(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the selection list dated 28.05.2019 issued by the respondents 1 to 3 including only the roll numbers of the respondents 4 to 13 and not including the petitioner name and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to include his name in the selection list for appointment to the post of Security Guard – 2018, at the appropriate place based on the petitioner merit and ranking in the online written examination and to appointment him as Security Guard, after subjecting the petitioner for medical test and based on his medical fitness, award costs.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and perused the records.

2. Briefly put the case of the petitioner is that he being an ex-serviceman applied to the post of Security Guard – 2018 pursuant to online recruitment notification issued by the 1st respondent in their official website and also the advertisement issued in Employment News, on 09.11.2018, calling for online applications for filling up 270 vacancies in various offices of the 1st respondent under 18 Zonal Offices situated all over India, by direct recruitment; that for Chennai Region, the first respondent notified 19 vacancies out of which 2 vacancies were reserved under OBC category and 17 vacancies under General category; that since, the petitioner being an ex-serviceman, and fully qualified, had submitted his application online on 09.11.2018; that based on the application submitted, the third respondent had issued call letter for online Competitive Examination to be held on 27.12.2018; that the petitioner had written the online examination on the said date, which was conducted in three subjects, consisting of overall 100 objective type questions for a total of 100 marks, with negative marking of 0.25 mark to be deducted for each wrong answer; and that the candidate has to secure the minimum marks in each of three subjects.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on written examination being held on 27.12.2018, second and third respondents published the results of the written examination on 28.01.2019 in their Official Website; that totally 33 candidates including the petitioner Roll Number, were included in the result of written examination held for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry Regional Office; that the respondents issued call letter to him through e-mail on 07.02.2019 to appear for physical test on 18.02.2019 at 9.30 a.m., at its Zonal Office in Chennai; that he had appeared for physical test on the scheduled date and participated in all the events which were conducted to test physical skill and got qualified in all the events.

4. Petitioner further contended that he received a mail dated 05.03.2019, directing him to appear for certificate verification in the Office of the second respondent on 12.03.2019 with all 11 certificates as mentioned therein and ID proof; that he had appeared for certificate verification with all required certificates  on the said date; that in all 19 candidates including the respondents 4 to 13 were called for certificate verification; and that the petitioner’s name is shown at S.No.14 in the list of 19 candidates, who were called for certificate verification; that the concerned Officials who have caused certificate verification, informed him the result of selection would be published in their official website; that the respondents 2 and 3 have published the selection list on 28.05.2019; that to shock and surprise of the petitioner, he found that the respondents 2 and 3, instead of including all 19 candidates who were called for certificate verification including the petitioner in the selection list, have selected only 10 candidates, namely respondents 4 to 13; and that as per the recruitment notification, the persons selected for appointment to the post of Security Guard would be sent for medical examination to assess and ascertain their physical fitness and if they are found medically fit, they would be issued with the orders of appointment.

5. Petitioner further contended that after attending the certificate verification, all the 19 candidates who were called for certificate verification, were in contact with each other on a Whatsapp group and have been communicating with each other, so as to be informed of the results and from the said communication, he had learnt respondents 4 to 13 are only selected under the impugned selection process of the respondents 2 and 3 on 28.05.2019, while the total number of vacancies were 19. Thus, the petitioner contended that since, the vacancies notified were 19, the respondents could not have excluded the petitioner and others from being recruited to the post of Security Guard after having called 19 candidates for certificate verification.

6. Contending as above, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to include the name of the petitioner in the selection list for appointment to the post of Security Guard – 2018, at the appropriate place based on merit and ranking in the online written examination subject to he being found fit in the medical test.

7. Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 is filed.

8. The respondents 1 to 3, by the counter affidavit, while not denying the factual aspect as to the notification issued for recruitment of Security Guards under 18 Zonal Offices and the number of vacancies notified therein, however, contended that the candidates who had applied in response to the notification for the recruitment of Security Guard- 2018 published on 09.11.2018, were required to meet the eligibility criteria, scheme of selection i.e, conducting of online written examination with minimum pass in each subject, physical test, Biometric Data Capturing verification and conduct of medical test for the shortlisted selected candidates; and that the candidates were required to secure the minimum of prescribed marks in each subject before they could be considered on merit.

9. The respondents 1 to 3, by the counter affidavit, further contended that the online written examination was conducted by an independent Institution viz., Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS); that the online examination was conducted on 27.12.2018 and the list of shortlisted candidates in the online examination on all India basis was released in the website on 29.01.2019; that as per the written examination results pertaining to Chennai Office, 33 candidates were provisionally shortlisted; that the provisionally shortlisted 33 candidates were called for Physical test which was held on 18.02.2019; that out of 33 candidates, only 22 candidates reported for the physical test; and that in the physical test, 3 candidates were disqualified, leaving only 19 candidates.

10. The respondents 1 to 3, by the counter affidavit, also contended that 19 candidates who got qualified in the Physical test were called for document verification on 12.03.2019, whereas, out of 19 candidates called, only 18 candidates were present and attended document verification; that during the document verification, it was found that one of the candidate is not a resident of Tamil Nadu/Puducherry and thus, the said candidate was not considered in the final merit list; that the respondents conducted document verification for 17 candidates in all; and during the document verification, it was observed that out of 17 candidates, 4 candidates, have completed graduation while they were in service and thus, were disqualified in terms of Clause 3 (c) (ii) which prescribed that the candidate should be an Under Graduate as on 01.11.2018 and accordingly, rejected these 4 candidates.

11. The respondents 1 to 3, by the counter affidavit, further contended that after document verification, final merit list was prepared with 13 candidates wherein it was found that 8 candidates as per merit list qualified under General Category (4 General + 4 OBC own merit); that against 2 reserved vacancies under OBC category, two candidates were selected in the order of merit based on qualifying marks prescribed for each of the subjects; and that thereafter, the final selection list was released in the order of merit filling up 8 vacancies in General Category (leaving 9 vacancies), and two reserved vacancies under OBC category. It is also contended that the candidates who did not secure the qualifying marks in each of the three subjects were not considered, thus, nine(9) vacancies in General category remained unfilled.

12. By the counter affidavit, it is further contended that the petitioner had appeared for written online examination conducted in 3 subjects, namely, Test of Reasoning, General English and Numerical Ability; that the petitioner did not secure the qualifying marks in the written examination under the General category, in the order of merit, but secured the Qualifying mark prescribed for OBC category vacancy, the two candidates who were selected under OBC category have secured more marks than the petitioner, thus, the petitioner was not selected.

13. The respondents also contended that though the petitioner had cleared physical test and document verification, as the marks secured by him against marks specified for OBC category were below other candidates, he was not selected in the final merit list against the two vacancies reserved for OBC.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, by placing the details of the category wise cut-off mark applied on Objective Test & Total (As per project sheet), submitted that qualifying mark in each subject for OBC category in respect of Test – 1-Reasoning is 12 marks out of 40 marks; Test-2-General English, qualifying marks is 7 marks out of 30 marks; and Test-3- Numerical Ability, qualifying marks is 8 marks out of 30 marks, with total of 27 marks out of 100 marks.

15. The learned counsel for the respondents also placed the final merit list of all the 13 candidates and submitted that the petitioner name appears at SI.No.11, with Roll No.2341000090 and he had secured the following marks in

Test-1 - 13.25,

Test-2 - 15.25 and

Test-3 - 21.50

 ----------------------------------

Total - 50 marks

 ----------------------------------

16. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that though the petitioner got the qualifying marks specified in respect of vacancies reserved under OBC category, since, the other candidates at SI.Nos.7 and 9 having secured higher marks than the petitioner, they were selected under the OBC category.

17. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the selected candidate under OBC category appearing at SI.No.7 of the final merit list namely Sri. S.Muthu Nagar, withdrawing his candidature, the next candidate under OBC category candidate at SI. No.10 of the final merit list namely Sri. P.Samyvel with a total 51.50 marks, and having secured qualifying marks prescribed under OBC in each of the three subjects with higher grade than the petitioner, was selected for the reserved vacancy of OBC category in the place of originally selected candidate.

18. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents could not consider the case of the petitioner under General category as he did not secure the minimum qualifying mark prescribed under the General category; that since 2 reserved vacancies under OBC have been filled up by the candidates who have secured higher marks than the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim of he being required to be appointed on account of existence of vacancies even though he had not qualified.

19. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner cannot claim indefeasible right in his favour for being selected to the aforesaid post without qualifying in the examination only on account of existence of vacancies.

20. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance is placed on the following decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court :

               (i) (2025) 2 SCC 1 in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court.

               (ii) (2017) 12 SCC 680 in the case of Deepa E.V. v. Union of India

               (iii) (1995) 3 SCC 486 in the case of Madan Lal v. State of J & K.

21. Contending as above, the learned counsel for the respondents seeks for dismissal of the writ petition.

22. I have taken note of the respective contentions as urged.

23. Though the petitioner had approached this Court initially along with another candidate challenging the selection process, the other candidate who had joined the petitioner, had withdrawn the writ petition, subsequently the reason for the withdrawal of the writ petition by the other candidate it is stated is on account of fact that he is the beneficiary of the withdrawal of candidature by the candidate appearing at Sl.No.7, namely S.Muthu Nagar.

24. Though the respondents 1 to 3 notified number of vacancies to be filled up under Chennai Zonal Office as 19, out of which, two are reserved for OBC category, merely because, the respondents have called 19 candidates for document verification, the same cannot be considered as petitioner acquiring indefeasible right to be appointed, as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47.

25. Though before this Court, it was contended that the respondents having called the petitioner for physical test, document verification implies the petitioner having qualified in the written examination held and thus, required to be appointed, it is to be noted that though the petitioner had qualified in the written examination, the same is against minimum marks specified for OBC category and not under General category. Insofar as the candidates who had qualified by securing the minimum marks in each of the paper under OBC category, the petitioner stood at rank No.4 while the reserved vacancies are only two. The respondents having offered the aforesaid position to candidates who stood at rank Nos.1 and 2, Sl.No,7 and 9 respectively in the merit list under OBC category, and on one of the candidate withdrawing his candidature, the same being offered and filled up by the next meritorious candidate under OBC category, who is none other than the person who had approached this Court along with the petitioner and withdrawn his petition after getting selected as noted herein above, the claim of the petitioner of having required to be appointed on account of existence of vacancies does not merit acceptance.

26. Though the petitioner got qualified by securing the minimum marks prescribed under OBC category, in as much as the candidates who have secured the higher marks having accepted the appointment, the petitioner cannot be given appointment. In so far as the candidature of the petitioner in General category concerned, as the petitioner did not secure minimum marks prescribed under General Category, his candidature cannot be considered under the said category and this Court cannot direct the respondents to lower the mark in order to consider and select the petitioner to the said post having secured lower mark.

27. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tej Prakash Pathak v. Rajasthan High Court reported in (2025) 2 SCC 1 dealing with the entitlement of appointment held as under:

               “49. The ultimate object of any process of selection for entry into a public service is to secure the best and the most suitable person for the job, avoiding patronage and favouritism. Selection based on merit, tested impartially and objectively, is the essential foundation of any useful and effective public service. So, open competitive examination has come to be accepted almost universally as the gateway to public services.

               65.6. Placement in the select list gives no indefeasible right to appointment. The State or its instrumentality for bona fide reasons may choose not to fill up the vacancies. However, if vacancies exist, the State or its instrumentality cannot arbitrarily deny appointment to a person within the zone of consideration in the select list.”

28. The records as placed before this Court shows that though the notified vacancies were more, the respondents having selected only 10 candidates who have qualified in the written examination and out of the said selected candidates, one candidate in the reserved category having withdrawn his candidature and the next candidate under the reserved category being selected against the said vacancy, this Court is of the view that the selection process has been carried out in transparent manner. Further, the petitioner cannot also feel agitated on account of his non-selection, which is on account of the fact that the selected candidates who had secured higher marks than the petitioner having joined the service, the petitioner cannot claim the selection process being vitiated or the respondents requiring to filling up all the notified vacancies, even though there are no eligible candidates who had qualified in the examination.

29. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the challenge in this writ petition to the selection process or the impugned publication of selected candidates, has to fail. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No order as to costs.