Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India on 19 March, 2025
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010055972025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1540/2025
MRIDUL RAY
S/O- LOHIT CH.RAY,
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHARAKALA, GARUGAON, BONGAIGAON
2: RATUL ALI
S/O- MOKSED ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SARUHARID
PO CHAKCHAKA
BARPETA
ASSAM
3: JAHIDUL ISLAM
S/O- MURAD JAMAL
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KAMARPARA
CHARCHARIA
BARPETA
ASSAM
4: MD RAJU ALI
S/O- MD. TUNIA ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GERARIA
PUB REHABARI
BARPETA
ASSA
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT
OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI
Page No.# 2/5
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF BORDER SECURITY FORCE
PERSONAL DIRECTORATE RECRUITMENT SECTION IT WING FRONTIER
HEADQUARTERS BORDER SECURITY FORCE NEW DELHI
3:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL FRONTIER HEADQUARTERS BORDER
SECURITY FORCE
GUWAHATI PATGAON
ASSAM
4:THE COMMANDANT RECRUITMENT FRONTIER GEADQUARTERS
BORDER SECURITY FORCE
GUWAHATI PATGAON
ASSAM
5:THE DEPUTY COMMANDANT RECRUITMENT FRONTIER
HEADQUARTERS BORDER SECURITY FORCE
GUWAHATI
PATGAON
ASSA
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R SARMA, MR. J K ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
ORDER
Date : 19-03-2025
Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the writ petitioner. Also heard Ms. B.
Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
The four writ petitioners herein have approached this Court by filing the instant writ
petition inter-alia praying for an order from this Court setting aside the order dated 15-09-
2022 issued on behalf of the respondent No. 3 rejecting the representation submitted by
the writ petitioners along with 08 others.
The facts of the case, in a nutshell is that, the Border Security Force (BSF) had
Page No.# 3/5
earlier issued advertisement notice dated 25-05-2016 inviting applications from the male
citizens for filling up 561 vacancies in the post of Constable (Tradesman) in the Border
Security Force (BSF) for the year 2016-17. The writ petitioners had participated in the said
process. However, the selection process was cancelled by the BSF after detecting certain
irregularities and/ or anomalies therein. Being aggrieved by the said decision of
cancellation of the selection process, the present writ petitioners along with other
aggrieved candidates had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 1322/2017.
After examining the matter, this Court had passed order dated 25-07-2022
dismissing the W.P.(C) No. 1322/2017 by holding that there was no merit in the writ
petition. However, taking note of some observations made by the High Court of Judicature
at Gujrat in the case of Pal Vikram Rameshbhai & 02 Ors. Vs. Chairman,
Recruitment Board & 02 Ors. Special Civil Application No. 1895/2017, whereby the
Gujrat High Court while dismissing similar writ petitions, had made an observation that it
will be open for the petitioner therein to make representation to treat the case of the
petitioner in special facts and circumstances and if any vacancy is still available, then
consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge had
made the following observations in the order dated 25-07-2022, which are reproduced
here-in-below:-
"9. In view of the aforesaid materials that had been produced on record, we
are of the view that no arbitrariness or unreasonableness can be noticed in the act
of the respondents in cancelling the entire selection process pursuant to the
advertisement dated 21.05.2016.
10. In the circumstances, we are unable to find any merit in the writ petition
requiring an interference with the decision of the respondents to cancel the
selection process. But, however, as submitted by Mr. A Mobaraque, learned counsel
Page No.# 4/5
for the petitioners and as provided by the Gujarat High Court in its judgment dated
18.07.2022 in Pal Vikram Rameshbhai and two others -vs Chairman, Recruitment
Board and two others, in R/Special Civil Application No. 1895/2017, the petitioners
are also given the liberty to file individual applications before the respondent No. 4,
if so advised and upon such applications, necessary orders thereon may be passed.
11. The writ petition is dismissed subject to the liberty to file the aforesaid
representations, if advised.
12. Let a copy of the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated
18.07.2022 be kept on record."
Pursuant to the order dated 25-07-2022, the petitioners had submitted a
representation before the respondent No. 3 ventilating their grievance in the matter.
However, after examining the issues raised by the petitioners, the said representation was
rejected by the order dated 15-09-2022 primarily on the ground that since the selection
process was cancelled due to malpractices, hence, there was no scope for the authorities
to redress the grievance of the petitioners.
A copy of the representation submitted by the writ petitioners is not available on
record. Therefore, it is not clear as to what exactly was the prayer made by the
petitioners before the authorities. It is in such backdrop, the present writ petition has
been filed seeking to assail the order dated 15-09-2022.
After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court does not find any justifiable ground to entertain the writ petition for the following
reasons. Firstly, since the selection process itself was cancelled, the question of
appointing the petitioners would not arise in the eyes of law. No such direction was also
issued by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 15-07-2022.
Secondly, on a careful reading of the averments made in the writ petition, this Court
Page No.# 5/5
is of the opinion that there is no right of the writ petitioners that can be enforced in the
present proceeding.
Under the circumstances, this Court is of the unhesitant opinion that there is no
scope for this Court to grant any relief to the petitioners in the present writ petition.
Consequently, this writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE
GS
Comparing Assistant
