Allowed

Binod Rajbhar v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Gauhati HC14 Sept 2026WP(C)/4113/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court set aside a rejection slip regarding the petitioner's candidature for a Constable (GD) post in CRPF. The Court held that an OBC Non-Creamy Layer Certificate produced by the petitioner was within the statutory validity period as per a 2017 GoI notice, a view supported by a precedent. The matter was remanded to authorities for medical examination.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Rejection Slip dated 02.12.2025 is set aside; the matter is remanded to the respondent authorities to place the petitioner for medical examination.

Binod Rajbhar Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/4

GAHC010159232026

2026:GAU-AS:13603

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4113/2026

¶6

BINOD RAJBHAR

¶7

ROLL NO. 5105055496 , SON OF LATE LAXMAN RAJBHAR, RESIDENT OF CHANLUJ NO. 2, WARD NO. 6, P.O. LUMDING, P.S. LUMDING, CO-DISTRICT LUMDING, DISTRICT- HOJAI, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI.

¶10

2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/ SECRETARY BLOCK -12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI.

¶11

3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-07 LEVEL- 4 SECTOR-01 R. K. PURAM NEW DELHI -110066.

¶12

4:THE PRESIDING OFFICER EXECUTIVE BOARD DV/DME/RME-CT (GD) EXAM-2025 CENTRE CAPFS COMPOSITE HOSPITAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE PATGAON GUWAHATI DISTRICT- KAMRUP M ASSAM

¶13

Page No.# 2/4

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORA, MS R MEDHI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY(C.G.C.)

¶16

BEFORE

¶17

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 15.09.2026

¶20

Heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Roy, learned CGC appearing for the respondent Union of India.

¶21

[2.] Having regard to the nature of grievance projected by the petitioner, the matter is taken up for disposal at this stage.

¶22

[3.] It is the case of the petitioner that he applied for the post of Constable (GD) in the Central Arms Police Force. Having qualified in the Computer Based Test and in the PST/PET tests, the petitioner was asked to produce OBC NonCreamy Layer (NCL) Certificate as on 14.10.2024, as per Clause – 6.5 of the Advertisement dated 05.09.2024. Since, the petitioner produced the OBC NCL Certificate dated 06.01.2025, his candidature was rejected vide Rejection Slip dated 02.12.2025.

¶23

[4.] Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government of India in the Staff Selection Commission vide Important Notice dated 17.08.2017 (Annexure – E) at Clause – 3(i) has provided that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in SLP No.3116/2017 (Union of India v. Abdul Rasheed), the Commission will not insist on candidates producing OBC Certificates issued within the cut off dates i.e., three (3) years, before the last

¶24

Page No.# 3/4

¶25

date of receipt of applications and up to 180 days after the closing date of applications mentioned in the Notices.

¶26

[5.] Going by the said instructions, the learned counsel submits that the impugned Rejection Slip given to the petitioner is not justified in view of the fact that the OBC NCL Certificate dated 06.01.2025 is within the cut-off date of 180 days from the date of closing of the applications.

¶27

[6.] The learned counsel submits that in a case of similar nature, this Court vide Order dated 07.04.2026 in WP(C) No. 555 of 2026 (Shri Chandan Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.), noticing the instructions given in the Important Notice dated 17.08.2017 has set aside the Rejection Slip of the petitioner concerned and remanded the matter back to the authorities by giving the benefit of the Important Notice dated 17.08.2017 to the petitioner and directed for medical examination of the petitioner by taking into account the OBC NCL Certificate produced by him.

¶28

[7.] The learned counsel submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the said direction and, therefore, a similar order may be passed.

¶29

[8.] Mr. S. S. Roy, learned CGC, clearly submits that in view of the Important Notice dated 17.08.2017, the case of the petitioner apparently being covered by the same, a similar order may be passed by this Court.

¶30

[9.] Considering the above, the impugned Rejection Slip dated 02.12.2025 (Annexure – D) rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent authorities concerned to re-visit the process by applying the benefits conferred by the Important Notice dated

¶31

Page No.# 4/4

¶32

17.08.2017 and to pass necessary orders to place the petitioner for medical examination. The selection of the petitioner, however, shall be governed by the outcome of the medical examination.

¶33

[10.] The writ petition is disposed of as allowed.

¶34

[11.] The exercise directed here-in-above to be completed within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Comparing Assistant

Binod Rajbhar v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binod Rajbhar v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases