WP(C) 1266/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI The petitioner Ranadip Boro took part in a selection for appointment in the post of Constable in the C.R.P.F. Claiming that he was selected on merit but was n ot being appointed on the ground of not fulfilling the minimum requirements of h eight, weight, chest etc. WP(C) No.4335/2007 was filed. In the said writ petitio n it was contended by the present petitioner that he was entitled to the benefit of relaxed standards of physical measurement upon submission of a certificate p rescribed in the form appended as Annexure-III to the advertisement. However, as the petitioner was not informed of the requirement to file the said certificate the same was not filed. Consequently, the benefit of the relaxed physical stand ards was not granted to him. This Court disposed of WP(C) No.4335/2007 along with other connected cases on 23 .11.2007. For the reasons assigned, directions were issued in the said writ peti tions to the respondents to fix another date for submission of Annexure-III cert ificate by the petitioners. However, in the aforesaid order of the Court it was made clear that such reconsideration will be only in respect of such of the peti tioners who had obtained the minimum cut off marks. In paragraph 7 of the judgme nt this Court had directed that the cases of the persons named therein need not be considered as they were not eligible having failed to secure the minimum cut off marks. Contending that the petitioner had secured 43 marks which is the cut off marks p rescribed for ST candidates to which category the petitioner belongs this writ p etition has been filed. The affidavit filed by the respondents indicates that though 136 posts were adve rtised for ST candidates, subsequently 37 posts were excluded for being filled u p by ex-Boro militants in terms of a Government of India order. 99 posts, theref ore, remained available for ST candidates. 91 candidates who had secured upto 43 .5 marks were selected. 8 vacancies, therefore, continued to remain available fo r the ST candidates. However, more than 8 candidates, including the petitioner, had secured 43 marks. In such circumstances, the respondents decided to go by th e age/date of birth of candidates who had secured 43 marks. In this manner, 8 pe rsons, particulars of whom are stated in paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit, w ere selected for appointment. The dates of birth of the aforesaid 8 persons bein g earlier than the date of birth of the petitioner which is 28.5.88, the petitio ner could not be included in the select list for appointment. The facts stated in paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit of the respondents woul d indicate that what was placed before the Court earlier in WP(C) No.4335/2007 w as not fully correct. Be that as it may, the manner of selection against the 8 a vailable vacancies out of the persons who had secured 43 marks as indicated in p aragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit leaves the Court satisfied that no error has been committed in excluding the petitioner from the select list. The yardstick adopted by the respondents for inclusion of candidates in the select list can be accepted by the Court to be fair and transparent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the action of the responde nts in taking out 37 out of 136 posts advertised for ST candidates is not correc t. The cause of action pleaded in the writ petition being what it is, this Court does not deem it appropriate to go into the said question in the present writ p etition. If the petitioner is in any way aggrieved by the said act of the respon dents the petitioner is left with the option of availing such legal remedies as may be open to him in law. Consequently and in the light of the foregoing discussions this writ petition ha s to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed, however, without imposing any co st.