Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2026 DIGILAW 42 (GAU)

Abisekh Chauhan v. Union of India

2026-01-08

DEVASHIS BARUAH

body2026
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. R. Borah, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. S. S. Roy, the learned CGC who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Mr. T. C. Chutia, the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate who appears on behalf of the respondent No.8. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari challenging the impugned rejection slips dated 29.11.2025 issued by the respondent No.7 and further seeking a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioners under the OBC (Non Creamy Layer) category after making necessary verification with the District Commissioner, West Karbi Anglong, if required, and further direct the respondents to do the needful to appoint the petitioners if found fit in medical examination and otherwise meritorious. 3. The facts of the instant case which arises are that on 05.09.2024, an advertisement was issued for recruitment to the post of Constable GD in the Central Armed/Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in the Assam Rifles and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau Examination-2025. In the said advertisement, various dates have been mentioned. For the purpose of submission of the online application form, the window was from 05.09.2024 to 14.10.2024. It is also categorically mentioned that the last date and time for receipt of online application form is on 14.10.2024 on or before 11:00 PM. 4. The petitioners herein who admittedly belong to the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category applied in pursuance to the said advertisement for the posts of Constable GD. Clause 5 of the advertisement stipulated the age limit. The age of the candidates must be 18 to 23 years as of 01.01.2025, i.e. candidates born not before 02.01.2002 and not later than 01.01.2007. However, in respect to certain categories of candidates, the advertisement further prescribed age relaxation. In the case of SC or ST category, the age relaxation is five years and OBC is three years. Clause 6 of the advertisement stipulated the process of certification and the format of certificates. In terms with Clause 6.1, the candidates who wish to be considered against reserved vacancies or seek age relaxations are required to submit the requisite certificate from the Competent Authority in the prescribed format when such certificates are sought by the CAPFs concerned for document verification at the time of DME. In terms with Clause 6.1, the candidates who wish to be considered against reserved vacancies or seek age relaxations are required to submit the requisite certificate from the Competent Authority in the prescribed format when such certificates are sought by the CAPFs concerned for document verification at the time of DME. It is further mentioned in the said Clause itself that if such requisite certificates are not produced, the claim of the candidates for SC/ST/OBC/EWS/ESM category would not be entertained and their candidature/application would be considered under the Unreserved Category. Further to that, the said Clause also mandated that if the candidate has sought any other age relaxation or claimed ESM status and is not able to produce the relevant certificate, he would be considered in his respective category, i.e. SC/ST/OBC/EWS/UR. The formats of the certificates have also been provided in the Notice dated 05.09.2024. The certificate for Other Backward Classes is at Annexure-VII to the Notice of Examination. The contents of the said certificate being relevant are reproduced hereunder: “ Annexure-VII FORM OF CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES APPLYING FOR APPOINTMENT TO POSTS UNDER THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA This is to certify that Shri/ Smt./ Kumari _________________ son/ daughter of ________ of village/town __________________________________________ in District/Division___________________________ in the State/Union Territory _________ belongs to the __________________________ Community which is recognized as a backward class under the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment’s Resolution No. _____ dated ______ *. Shri/ Smt./ Kumari _____________ and/ or his/ her family ordinarily reside(s) in the ________________ District/ Division of the __________________ State /Union Territory. This is also to certify that he/she does not belong to the persons/ sections (Creamy Layer) mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule to the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt (SCT) dated 8.9.1993**. District Magistrate: ______________________________ Deputy Commissioner etc.: _______________________ Dated: Seal: * The authority issuing the certificate may have to mention the details of the Resolution of the Government of India, in which the caste of the candidate is mentioned as OBC. ** As amended from time to time. Note: The term “Ordinarily” used here will have the same meaning as in Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.” 5. ** As amended from time to time. Note: The term “Ordinarily” used here will have the same meaning as in Section 20 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950.” 5. From a perusal of the format provided in Annexure-VII, it is seen that to be eligible to apply in the category of Other Backward Classes, the certificate should also contain that the candidate does not belong to persons/sections (Creamy Layer) as mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule to the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 08.09.1993. 6. This Court also finds it pertinent to take note of another very relevant aspect which is Clause 6.5 which stipulates that the crucial date for a claim of SC/ST/OBC/EWS status or any other benefit viz. fee concession, reservation, age relaxation etc. would be the closing date for receipt of the online application form, i.e. 14.10.2024. 7. The materials on record would further show that though the three petitioners herein had applied for the post of Constable (GD), but did not have the OBC certificates as is required in terms with Annexure-VII to the Notice dated 05.09.2024. The resultant effect is that at the time of document verification, such certificate(s) could not be produced, and consequently, the candidature of all the three petitioners were rejected vide separate rejection slips all dated 29.11.2025. 8. A perusal of the rejection slips which have been collectively enclosed as Annexure-D colly reveal that all the three petitioners are over-aged and they cannot be considered to be entitled to any age relaxation as stipulated in Clause 5.1 of the Notice dated 05.09.2024 on the ground that the petitioners have failed to produce the certificates in terms with Annexure-VII as reproduced hereinabove. 9. It is under such circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the rejection slips and further seeking the directions as already mentioned hereinabove. 10. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record. 11. From a perusal of the materials on record, it would show that the petitioners have not submitted the certificates in terms with Annexure-VII or have produced such certificates at the time of document verification which is the mandate of Clause 6.1 of the Notice dated 05.09.2024. 11. From a perusal of the materials on record, it would show that the petitioners have not submitted the certificates in terms with Annexure-VII or have produced such certificates at the time of document verification which is the mandate of Clause 6.1 of the Notice dated 05.09.2024. Further to that, the Notice dated 05.09.2024, makes it very clear at Clause 6.5 that the closing date is on 14.10.2024 and the said Clause 6.5 is the subject matter of challenge. 12. Under such circumstances, it is the opinion of this Court that the rejection of the candidatures of the petitioners cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or in violation to the terms and conditions mentioned in the Notice dated 05.09.2024. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find the present writ petition to be a fit case for issuance of notice for which the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.