Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010053662025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1588/2025 BAHARUL ISLAM AND ORS S/O- ABDUL RASHID, VILL- MARICHA, P.O- KAYAKUCHI, P.S- BARPETA, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781352 2: ASRAB ALI S/O- ABDUL SATTAR VILL- PAKABETBARI P.O- JARABARI P.S- BARPETA DIST- BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781314 3: ABDUL MONNAF S/O- ASSADDI SK VILL- BERBHANGI PART II P.O- DIMAKURI P.S- GOLAKGANJ DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78333 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT. OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF Page No.# 2/3 (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 RK PURAM NEW DELHI-110066 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 RK PURAM NEW DELHI-110066 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DIGP) CRPF GROUP CENTRE CRPF AMERIGOG ASSAM GHY-2 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, M BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. B CHAKRAVARTY (C.G.C) BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM ORDER Date : 07/04/2025 Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents. The petitioners herein had participated in the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement notice dated 15/02/2023 for recruitment of Constable (Technical and Tradesman) (Male/Female) in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). After completion of the selection process, the authorities had declared the results. However, the petitioners would not achieve the minimum cut off marks and, Page No.# 3/3 therefore, they were not selected. The writ petitioners have, however, approached this Court by filing this writ petition, seeking a Writ of Mandamus, directing the authorities to appoint them in the 4 (four) posts, which had allegedly fallen vacant due to non-joining of four selected candidates. After taking note of the plea raised in the writ petition, Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC, was directed to obtain instruction in the matter. Based on the written instruction dated 02/04/2025, Mr. Chakravarty submits that the writ petitioners did not score the minimum cut off marks, as a result of which, they were not selected. As such, their names were also not included in the final merit list or the waiting list. In view of the above, the writ petitioners do not have any right that can be enforced in this writ petition. It is also the submission of Mr. Chakravarty that all the vacancies have already been filled up even before filing of the writ petition and, therefore, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, at this stage. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not secure the minimum cut off marks and, therefore, their names were not included in the merit list or the waiting list. If that be so, even assuming that there were four vacancies available due to the reasons stated by the petitioners, even then, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that cannot be a ground for this Court to issue a Writ of mandamus directing the authorities to appoint the writ petitioners. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant