backward Class category. The respondents came out with an advertisement (Annexure-1) for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk. The petitioner submitted her application. The said application is enclosed 2 as Annexure-2. It appears therefrom that in column 10 of her application, she declared category Code No. 06 which as per the said application was meant for O.B.C. The respondents issued admit card to her for appearing at the written test on 28.11.2010.In the said admit card (Annexure-3), it is shown that the petitioner belong to the category codified as “6”. Petitioner appeared at the said examination whereafter result thereof was published. The petitioner checked her result on the website just to find that although she had obtained 96.25 marks at the written test/examination but was declared not qualified in written part as she was treated as one belonging to unreserved category (UR). Petitioner also obtained document placed at Annexure-4/A wherefrom it appears that the cut off marks for the O.B.C. category was 95.25. Clause (4) whereof reads as follows: “4.For candidates belonging to reserved categories for whom certain percentage of vacancies are reserved as per Government Policy, the category status is indicated against their Roll Numbers. It is important to note that some of these candidates have been declared qualified only for the category mentioned against their Roll Numbers. If any candidate does not actually belong to the category mentioned against his/her name, he/she may not be eligible to be included in the list. It is, therefore, in the interest of the candidates concerned to immediately contact the respective Regional Office of the Commission in all such cases where they do not belong to the category shown against their Roll Numbers.” The petitioner promptly filed a representation (Annexure-5) wherein she claimed that she has wrongly been declared not qualified treating her as a candidate belonging to unreserved category although she had claimed appointment under O.B.C. category. It is the case of the petitioner that she sought further information by invoking provisions under Right to Information Act as contained in Annexure-6 but the 3 respondent did not furnish further information. In these facts/situation, she filed another representation (Annexure-7) addressed to the respondent No. 7 which remained unattended. This compelled the petitioner to approach this Court seeking aforesaid relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that bare perusal of Annexure-2 would show that the petitioner had rightly inserted Code 6 in column 10 which is meant for O.B.C. category candidates as would appear from the details incorporated in the said column. It is further contended that the respondents also treated her as one belonging to O.B.C. category as in the admit card issued by the respondents (Annexure-3), she was shown belonging to 06 category which, according to the petitioner, is meant for O.B.C. candidates. It is contended that on perusal of Annexure-4/A, it would appear that the cut off marks for the candidates selected in the said category is 95.25 whereas the petitioner obtained 96.25 marks at the written test and as such the respondents have acted in arbitrary manner in rejecting her candidature as not qualified treating her to be a candidate belonging to unreserved category. By filing supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has also enclosed the Caste Certificate issued by the competent authority of the State Government (Annexure-8) wherefrom it appears that the petitioner is Idris (Muslim) (Darzi) which is recognized as a Backward Class under different resolutions of the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Caste Certificate (Annexure-8) was issued in favour of the petitioner on 13.11.2010. However, taking into account clause (4) of Annexure-4/A 4 (relevant part quoted hereinabove), it is fairly submitted that the respondents are required to consider the representation filed by the petitioner (Annexure-7) and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Having heard the parties and on going through the materials on record, this Court finds that the petitioner claimed herself as a candidate belonging to O.B.C. category inasmuch as in the column 10 of the application (Annexure-2), she wrote “6” which is meant for O.B.C. Accordingly, the admit card was also issued wherein the petitioner was treated as a candidate belonging to Code-06 (O.B.C) It appears from Annexure-4 that she has been treated as a candidate belonging to unreserved category and thus found not qualified in written test although she obtained 96.25 marks. From Annexure-4/1, it appears that the cut off marks for O.B.C. category is 95.25. Any discrepancy in the category was required to be reported to the authority for correction of mistakes/error. Petitioner did submit representation. Unfortunately, the same did not yield any response. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the authorities, particularly the Regional Director (C.R.), Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad (respondent No. 5) be directed to consider and dispose of the representation filed on behalf of the petitioner (Annexure-7) in accordance with law as quickly as possible. Let the petitioner file a copy of Annexure-7 annexing therewith a copy of the present order before the said respondent No. 5 within four weeks from today whereafter the said respondents shall consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law by a speaking order 5 under intimation to the petitioner within four (04) weeks of its filing. The application is disposed of with the aforesaid observations/directions. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)