Deepjyoti Ray vs The Union Of India And 8 Ors

Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010090122026

undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2545/2026
DEEPJYOTI RAY
S/O PRABIN RAY, R/O VILL- ADLAGURI, P.O. ADLAGURI, P.S. MANIKPUR,
DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN- 783392 (ROLL NO- 5105034040
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY
OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001
2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSIONER (SSC)
REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/ SECRETARY
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
BLOCK-12
CGO COMPLEX
LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003
3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER)
STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION
RUKMINI NAGAR
GUWAHATI-06
4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
BORDER SECURITY FORCE (BSF)
BLOCK NO. 10
LODDHI ROAD
PRAGATI VIHAR
NEW DELHI- 110003
5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

Page No.# 2/6
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF)
CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110003
6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE
GROUP CENTRE
AMERIGOG
GUWAHATI- 23
ASSAM
7:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
BORDER SECURITY FORCE
GUWAHATI FRONTIER HQ
PATGAON
P.O. AZARA
DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 781017
8:THE PO
EXECUTIVE BOARD
DV/DME/RME-CT(GD) EXAM
2025
O/O THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
BORDER SECURITY FORCE
GUWAHATI FRONTIER HQ
PATGAON
P.O. AZARA
DISTRICT- KAMRUP
ASSAM
PIN- 783390
9:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BONGAIGAON
DISTRICT- BONGAIGAON
ASSAM
PIN- 78339
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K R PATGIRI, MS CHITRALEKHA DAS,MS. P
TALUKDAR,MS. D. DEVI
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY(C.G.C.),GA, ASSAM

Page No.# 3/6
– B E F O R E –
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
Advocate for the petitioners : Mr. K.R Patgiri, Advocate
Advocate for the respondents : Mr. S.S Roy, CGC

· Date on which Judgment was reserved : NA
· Date of Pronouncement of Judgment : 20.05.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of
·
the Operative Part of the Judgment : No

· Whether the full Judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. K.R Patgiri, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S
Roy, learned CGC for the respondents.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ pf mandamus for
setting aside of the Clause 6.5 of the advertisement dated 05.09.2024, whereby
the candidature of the petitioner stood rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus to
the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner under
the respective categories by taking into account of the OBC (NCL) certificate
produced by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner had submitted his candidature in response to the
advertisement dated 05.09.2024 issued by the Respondent authority inviting
application for the appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed
Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in
Narcotics Control Bureau. The date for submission of the online the application,
the last date for submission of online application, the dates for correction and
the tentative scheduled of dates for the Computer based examination were all

Page No.# 4/6
notified.
4. In response to the said advertisement, the writ petitioner had submitted his
application supported by necessary documents. According to the writ petitioner,
he belongs to the OBC category, but as on the last date of submission of
documents, the required OBC (NCL) certificate was not available for considering
his candidature under the OBC category. Therefore, the petitioner was treated
under the Unreserved Category, and as he did not secure the required cut-off
marks in that category he was not selected, otherwise he would have qualified
and selected for the said recruitment. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition
has been filed.
5 . According to the petitioner there is a conflict between the terms of the
advertisement, more particularly Clause 6.5 and 6.6 and the notification dated
17.08.2017 issued by the Government of India. In the said notification dated
17.08.2017, the Clause 3.1 provides as under:
“ 3. Keeping in view the difficulties faced by the candidates and the Order of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SLP No. 3116/2017 in the matter of Union of India vs Abdul
Rasheed, the Commission took up the matter regarding relaxation in the stipulated
time limit (as indicated at para I above) with the Department of Personnel & Training.
The Department of Personnel & Training in consultation with Department of Legal
Affairs, endorsed the following decisions of the Commission as given below:- (i) With
effect from 23.01.2017. (Le the date of dismissal of SLP No. 3116/2017 filed by the
Commission in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (UOI vs Abdul Rasheed)] the
Commission will not insist on candidates producing OBC Certificates issued within the
cut off dates Le. 3 years, before the last date of receipt of applications and up to 180
days after the closing date of applications mentioned in the Notices.”
6 . The learned counsel for the respondents were given opportunities to
complete their instructions. On written instructions, the learned CGC submits
that the timeline prescribed under the notification dated 17.08.2017 still

Page No.# 5/6
continue to hold the field.
7 . According to the respondents the last date for submission of document was
14.10.2024 as per the advertisement dated 05.09.2024. It is submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the notification dated
17.08.2017, it was provided that the Commission will not insist on the
candidates producing the OBC certificate issued within the cut off date i.e. 3
years before the last date of receipt of applications and up to 180 days after the
closing date of applications mentioned in the notices.
8 . The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the closing date of
the application was 14.10.2024, the petitioner had issued his OBC (NCL)
certificate on 29.11.2024, therefore he should be covered the extended benefit
under notification dated 17.08.2017.
9 . The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, on the basis of
instructions, submits that the notification still subsists, therefore in so far as the
writ petitioner is concerned it appears that he will be covered by the benefit
extended vide circular dated 17.08.2017.
10 . Considering the submission made and upon hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, it is seen that in terms of the notification dated 17.08.2017, the
Commission will not insist on the candidates producing the OBC certificate
issued within the cut-off date i.e. 3 years before the last date of receipt of the
application mentioned in the notices. It appears that the said benefit was not
granted to the petitioner on the date of document verification. According to the
petitioner, this OBC (NCL) certificate was available with him and ought to have
been considered, but the same was not done. It is evident that the benefit
under the notification dated 17.08.2017 was not granted to the petitioner.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The matter is remanded to the

Page No.# 6/6
authorities who will reconsider the candidature of the writ petitioner under the
OBC category by considering the NCL certificate dated 29.11.2024 and keeping
in view of the benefit granted under the notification dated 17.08.2017. If the
petitioner is found to be eligible in the category of OBC, then consequential
order shall be passed regarding the issuance of appointment order, as it is
submitted that medical examinations has already been done.

12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.



JUDGE
Comparing Assistant