Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/4153/2025 on 11 September, 2025
Author: Manish Choudhury
Bench: Manish Choudhury
Page No.# 1/14
GAHC010157662025
2025:GAU-AS:12495
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 4153/2025
Juli Bora, D/o Ratul Bora, Village - Potani Kamargaon,
P.O.- Potani Gomotha gaon, P.S.- Sadar, District - Nagaon
(Assam), Pin-782102.
..................Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1. The Union of India, represented by the Secretary of
The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New
Delhi-1.
2. The Staff Selection Commission, represented by the
Chairman, Block No. 12 CGO Complex Lodhi Road, New
Delhi-03.
3. The Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission,
Guwahati, Assam, House Fed Complex, Dispur, Ghy-6.
4. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force
(Recruitment) East Block-07, Level-4, Sector-01, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi-6.
...................Respondents
Page No.# 2/14
Advocates :
Petitioner : Mr. H.R. Ahmed
Respondent : Ms. S. Baruah
Date of Judgment & Order : 11.09.2025
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
1. The petitioner has instituted the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India to assail an act on the part of the respondent authorities, whereby, the
petitioner has been disallowed from participating further in a recruitment process initiated
for filling up vacancies in the post of Constable [GD] in Central Armed Police Forces [CAPFs]
and Secretariat Security Force [SSF], Rifle Man [General Duty] in Assam Rifles, etc.
2. By a Notice dated 05.09.2024, the Staff Selection Commission [SSC] published an
Advertisement for filling up vacancies in the post of Constable [General Duty] in Border
Security Force [BSF], Central Industrial Security Force [CISF], Central Reserve Police Force
[CRPF], Indo Tibetan Border Police [ITBP], Sashastra Seema Bal [SSB], and Secretariat
Security Force [SSF], Rifleman [General Duty] in Assam Rifles [AR], and Sepoy in Narcotics
Control Bureau [NCB]. As per the Notice, the period for submission of online application
form was from 05.09.2024 to 14.10.2024 up to 23-00 hours. The dates of 'window for
application form correction' including online payment of correction charges were between
05.11.2024 to 07.11.2024 up to 23-00 hours. The Notice further mentioned that the notice
of the examination would be published by the SSC based on the scheme of examination and
the vacancies provided by the Ministry of Home Affairs [MHA] Government of India [GoI].
Page No.# 3/14
3. As per the scheme of examination, the recruitment process consists of Computer
Based Examination [CBE], Physical Standard Test [PST], Physical Efficiency Test
[PET], Medical Examination and Document Verification. The Computer Based Examination
[CBE] was to be conducted in English, Hindi and thirteen regional languages. The Notice has
mentioned that the total number of vacancies to be filled up are 39,481 tentatively. The
Notice has also mentioned that the vacancies in detail, [state-wise, force-wise, gender-wise,
category-wise etc.] would be available on the website of the SSC.
4. The criteria of age limit and educational qualification are mentioned in the Notice.
The centres of examinations and the application fees required to be submitted by the
candidates are also mentioned in the notice. A candidate had to give options for three
centres, in order of priority, within the same region and no request for a change of center
was to be considered later under any circumstances. The candidates were cautioned to
choose the centres carefully in their online application form. As per the scheme of
examination, the Computer Based Examination [CBE] consisted of one objective type paper
containing eighty questions carrying two marks each.
5. Responding to the Notice, the petitioner submitted her candidature by
submitting the application form online as a candidate from Other Backward Class [OBC]
category. The online application form submitted by the petitioner was accepted. A
downloaded copy of the online application form submitted by the petitioner is
found annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.
6. After scrutiny of the applications of the candidates including that of the petitioner,
the respondent authorities in the SSC issued E-Admission Certificates to the candidates
whose applications were found valid on scrutiny. The petitioner was also issued an E-
Admission Certificate whereby, the petitioner was asked to appear in the Computer Based
Examination [CBE] on 25.02.2025. The petitioner's Roll No. is 5112009738. On issuance of
the E-Admission Certificate, the petitioner appeared in the Computer Based Examination
[CB] on the scheduled date.
Page No.# 4/14
7. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authorities subsequently
published the results of the Computer Based Examination [CBE] shortlisting the candidates
who have been found eligible to appear in the next stage of the recruitment process, that is,
Physical Standard Test [PST] / Physical Efficiency Test [PET]. The respondent authorities
have also published the cut-off marks details of the shortlisted candidates [male and female]
who are found qualified against State/Union Territory wise vacancies of the CAPFs, etc.
8. For the purpose of the case in hand, the cut-off marks of the female candidates
belonging to OBC category from the State of Assam is relevant as the petitioner submitted
her candidature as an OBC category candidate from Assam. As per the cut-off marks details
published by the respondent SSC authorities, the marks secured by the last shortlisted
female candidate belonging to OBC category from Assam is 51.86800. The petitioner has
stated that when the marks secured by her in the Computer Based Examination [CBE],
70.81808 has been compared with the marks secured by the last female shortlisted
candidate from OBC category of Assam, the petitioner, to her surprise, has found that
despite securing higher marks than the cut-off marks, she has not been declared qualified to
appear in the next stage of the recruitment process, Physical Standard Test [PST] / Physical
Efficiency Test [PET].
9. The petitioner realizing a bonafide mistake occurred at the time of submission of the
online application form regarding the state and district of her domicile, submitted
an application on 27.06.2025 before the respondent no. 3, by hand as well as by registered
post. As no reply has been received in response to the Application dated 27.06.2025, the
petitioner is before this Court by the instant writ petition.
10. When the writ petition was moved on 28.07.2025, the learned Central Government
Counsel was asked to obtain instructions in the matter. The writ petition was listed earlier on
20.08.2025, 27.08.2025 and 03.09.2025 awaiting written instructions from the respondents.
The learned Central Government Counsel has submitted today that she has received written
instructions and accordingly, the writ petition is taken up for final consideration, as agreed to
by the learned counsel for the parties.
Page No.# 5/14
11. I have heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Baruah,
learned Central Government Counsel for all the respondents.
12. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the contents of the
application submitted by the petitioner on 27.06.2025 after her disqualification to submit
that the petitioner belongs to an interior village in the district of Nagaon, Assam and for the
purpose of submitting the application online, she had to visit a cyber café. Assistance of a
person running the cyber café had to be taken by the petitioner to fill up the particulars in
the online application form because of her not possessing full familiarity in submission of the
application form online and to upload it. It was while filling up the boxes/entries meant for
state and district of domicile, the person who was undertaking the task, filled in the
boxes/entries in the application form mistakenly mentioning the state and the district of
domicile of the petitioner as Delhi and New Delhi respectively, instated of Assam and
Nagaon. Mr. Ahmed has referred to the downloaded application form [Annexure-5] to submit
that the two boxes/entries at 28 and 29 were so located that the petitioner also got
confused with the boxes/entries above them asking details about sports, level of
participation, year of participation, and medal/position achieved. Mr. Ahmed has further
submitted that the petitioner's state of domicile and district of domicile are Assam and
Nagaon respectively are evidently clear from the OBC Certificate. To support such
submission, Mr. Ahmed has referred to the OBC Certificate issued to her by the competent
authority/District Magistrate, Nagaon, annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Mr.
Ahmed has also referred to a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Vashist
Narayan Kumar vs. The State of Bihar and others, [2024] 1 S.C.R. 1 : 2024 INSC 2 and a
decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition [Civil] no. 2104/2020 [Asmot Ali
vs. The Union of India and others].
13. Ms. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel has submitted, on the basis of
written instructions received by her on 04.09.2025 and placed before the Court today
[marked and kept as Document-'A'], that it is true that the petitioner submitted her
application as a candidate belonging to OBC category and after scrutiny of her application,
Page No.# 6/14
the petitioner was issued Roll No. 5112009738. But the petitioner in her online application
mentioned her state and district of domicile as Delhi and New Delhi respectively. Ms. Baruah
has further referred to the Clauses, 10.1, 10.2, 14.13 and 14.14 in the Notice dated
05.09.2024 to submit that once the period of correcting mistakes in the online application
form was over, no correction could be permitted subsequently under any circumstance. All
the candidates were specifically cautioned that if any corrections were to be made after
online submission, the same were to be made during the period when the window for
application form correction was open. From the projections made by the petitioner, it is
evident that no fault can be attributed to the respondent authorities as the entire fault in
filling up the said two boxes/entries in the online application form is attributable to the
petitioner, be that by the petitioner herself or by the person in the cyber café. As the
recruitment process is presently at the stage of Physical Standard Test [PST] / Physical
Efficiency Test [PET], the petitioner shall not be permitted to take further part in the
recruitment process.
14. I have considered the submissions for the learned counsel for the parties.
15. As the respondent authorities have placed reliance in Clauses 10.1, 10.2, 14.13 and
14.14 of the Notice dated 05.09.2024, it is appropriate to refer to those clauses, at
first. Clause 10 had stipulated that the window for online application form correction would
remain open during the period from 05.11.2024 to 07.11.2024. As per Clause 10.1, after the
closing date for receipt of online application form, the SSC provided a period of three days to
enable the candidates to correct / modify online application form parameters, wherein the
candidate were allowed to re-submit online application forms after making requisite
corrections / changes in the one-time registration or online application form data as per their
requirements. By Clause 10.2, the candidates were allowed to correct and resubmit his/her
modified/corrected online application form for two times during the period the window was
kept open. It was specifically made clear that if a candidate would make a mistake in the
updated application also, the candidate would be allowed to resubmit one
more modified/corrected online application form after making requisite corrections/
modifications. Beyond two corrections, no more correction was allowed.
Page No.# 7/14
16. Clause 14.13 and Clause 14.14 read as under :-
14.13. Candidates will be considered for the vacancies of a State / UT and further for
the vacancies of Border Guarding Districts, Militancy / Naxal affected Districts based
on the information provided by them in the Online Application Form and subsequent
submission of relevant Domicile Certificate at the time of DME / Document
Verification. Candidate may note that the domicile district / State filled by a candidate
in the specific column of the Online Application Form will only be considered as
his/her domicile State/district. Domicile District / State will not be considered /
determined from the column / box of Permanent / Correspondence Address provided
in the Online Application Form.
14.14. Therefore, candidates should be very careful and must exercise due diligence
while providing information about the domicile state and district in the Online
Application Form. No request for a change of domicile state and district will be
entertained by the Commission after submission of the Online Application Form
under any circumstances. If there is any variation of district and/or state mentioned
by the candidate in the Online Application Form and the domicile certificate
submitted by them at the time of DME / Document Verification, their candidature will
be cancelled forthwith and they will not be allowed to participate in the Detailed
Medical Examination.
17. From a reading of Clause 14.13 and Clause 14.14 together, it is discernible that a
candidate was required to exercise caution and the diligence in providing information about
the domicile state and domicile district in the Application Form. If any variation in the
district and / or state mentioned by the candidates in the Application Form is found vis-à-
vis the domicile certificate submitted at the time of Document Verification, the candidature
of the candidate is to be cancelled and the candidate would not be allowed to participate in
Page No.# 8/14
the Detailed Medical Examination. Clause 14.13 has mentioned that domicile district / state
would not be considered / determined from the column / box of permanent /
correspondence address provided in the online Application Form.
18. Clause 6 of the Notice has provided for the process of certification and format of
certificates. As per Clause 6.1, the candidates who wish to be considered against reserved
vacancies would be required to submit the requisite certificate from the competent
authority, in the prescribed format, when such certificate would be sought for by the CAPFs
concerned for document verification at the time of Detailed Medical Examination.
Otherwise, their claim for reserved category would not to be entertained and their
candidature / applications would be considered under the unreserved category. A candidate
belonging to the reserved category, as per Clause 6.2, on migration from his origin state to
another state has to make an informed choice whether to get the benefit of reservation in
the state of origin or to appear as an unreserved candidate from the state of migration and
such choice is to be exercised by the candidate in the online application form. Clause 6.10
has mentioned that since the state of Assam is not issuing a Domicile Certificate /
Permanent Resident Certificate, a candidate belonging to the State of Assam is not
required to submit the same. However, his / her selection has been made subject to
verification of residential status from the district authority concerned.
19. There is no dispute as regards the eligibility of the petitioner from the standpoints
of age criteria and education qualification criteria as the petitioner is found to have
fulfilled those criteria.
20. In the application form, the petitioner has mentioned her permanent address as
well as correspondence address as Village - Potani Kamargaon, Post Office - Potani
Gomotha Gaon, Police Station - Sadar, District - Nagaon, State - Assam. In the OBC
Certificate issued to the petitioner by the District Magistrate, Nagaon, Assam annexed as
Annexure-1 to the writ petition, it is mentioned that the petitioner belongs to Koch
Community, which is recognized as a Backward Class in the State of Assam. The Certificate
has further certified that the petitioner is a resident of Village - Potani Kamargaon, District
Page No.# 9/14
- Nagaon, Assam.
20. It is noticeable that the case of the petitioner has been considered by the
respondent authorities against the cut-off marks secured by the last female shortlisted
candidate from the OBC category from Delhi, which is evidently higher than the cut-off
marks secured by the last female candidate from the OBC catagory of Assam and the same
has resulted in disqualification of the petitioner from the recruitment process.
21. In Vashist Narayan Kumar [supra], the appellant therein who hailed from a
small village in Bihar and belonged to the reserved category, aspired to become a Police
Constable and with such aspiration, applied for the post of Constable having possessed
the eligibility criteria. The appellant cleared the Written Examination and the Physical
Eligibility Test during the recruitment process. After the stage of document verification, the
final results showed that the appellant had failed for the reason that in the application form
uploaded online, he mistakenly mentioned his date of birth differently than his date of
birth reflected in his school mark sheet. The appellant had attributed the reason for such
mistake by projecting that he belonging to a remote village, went to a cyber café in a
nearby town and with the assistance of a person running the cyber café, he filled in the
application form and uploaded it online. As he received his application number indicating
thereby that the online application had been duly filled, he did not check the application
form further and the inadvertent error which was crept in with respect to his date of birth,
remained in the uploaded application form.
22. During the scrutiny subsequently, the discrepancy was found while matching the
information. In the Advertisement, it was clearly mentioned that if any discrepancy in the
information would be detected subsequently the candidature would entail rejection. The
Advertisement contained a caution that the candidate should read the instructions carefully
and if any information was found false or wrong, the application form would be cancelled
and legal action would be taken. The respondent authorities therein took a stand that
since the Advertisement mentioned the method of making corrections and the appellant
never availed that facility the appellant could not be permitted to take further part and
Page No.# 10/14
because of wrong or misleading information, the appellant's candidature entailed rejection.
22.1. In the afore-stated backdrop, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of the
fact that the appellant realized the error only subsequently after the publication of the
results. The Hon'ble Court was of the view that the appellant could not be penalized for
such insignificant error which made no difference to the ultimate results. Errors of such
kind which are inadvertent do not constitute misrepresentation or wilful suppression. The
Hon'ble Court has proceeded to observe that the appellant had participated in the selection
process and cleared all the stages successfully. The error in the application is trivial which
did not play any part in the selection process. It has further observed that the State was
not justified in making a mountain out of mole hill. Perhaps the rarefied atmosphere of the
cyber café got the better of the appellant and he omitted to notice the error and even
failed to avail the corrective mechanism offered. The Hon'ble Court has further observed
that, in such a case, the Court cannot turn a Nelson's eye to the ground realities that
existed. The Hon'ble court has directed that if the appellant is not otherwise disqualified,
the case of the appellant should be considered and a necessary appointment letter
should be issued.
23. In the case of Asmot Ali [supra], a similar recruitment process initiated for filling
up the post of constable [GD] in various paramilitary forces by the SSC was under
consideration. The petitioner therein inadvertently mentioned his date of birth incorrectly in
the application form submitted online. The petitioner was called for a written test and the
petitioner who belonged to unreserved category, came out successful in the written test
having scored more than the cut-off marks. In the physical fitness test also, the petitioner
was successful. In medical test also, the petitioner was found medically fit. But, his
candidature was rejected on the ground of mismatch of date of birth in the online
application and a rejection slip was issued. In that background, the Court has observed
that though a mistake had occurred in filling up the form by the petitioner online in
mentioning his date of birth correctly, the issue is to be considered from the aspect
whether the petitioner was trying to gain or take any advantage by inserting a wrong date
of birth. Examining the issue, the Court has observed that the petitioner did not try to gain
Page No.# 11/14
any advantage by putting a different date of birth in the online application form. Holding
that the impugned rejection as unreasonable and the mistake committed was a trivial one,
the rejection slip was set aside and the respondent authorities were directed to offer
appointment letter pursuant to his selection in terms of the advertisement without any
further delay.
24. It is true that in Vashist Narayan Kumar [supra], and Asmot Ali [supra], the
appellant and the petitioner appeared to have crossed all the hurdles and their
candidatures were rejected at a later stage of the recruitment process. In comparison, the
petitioner herein was expecting to appear only at the second stage of the recruitment
process after having crossed the first hurdle, Computer Based Examination [CBE]. The
petitioner's candidature leading to her ultimate selection will only happen if the petitioner
crosses the subsequent stages of the recruitment process, which are Physical Standard
Test [PST], Physical Efficiency Test, [PET], Medical Examination and Document
Verification. From the application form, it is clear that the petitioner is an inhabitant of a
village in the District of Nagaon.
25. The relevant parts in the application form where the error occurred are extracted
hereinbelow :-
27.1 NAME OF SPORTS/GAME 27.2 LEVEL OF PARTICIPATION
Athletics National Level
27.3 YEAR OF COMPETITION 27.4 MEDAL / POSITION ACHIEVED
2012 Participation
28. STATE / UT OF DOMICLE 29. DISTRICT OF DOMICLE
Delhi New Delhi
30. HAVE YOU MIGRATED FROM THE 30.1. WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE TO
STATE / UT OF YOUR ORIGIN TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF RESERVATION
STATE / UT OF YOUR DOMICLE ? FROM THE STATE / UT OF YOUR ORIGIN ?
No -
26. The petitioner is an aspirant for the post of Constable [G.D.] in the CAPFs and
Page No.# 12/14
others. From the application form, it is also noticed that the petitioner is an athlete who
participated at the national level. The petitioner's date of birth is 17.07.1999 and being a
candidate belonging to OBC category, she has appeared in the recruitment process availing
age-relaxation. If the opportunity in the present recruitment process is denied, the
petitioner will not be able to avail any further opportunity in her entire life.
27. The OBC certificate has clearly mentioned that the petitioner hails from District -
Nagaon and State - Assam. The OBC Certificate has been issued by the District
Commissioner, Nagaon. The OBC Certificate is of a date anterior to the Notice dated
05.09.2024. Another situation can be envisaged. If the petitioner secures the cut-off marks
fixed for the candidates of Delhi Domicile at all the stages then also the petitioner's
candidature would have been cancelled in the Document Verification stage.
28. It is true that the clauses in the Notice have put a restriction to consider the cases
of the petitioner, but this Court is of the considered view that the power is always available
to the respondent authorities to exercise sound discretion so that a candidate who is
otherwise qualified to take part in the recruitment process and is an aspirant for the post for
which the recruitment process has been undertaken, can take part in a recruitment to keep
the aspiration alive, overcoming the technicalities of some nature. The exercise of dissection
would benefit such a candidate rather than extinguishing the hopes and aspirations of such
a candidate for all times to come.
29. It has been informed to the Court that the recruitment process is presently at the
stage of Physical Standard Test [PST] / Physical Efficiency Test [PET]. From the
figures shown in Notice no. HQ-C-3007/5/2025-C-3 published by the SCC regarding
shortlisting of candidates to appear in Physical Standard Test [PST] / Physical Efficiency Test
[PET], a total of 40,047 female candidates have been qualified against State/Union Territory
wise vacancies of Forces other than NCB. Among 40,047, 7,933 candidates belonging to
OBC category have been shortlisted. In the male category, 3,51,552 candidates have been
shortlisted. If such is the case, the recruitment process is presently in the second stage.
This Court is of the view that the petitioner is to be allowed to take further participation in
Page No.# 13/14
the recruitment process from the stage of Physical Standard Test [PST] / Physical Efficiency
Test [PET] onwards. There is no likelihood to cause prejudice to the other shortlisted
candidates. The discretion is clearly available to the respondent authorities to make the
correction with regard to the petitioner's state of domicile and district of domicile from Delhi
and New Delhi to Assam and Nagaon respectively.
30. Evidently, the petitioner has taken part in the recruitment process believing that she
is competing with other candidates from her state of domicile, Assam only. The
projection on behalf of the petitioner that when filling up the boxes/entries in the
application form, extracted above, regarding state of domicile and district of domicile the
petitioner and the person assisting her, got miscomprehended is clearly a possibility. The
petitioner hails from an interior village of Nagaon District, State of Assam. The error was
possible to be crept in in filling the application form in a cyber café. It cannot e envisaged
that by the mistakenly filling in the details about the sate and district of domicile, the
petitioner intended to take any undue advantages. The petitioner gave all her three centre
options in Assam.
31. Taking a cue from the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Vashist Narayan Kumar [supra], this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner
should be allowed to take further part in the recruitment process under reference from the
stage of Physical Standard Test [PST] / Physical Efficiency Test [PET]. Therefore, a
direction to the respondent authorities to correct the errors committed by the petitioner in
filling in the application form with regard to the state of domicile and the district of domicile,
in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, is called for, Such view for changes in
the state of domicile and district of domicile from Delhi and New Delhi to Assam and
Nagaon respectively are fortified on the basis of the OBC Certificate and the permanent
address already mentioned in the application form. It is directed accordingly.
32. It is further observed that if the petitioner has secured higher marks than the cut-
off marks secured by the last of the female shortlisted candidate from the OBC category
from Assam, then the petitioner should be allowed to participate in the Physical Standard
Page No.# 14/14
Test [PST] / Physical Efficiency Test [PET]. It is made clear that her participation in stages
of the requirement process subsequent to the Physical Standard Test [PST] / Physical
Efficiency Test [PET] is dependent upon her qualification in the Physical Standard Test [PST]
/ Physical Efficiency Test [PET].
33. The learned Central Government Counsel has submitted that the stage of Physical
Standard Test [PST] / Physical Efficiency Test [PET] is going to be continued during the next
two weeks at least. The petitioner shall submit a certified copy of this Order at the Office of
respondent no. 3 within ten days from the date of this order so as to enable the respondent
no. 3 to take necessary measures in consultation with the competent authorities in the Staff
Selection Commission [SSC].
34. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition is
disposed of. No Cost.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
