Departments must communicate newly arising vacancies to LDCE agencies before results are declared.

The petitioners, serving ITBP Inspectors, participated in the combined 2024–2025 Assistant Commandant (GD) Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).

ITBP initially notified six LDCE vacancies for 2024 and 2025; after MHA approval, the 2024 vacancies were increased to 16 before the written examination.

Separately, vacancies for direct recruitment were revised during 2025, ultimately reaching 79, and communicated to UPSC on 11 July 2025.

A DPC convened on 2 September 2025 resulted in 21 LDCE-category Assistant Commandant posts becoming vacant upon promotion to Deputy Commandant; one promoted officer did not assume charge, leaving 20 vacancies arising from promotions.

The petitioners sought an increase in LDCE vacancies. ITBP rejected their representation, principally on the ground that the written examination had already taken place.

The LDCE results were ultimately declared in July and August 2026.

1. Whether the respondents acted arbitrarily or discriminatorily by not communicating vacancies arising during the recruitment process to the LDCE nodal agency, while revising the direct-recruitment vacancies during the same period.

2. Whether the 21 vacancies arising from the DPC convened on 2 September 2025 should be made available in the LDCE selection process, subject to the petitioners qualifying.

The Court considered Article 226 of the Constitution, under which it may review administrative action for illegality or arbitrariness.

DoPT Office Memorandum No. 39020/07/2023-PP.(B), dated 3 November 2023, provides that departments may re-confirm vacancies to recruiting agencies before finalisation or declaration of results; after results are declared, the vacancies finally intimated cannot be changed or varied.

The LDCE advertisement expressly stated that vacancies could increase or decrease at any stage.

The Court also considered the petitioners’ reliance on the Administrative Manual’s vacancy-allocation provisions, but its decision turned on the vacancy-change provision in the advertisement, the DoPT OM, and the respondents’ inconsistent treatment of the two recruitment streams.

The Court found that the LDCE process was still ongoing when ITBP communicated the revised direct-recruitment vacancies to UPSC on 11 July 2025: the LDCE physical tests and subsequent selection stages had not all been completed, and the final results were not declared until 2026.

The DPC process covered vacancies in both recruitment categories, yet the respondents communicated the direct-recruitment increase without informing CRPF, the LDCE nodal agency, of the corresponding LDCE vacancies.

The respondents’ explanation that the LDCE examination had already occurred was unsupported by any rule or OM and was inconsistent with the advertisement and the DoPT OM, both of which contemplated vacancy revision before results were declared.

The Court also noted that the respondents’ initial reliance on post-based rosters and the vacancy year was in contrast with their later explanation for not revising LDCE vacancies.

It therefore held that the failure to notify the LDCE vacancies, while revising direct-recruitment vacancies during the same ongoing process, was discriminatory.

The petition and pending applications were disposed of accordingly.