1. The common issue involved in all these writ petitions relates to claim for appointment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in pursuance to advertisement dated 05.02.2011. This is the second round of litigation subsequent to representation on the issue, earlier directed, having been dismissed. As common issue is involved in all these writ petitions, with the consent of the parties, all the petitions were heard together and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26389/2018 was taken as lead file.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the rejection of their representation vide order dated 22.02.2018 and non-consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in pursuance to advertisement dated 05.02.2011, the present bunch of writ petitions are filed seeking the following relief:

“(i) By issuing a writ of mandamus for Appointment of petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) in CISF, BSF, CRPF, SSB, Assam Rifles / ITBP against left out vacancy according to other similarly situated persons on the basis of note / condition no 3 & 4 of the permission letter mentioned as in para no 3 & 4 of the permission letter and the as per para 10 sub para iv of impugned advertisement “the commission with the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs shall have the discretion to divert candidates from surplus State to deficit State” with all consequential benefit as per higher merit position or also against vacant post available with the department same vacant post should not be carry forward or fill up against the vacancy of next against vacant post available with the department same vacant post should not be carry forward or fill up against the vacancy of next recruitment year as year 2015 or year 2017

(ii) and the impugned order dated 55/02/2018 (Annexure-18) may kindly be declared arbitrary, unconstitutional and quashed and set aside

(iii) the cost of the petition be awarded in favour of the petitioners

(iv) Any other appropriate writ order of direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners.”

BACKGROUND

3. In the earlier round of litigation, the petition seeking similar relief was disposed of vide order dated 17.05.2017 by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No. 2867/2017 titled as ‘Kashi Ram vs. Union of India & Anr’, and other connected matters, with the following directions:

“(a) That all petitioners shall appear before Secretary, Staff Selection Commission and they shall submit comprehensive detailed representation giving details of the candidates who being less meritorious have been appointed.

(b) That the petitioners in the representation to be filed shall be at liberty to demolish the arguments raised by the respondents that less meritorious persons because of belonging to border area or of being more in age or for any other reasons have been given appointment.

(c) The petitioners shall also be entitled to raise arguments that wrongly candidates from the State of Rajasthan were diverted to other States even they were less meritorious or qua meritorious persons route of diversion to the other state was not followed. Petitioners shall be also at liberty to ventilate any other grievance they have regarding the recruitment process undertaken by Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, shall hold a fact finding inquiry into the allegations leveled against the officials who at the relevant time were posted in the Regional Directorate of Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region.

(d) Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, before decision of the representation shall publish a list of all candidates who appeared in the State of Rajasthan for the recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in paramilitary forces in pursuance to impugned advertisement qua all the categories be it General, OBC, SC or ST. In the list so published marks secured by each candidate shall be depicted along with cut off- marks, of the category to which candidate belong.

(e) In the list, so published, in pursuance of above directions the reasons shall be assigned as to why a particular candidate has been appointed even though he has secured less marks.

(f) After publication of the list Secretary, Staff Selection Commission shall afford hearing to the petitioners and shall pass a detailed reasoned speaking order within one month after the conclusion of the hearing.

The petitioners shall be at liberty to re-approach this court, in case, they are aggrieved against the order to be passed by the Secretary, Staff Selection Commission.”

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner(s) filed a representation, which was rejected vide impugned order dated 22.02.2018. Contempt petitions (S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 1413/2017 and other similar petitions) filed against the rejection of representation was also dismissed vide order dated 07.05.2018. SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that vide advertisement dated 05.02.2011, initially about 49,000 (forty nine thousand) posts of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF & SSB were advertised, which were subsequently increased to about 72,000 (seventy two thousand) and then ultimately to about 90,000 (ninety thousand) by including the posts of Constable (GD) in ITBP and Assam Rifles. All the petitioners scored more than the cut off marks in the written exam and were accordingly called for the physical/medical test. However, when the final merit list was published, the name of the petitioners was not reflected therein. Being aggrieved, different petitioners filed different petitions which were all disposed of with similar direction to file representations. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that all the representations were rejected mechanically, without application of mind and with utter disregard to the specific directions of this Court issued vide order dated 17.05.2017 and therefore all the impugned orders are liable to be quashed and set aside and accordingly the petitioners be afforded appointment on the vacant posts. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has made the following submissions:

5.1) That the advertised posts were to fill the vacancies arising all over India in the paramilitary forces. As per the advertisement dated 05.02.2011 and the admission certificate, the applicants could be diverted from one State having surplus applicants to another State having deficit candidates. The relevant para 10 (iv) of the advertisement and note-3 of the admission certificate are reproduced as under:

“10. Mode of selection:

(iv) The Commission, with the approval of the Ministry of Home Affairs, shall have the discretion to divert candidates from Surplus States to deficit States.

…

Note-3: Candidates would be required to exercise additional options for posting in Assam Rifles/ITBP in order of preference at option boxes given in the Attendance Sheet to be provided in the examination hall. These two additional options would be applicable only in case they are not selected for Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, SSB & CRPF and otherwise eligible”

Relying upon the above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recruitment process was for posts available throughout the country and the new theory about the recruitment being state and category wise, which the respondents have adopted at this belated stage, is contrary to the terms of the advertisement.

5.2) That the recruitment process in pursuance to advertisement dated 05.02.2011 is still ongoing and as many as 28,044 vacancies are pending, which is evident from letter dated 15.03.2016 (Annexure-19) issued by Deputy Director, Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad (UP). Further, some applicants were given appointment as late as in 2019 and therefore even at this stage, the writ petition with the prayed relief of appointment has not become infructuous.

5.3) That the selection process was entirely arbitrary and pick and choose policy was adopted by the respondents. Similarly situated candidates and candidates lower in merit were given appointment both in the State of Rajasthan and outside. In this regard, an illustrative list of candidates was also provided containing the similarly situated candidates/lower meritorious candidates who were purportedly given appointment. Learned counsel also highlighted the case of one applicant named ‘Raju Singh’ who belonged to Suratgarh, District Shriganganagar, which is border area, and who scored more than the cut-off marks for a candidate belonging to border area and yet his candidature was rejected mechanically by treating him as a candidate belonging to general area.

5.4) That the impugned order rejecting the representation is based on false statements made by the respondents. The impugned order is supposedly passed on the basis of “record available with Commission”, whereas no such record is available with the Commission as per the respondent’s own submission made before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In the case of Hari Om Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 130/2018; decided on 10.01.2018), the respondents categorically submitted that since the advertisement was of 2011, the record could not be found in 2018. The relevant part of the order dated 10.01.2018 is reproduced as under:

“Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India has fairly submitted that this is a 2011 case, and therefore the record could not be found, but for this obviously the appellant cannot be made to suffer. It is also submitted that the appellant has now crossed the age bar. According to us neither of these contentions can be countenanced. In view of the fact that for an obvious mistake the appellant should not be penalized, if otherwise eligible on merits. In view of the matter, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment passed by the High Court. The appellant will be absorbed in the BSF forthwith.”

By the respondent’s own submission, the record of 2011 advertisement was weeded out after the expiry of their record retention scheduled period and the very fact that the respondents decided the representation on the basis on non-existent record proves that the representation was rejected mechanically.

5.5) That the directions issued by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.05.2017 were not complied with in letter and in spirit. The spirit of the Court’s order was to ensure that there was no discrimination vis-à-vis the other appointment to the post of Constable (GD) with para military forces pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.02.2011. The non-speaking impugned order does not ensure that no lower meritorious candidates have been appointed and this fact by itself indicates that there has been bungling in the appointment to the post of Constable (GD) pursuant to advertisement dated 05.02.2011. Further, a fact finding inquiry was also directed to be conducted into allegations levelled against the concerned officers at the time. However, no report in this regard was ever produced.

SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENTS

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objections on the maintainability of the present bunch of writ petitions. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this is the fifth round of litigation by these petitioners, who remained unsuccessful for no other reason than lack of merit. The representation of the petitioners was decided by way of a speaking order wherein all the contentions raised before this Court were duly answered, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and it was clarified, in no uncertain terms, that no person below the cut-off was given appointment. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that there is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the petitioners herein, that the petitioners are compulsive litigants who are still agitating the recruitment in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 2011 even after four subsequent recruitment cycles have been concluded and therefore the present bunch of writ petitions should be dismissed at this threshold with heavy cost, especially considering that no vacant posts exists as on date.

7. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents made the following submissions:

7.1) That after the conclusion of the recruitment process in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.02.2011, four subsequent rounds of recruitment, in the year 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2018, have also concluded and no vacancies exist as on date qua advertisement dated 05.02.2011 to accommodate the petitioners.

7.2) That in the advertisement itself it was clearly mentioned that vacancies, which were prescribed State wise and category wise, were tentative. The scheme of recruitment was prepared by the Ministry of Home Affairs (for short “MHA”) and the Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) conducted the recruitment according to the said scheme. The mode of selection was always prescribed to be state and category wise. The minimum cut-off marks prescribed in para 10 of the advertisement dated 05.02.2011 was for the limited purpose of preparing list of those candidates who would qualify for the detailed medical examination (for short “DME”) and the cut-off for final selection was fixed as per the stipulated criterion of merit-cum-post preference option given by the candidate and subject to State, District Area and category wise number of vacancies reported by CAPFs. Initially the advertisement was only for recruitment in BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB, but subsequently the applicants were also given an additional option to give their preference for posting in Assam Rifles or ITBP. But at the same time, it was clarified that the Commission only proposes to fill up the left over vacancy, if any, in Assam Rifles and ITBP after filling them from the two dedicated separate examination conducted simultaneously from the eligible and successful candidates of recruitment of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB. However, since all the vacancies of Assam Rifles and ITBP were filled from their separate dedicated examination, there was no occasion to consider the candidature of the petitioners in Assam Rifles and ITBP.

7.3) That the Select List was prepared as per State-wise vacancies with further reservation for candidates of Border Districts/Naxal or Military affected districts within the State. Surplus candidates securing marks above the highest cut off marks fixed in the written examination for their respective categories were included in the Reserve List and considered for allocation against the unfilled vacancies in other states. However, MHA advised that unfilled vacancies in Jammu & Kashmir, North Eastern States (Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Mizoram, Meghalaya, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura), Naxal and Military affected States (Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa, Jharkhand, Chattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal) should not be filled with candidates from surplus States/UTs. Therefore, such vacancies were not taken into consideration after preparation of Select List while allotting surplus candidates against vacancies in deficit States/UTs. The 28,044 vacancies that the petitioner alleges are also vacancies that fall within these States, which could not be filled by surplus candidates, including the present petitioners who apart from being from the State of Rajasthan are also not high enough in merit to be included in the Reserve List. Details of marks of last selected candidates for the vacancies allotted to Rajasthan (State Code: 29) are given below:

Reserve List (prepared on All India Basis):

7.4) That taking the case of the petitioner Sita Ram for instance, who being an OBC candidate belonging to General District Area of State of Rajasthan (code-29) had scored 45 marks in the written examination, which were less than the marks of last selected candidate of same State, same District Area and same category in the Select List prepared State wise as well as in the Reserve List prepared on all India basis. Therefore, he was not selected in the Constable (GD) Examination 2011 due to his low merit in both Select List and Reserve List. Similarly, the Commission never declared any person selected in the Select List or the Reserve List below the cut-off marks as detailed in result write-up dated 28.11.2011.

7.5) That it is further clarified that as the vacancies were State wise for the Select List, hence it is not justified for any two candidates of said recruitment examination for the same year to compare their selection status with respect to each other if both of them do not belong to the same State, same district area and same category in Select List and do not belong to same category in case of Reserve List, which was prepared on all India basis. The comparison of selection status by candidate of different States, different district areas and different category is not justified.

7.6) That it is also wrong to say that the representation was decided without availability of record. The reason for availability of basic data despite the fact that physical record pertaining to this examination, i.e. dossier of non-selected candidates being weeded out, is that the copy of application containing basic data filled by the candidate in his/her application submitted in the exam is still available in electronic form with data processing agency of the Commission. Further, the result of this exam is also available on the website of the Commission. Hence all required date is available in electronic form.

7.7) That even if some mistake is committed and someone who is not meritorious is erroneously accorded appointment, the appropriate step would be to remove such candidate, rather than perpetuating such illegality. It is a settled position of law that illegality cannot be perpetuated. Reliance in this regard can be placed on Apex Court judgments of Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur vs. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors.: (1997) 1 SCC 35, Basawaraj and Ors. vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer: (2013) 14 SCC 81, Fuljit Kaur vs. State of Punjab: (2010) 11 SCC 455, and Sneh Prabha vs. State of UP: (1996) 7 SCC 426.

7.8) That the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court had the occasion to consider similar controversy pertaining to the same advertisement dated 05.02.2011 in the case of Ajit Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (Writ A. No. 48354 of 2017; decided on: 20.08.2018) and the Court ruled in favour of Union of India. The said judgment has been upheld by both the Division Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Vinay Kumar Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (Special Appeal Defective No. 962 of 2018; decided on: 12.10.2020) as well as by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kuldeep Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2861/2021; decided on 26.11.2021).

7.9) That as per settled position of law, mere inclusion in the select list does not confer any absolute right upon the petitioner for being appointed. Reliance in this regard is placed on Apex Court judgment of Ashwani Kumar Singh vs. UPPSC: (2003) 11 SCC 584.

7.10) That had the petitioners provided substantial documents in support of their candidature and selection, such as scoring more marks in the written examination than the marks secured by the last selected candidate in the same category, same district area and same State in Select List or marks secured by the last selected candidate in same category in Reserve List of the said examination, their case would have been considered for revision of their result and their representation would not have been rejected. But since all the petitioners are clearly not selected on account of their low merit, the writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost to avoid unwarranted and unending litigation.

ANALYSIS

8. Heard the arguments advanced by both the sides, scanned the record of the writ petition and considered the judgments cited at Bar.

9. The primary issue raised by the petitioners is that since the advertisement dated 05.02.2011 was floated for recruitment on the post of Constable (GD) all over the country in different paramilitary forces, including that of Assam Rifles and ITBP, and since similarly situated persons have been given appointment, the petitioners may also be given appointment as there are still about 28,044 vacancies which are pending as on date.

10. Before proceedings to the merits of the case, it is necessary to elucidate the mode and manner of selection in pursuance to advertisement dated 05.02.2011. The Commission published advertisement for three recruitment exams simultaneously in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar on 05.02.2011:

"a.) Recruitment of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, and SSB Examination 2011;

b.) Recruitment of Constable (GD) in ITBP, Examination 2011; c.) Recruitment of Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifle Examination 2011."

The candidates applying for post of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, and SSB were cautioned that they were required to submit their application in the prescribed format to the concerned Regional office of Commission under whose jurisdiction the Center selected by him/her for written examination falls. The candidates applying for the post of Constable (GD) in ITBP were required to submit their application form to North West Regional Office of the Commission at Chandigarh and candidates applying for the post of Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles were required to submit their application form to North East Regional Office of the Commission at Guwahati. What is pertinent to note is that the examination of all the aforementioned three recruitment process were separate. During the written examination for Constable (GD) in BSF (Code A), CISF (Code B), CRPF (Code C), and SSB (Code D), candidates were given an option to submit their preference for ITBP (Code E) and Assam Rifles (Code F) also. However, it was clarified that the Commission only proposes to fill up the left up vacancies, if any, after the declaration of results of the separate examination of ITBP and Assam Rifles. The result of Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifle Examination 2011 was declared on 30.05.2011 and 3915 candidates were called for the DME against the 2076 vacancies. The result of Constable (GD) in ITBP, Examination 2011 was declared on 02.06.2011 and 17707 candidates were called for DME against the 16467 vacancies. Since no vacancies remained after declaration of the results of Assam Rifle Examination 2011 and ITBP, Examination 2011, there was no occasion to consider the candidature of petitioners, let alone anyone else who only applied for Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, and SSB Examination 2011, for appointment in Assam Rifles or ITBP. It has specifically been pleaded that no candidate of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF & SSB Examination 2011 was selected in ITBP / Assam Rifles.

11. It appears that the petitioners have proceeded with the misconceived notion that the recruitment to Assam Rifles and ITBP were to be made exclusively from the results of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, and SSB Examination 2011. However, since such a notion is factually incorrect, no relief to that extent can be granted to the petitioners, even if they were declared successful in the Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, and SSB Examination 2011. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioners to be considered against the posts of Assam Rifles and ITBP, being completely devoid of merits, was rightly rejected vide the impugned order dated 22.02.2018.

12. Since the issue related to Assam Rifles and ITBP is settled, the next issue which requires the consideration of this Court is with respect to preparation of Select List and Reserve List for the Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, and SSB Examination 2011 and the issue of diversion of candidates from surplus State to deficit State. The written exam for Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, and SSB Examination 2011 was held on 05.06.2011. As per para 10 of the advertisement, relied upon by the petitioners, the minimum cut-off percentage of marks was prescribed only for the limited purpose of qualification of the candidate for appearance in DME and not for the final selection, as contended by the petitioners. The result of the Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, and SSB Examination 2011 was declared on 28.11.2011 for those male candidate who were declared ‘Fit’ in DME. The write-up/result dated 28.11.2011 contained methodology of the selection, details of marks of last selected candidates- State/UT wise, CAPF-wise, category wise, area wise etc. Details of marks of last selected candidate for the vacancies allotted to Station code 29 (Rajasthan), under the jurisdiction of Northern Regional Office of the Commission at Delhi were also provided. The Select List was accordingly prepared as per State wise vacancies with further reservations for Border / Naxal or military affected areas. The Reserve List was prepared on all India basis and the cut-off marks for inclusion in the Reserve List was based on the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in that particular category. The category wise cut-off marks of the Select List and the Reserve List has been reproduced above, but for the sake of convenience, the same is reproduced again:

Reserve List (prepared on All India Basis):

The result/write-up dated 28.11.2011 and the cut-off marks of last selected candidate has not been challenged. The consistent stand of the Commission has been that no person below the cut-off has been selected in either of the lists and if any candidate has been wrongly appointed, then such cases of aberrations have been duly scrutinized and cancelled. It is noted that the petitioner Sita Ram, being an OBC candidate from General Area of State of Rajasthan, had scored only 45 marks in the written examination as against the cut-off of 58 marks for inclusion in the Reserve List. Therefore, being low in merit, the candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the Commission. It appears that the petitioners have again proceeded with the misconceived notion that the Select List and Reserve List were to be prepared on all India basis on single merit. It is pertinent to mention here that as per the Scheme of the advertisement, vacancies were not only categorized with reference to State, but were also separate and distinct with reference to naxal/military affected areas, border areas and general areas even within the State and therefore merit was rightly drawn with reference to each unit separately. Once it is established that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on account of low merit, no relief can be granted to such petitioners. The list of purported similarly situated candidates supplied by the petitioners have been sufficiently controverted by the respondents and it is not deemed necessary to repeat those reasons mentioned in the impugned order dated 22.02.2018. However, it is clarified that if any candidate low in merit has been erroneously appointed, then the respondent shall take necessary steps, in accordance with law, to rectify such error(s). In view of the above, the contention of the petitioners that similarly situated persons have been given appointment, being baseless and without merit, is rejected.

13. The next issue which falls into consideration of this Court is with respect to diversion of candidates from the surplus State (in the instant case(s), the State of Rajasthan) to deficit States. As per the para 10 (iv) of the advertisement dated 05.02.2011, relied upon by the petitioners, the Commission had the discretion to divert candidate from surplus State to deficit State. This discretion of the Commission was subject to the approval of MHA. It has been the contention of the petitioner that about 28,044 posts are still lying vacant in pursuance to advertisement dated 05.02.2011. However, these vacant posts are from those States (J&K, North Eastern States and Naxal/Military affected States) wherein the MHA has directed not to fill the vacancies from candidates of surplus State. The reason for non-inclusion of these vacant posts while preparing the Reserve List is attributed to the direction of MHA not to fill the posts of Constable (GD) in those particular States. The same has also been stated clearly in the impugned order dated 22.02.2018. Once the MHA has issued direction not to divert candidates from surplus State to those particular States, the Commission had no occasion to exercise the discretion of diversion on those 28,044 posts and therefore the Reserve List was rightly prepared on all India basis from non-selected candidates of surplus State against the vacancies that remained unfilled in deficit States (except J&K, North Eastern States and naxal/military affected States). The Allahabad High Court, on being faced with similar controversy, in the case of Ajit Singh vs. UOI (supra), which has been upheld by the Apex Court, also observed and held as under:

“17. An affidavit has been filed by the Deputy Director of the Commission on 26.07.2018, in which a categorical statement is made, in paragraph no. 3, that no vacant post of Constable (GD) is available against the advertisement issued for recruitment in the year 2011. So far as issue of 28,044 posts reported to be vacant is concerned, it has been clarified that these vacancies pertain to either North-Eastern region, Jammu & Kashmir, Naxal and Militancy affected areas and that, no vacancy is available in the category to which the petitioners belong. A further reiteration is made in paragraph no. 9 of the said affidavit that there exists no change in the cut off marks for inclusion in selected list published on 28.11.2011. It is stated that most of the petitioners belong to general area of the State of Uttar Pradesh, for which category code is 33 and that, all posts pertaining to such area stand filled up. It is also stated that cut off declared on 28.11.2011 has not been compromised.

18. In view of the specific stand taken by the Commission, through the affidavit of its Deputy Director, the submission advanced on behalf of the petitioners that 28,044 posts or any other vacancy still remains available cannot be accepted. The instructions issued by the Ministry for conduct of recruitment, already extracted above, clearly records that candidates from the surplus categories would not be adjusted against vacant positions of Jammu & Kashmir, North Eastern States and naxal and militancy areas. The action of respondents, not to fill up such posts, is thus as per the instructions issued. The petitioners' plea, in that regard, therefore, stands rejected.

(Emphasis supplied)”

14. On the issue of non-availability of record, this Court is convinced of the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents in stating that basic and relevant record is available in electronic form. The reliance placed by the petitioner on the Apex Court judgment dated 10.01.2018 in the case of Hari Om Singh vs. UOI (supra) is also misconceived for the reason that the issue therein was limited to clerical error as the merit of the petitioner was not disputed and the Apex Court was of the view that for non-availability of record to correct mere clerical error, the appellant should not be made to suffer. In this case, all the petitioners are demonstrably low in merit. The respondents have rebutted the contentions made by the petitioners on purported similarly situated candidates vide detailed speaking order dated 22.02.2018 and the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any irregularity in the same.

15. It is also required to be noted that unfulfilled vacancies, if any, for a particular year are carried forward to subsequent year of recruitment examination and subsequent to 2011, selection processes have been undertaken for specific vacancies in the year 2012, 2013, 2015 and 2018 and final result of these examinations have also been declared. Therefore, as on date, no vacancies exist in pursuance to the advertisement dated 05.02.2011. The said fact is also corroborated by MHA letters dated 30.09.2019 and 12.12.2019 (Annexure-AA/5).

16. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order dated 22.02.2018 is just and legal and that the candidature of the petitioners was rightly rejected on account of their low merit.

17. Accordingly, the present bunch of writ petitions, being absolutely devoid of merits, are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.