Manish Kumar Yadav Vs the Union of India and 8 Ors.

2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/ SECRETARY STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110003

¶11

3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NORTH EASTERN REGION)

¶12

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION RUKMININAGAR P.O- ASSAM SCHIVALAYA GUWAHATI PIN-781006

¶13

4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶14

Page No.# 2/8

¶15

BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO. 10 LODHI ROAD PRAGATI VIHAR NEW DELHI PIN-110003

¶16

5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶17

CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110003

¶18

6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI PIN-110003

¶19

7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶20

ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA PIN-792011

¶21

8:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶22

INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE BLOCK NO. 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI PIN-110003

¶23

9:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL

¶24

SASHASTRA SEEMA BAL 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI

¶25

Page No.# 3/8

¶26

PIN-11002

¶27

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M PHUKAN, MR A V SINGH,MR W R MEDHI

¶28

Advocate for the Respondent : ASSTT.S.G.I.,

¶29

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR

¶30

ORDER

¶31

Date : 03.06.2026

¶32

Heard Mr. W. R. Medhi, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. A. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC, for the respondents.

¶33

2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has raised a grievance with regard to non-consideration of his case for appointment against the post of Constable (General Duty), although in the selection held he had scored more than the cut-off marks.

¶34

3. The respondent authorities had published a notice in the Employment News dated 21.07.2018 inviting application from eligible candidates for recruitment for the post of Constable(GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs, NIA & SSF) and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles (AR), examination 2018. The petitioner submitted his application in pursuance to the said advertisement notice and in his application as was mandated,

¶35

the petitioner had disclosed his “State of Domicile” to be “Arunachal

¶36

Page No.# 4/8

¶37

Pradesh” and the “District of Domicile” to be “Papum Pare”. The petitioner as projected in the writ petition has thereafter, participated in the selection process and completed all the stages thereof. On the marks of the said recruitment exercise being received by the petitioner it was found that he had scored more than that was so scored by the last candidate recruited against the category for which the petitioner had submitted his application i.e. to say that the petitioner had scored more marks than the cut off marks. However, the petitioner not having been issued with an order of appointment, he had approached the respondent authorities and it is projected in the writ petition that the respondent authorities had contended that the dossier of the petitioner was under suspected category

¶38

and his dossier was returned to the Recruitment Branch, Frontier Headquarter.

¶39

4. Mr. W. R. Medhi, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner although in his application form had disclosed his “State of Domicile” to be “Arunachal Pradesh” and the “District of Domicile” to be “Papum Pare”, the petitioner during the process of document verification had furnished documents envisaging his domicile in the “State of Assam” and in the district of “Karbi Anglong”. He has further submitted that the respondents having permitted the petitioner to appear till the last stage of the selection process even after having noticed the variance in the State

¶40

Page No.# 5/8

¶41

of Domicile as projected by the petitioner in his application form and in the documents as furnished during his document verification, the respondent authorities had not issued any order towards cancelling the selection of the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, Mr. Medhi submits that the direction is required to be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment against the post so advertised vide the notice dated 21.07.2018, considering the merit position obtained by the petitioner in the selection process.

¶42

5. Ms. A. Sharma, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. B. Chakravarty, learned CGC, appearing for the respondents, has submitted from the materials brought on record in the present writ petition, that there is an apparent variance in the State of Domicile declared by the petitioner. She submits that although in the application form the State of Domicile was declared as Arunachal Pradesh, the documents furnished by the petitioner during the selection process reveals that he has projected his State of domicile in the State of Assam, more particularly in the District of Karbi Anglong. Accordingly, she submits that an apparent discrepancy having occasioned with regard to declaration of State of domicile of the petitioner, in terms of the provisions of Clause 4 (C) (iii) of the conditions set out in the advertisement, the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner for his recruitment to any of the forces involved is not erroneous.

¶43

Page No.# 6/8

¶44

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused

¶45

the materials available on record.

¶46

7. The facts noticed, hereinabove, are not in dispute. The notice dated 21.07.2018 was so issued along with stipulations pertaining to the process of certification and form of certificates under Clause 4 (C) (iii). Clause 4 (C) (iii) being relevant is extracted, hereinbelow;

¶47

“4(C): PROCESS OF CERTIFICATION AND FORMAT OF CERTIFCATES

¶48

(iii) Candidates will be considered for recruitment in their respective State/ UT on production of valid "Domicile/ Permanent Residential Certificate (PRC)" issued by the competent authority so authorized by the concerned State/ UT to prove their domiciliary status at the time of Documents Verification failing which his/her candidature will be cancelled forthwith. The Domicile/ PRC certificate must be of the State/ UT indicated by the candidates in their online Application Form, failing which, their candidature will be cancelled forthwith.”

¶49

8. A perusal of the provisions of Clause 4 (C) (iii) would go to reveal that the candidates in the selection process are to be considered for recruitment against their respective State/Union Territory on production of valid “Domicile/Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC)”, issued by the competent authority so authorized by the concerned State/Union Territory

¶50

to prove their domiciliary status at the time of document verification. The said provisions also mandates that “Domicile/Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC)” must be of the State/Union Territory indicated by the

¶51

Page No.# 7/8

¶52

candidates in their online application form, failing which their candidature will be cancelled forthwith. The petitioner in his application form which has been brought on record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition had declared his “State of Domicile” to be “Arunachal Pradesh” and the “District of Domicile” to be “Papum Pare”. However, during the stage of document verification of the selection process, the petitioner has projected that he had produced documents envisaging his domicile status to be in the State of Assam, more particularly in the district of Karbi Anglong. Accordingly, an apparent variance has occasioned in the declaration of the domicile status of the petitioner in his application form and at the stage of document verification. The petitioner at the stage of document verification not having produced before the respondent authorities, documents issued by a competent authority within the State of Arunachal Pradesh, declaring his domicile status in the said State, applying the provisions of Clause 4 (C) (iii) of conditions of the advertisement, the candidature of the petitioner is required to be cancelled without any further reference.

¶53

9. This Court on a further examination of the application form of the petitioner has found that the petitioner had completed his Class X studies and acquired his certificate from the Board of High School and InterMediate Education, Uttar Pradesh. The said position would also mandate that the petitioner has a domicile in the State of Uttar Pradesh, however in the writ petition there is no clarification set out by the petitioner with

¶54

Page No.# 8/8

¶55

regard to the apparent variances to his claim of a domiciliary status in a particular State. The petitioner has projected himself to be domiciled of 03 (three) states and the said position is in clear violation of the provisions of Clause 4 (C) (iii) of the eligibility criteria set out in the advertisement and accordingly, the non-consideration of the case of the petitioner, although

¶56

he may have secured more marks than the cut off marks in the recruitment exercise, in the considered view of this Court is not erroneous.

¶57

10. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

Comparing Assistant

Manish Kumar Yadav v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Yadav v. the Union of India and 8 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Rana Construction and Engineers Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Minu Choudhury Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Mrs Minu Choudhury Vs the State of Assam

The Principal Vs Shri Kumar Bikash Nath

Shubhashis Chakraborty Vs Ajay Kumar and 2 Ors.

Jayanta Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.