1 2025:CGHC:17183 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3250 of 2017 • Aman Jyoti Tirkey S/o James Ward Tirkey, Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Banwar, Tahsil Pondiuproda, District Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India Through The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Public Grievances And Pension, New Delhi 2. The Under Secretary, Government Of India, Staff Selection Commission, Block No. 12, C G O Compelx, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 110003 3. The Deputy Director, Staff Selection Commission, M. P. R. , M / O Personnel, Public Grivances And Pension, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Pradeep Bara, Posted As Constable G. D. , Through Deputy Director, Staff Selection Commission M. P. R. , M / O Personnel, Public Grivances And Pension, Anupam Nagar, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Singh, Advocate For Respondents No. 1 to 3 For Respondent No. 4 : : Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Government Counsel Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15/04/2025 1. The petitioner has challenged his non-selection to the post of Constable GD pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.02.2015. The petitioner mentioned himself as a resident of the naxal affected area, Digitally signed by RAMESH KUMAR VATTI 2 whereas he is a permanent resident of Korba, therefore, his name was not considered. 2. Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the instance of the respondent authorities, the petitioner showed himself as a candidate of the naxal affected area. He would further submit that the respondent authorities ought to have considered the claim of the petitioner as the petitioner belongs to the scheduled tribe category and has the requisite qualifications. He would also submit that the petitioner passed the written examination and physical ability test but his name was considered on account of trivial issues. He would contend that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the name of the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 would oppose. He would submit that in the application form, the petitioner showed himself as a member of the naxal affected area, whereas as per the domicile certificate, he was a resident of Korba, therefore, his name was not considered. He would further submit that the cut-off mark for the scheduled tribes category was 58, whereas the petitioner secured 50 marks, therefore also his name was not considered for appointment as a member of the Scheduled Tribe Community. He would further contend that the representation made by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the authority concerned. He would also submit that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 would support the contentions made by Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 3 6. Admittedly, the petitioner is a permanent resident of Korba, but in the application form, he disclosed himself as a resident of the naxal affected area, therefore, his name was not considered by the respondent authorities and further, he secured 50 marks, whereas the cut-off marks for the Scheduled Tribe category (Non-Naxal) was 58 marks. The candidates who secured below 50 marks were selected as they were residents of the naxal affected area, therefore, the contention made by Mr. K.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the candidates who secured lesser marks than the petitioner were selected, appears to be misconceived. 7. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no ground is made out for interference. 8. Consequently, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge vatti