Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010168162025 2025:GAU-AS:12354 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4631/2025 SRI MAHIM CHANDRA RAY S/O JATIN CHANDRA RAY RESIDENT OF-VILL- BARKHATA, P.O. BOITAMARI, PS-ABHAYAPURI, DISTRICT-BONGAIGAON, ASSAM, PIN 783389 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT 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 GUWAHATI- 6 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03 Page No.# 2/5 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL SASHATRA SEEMA BAL 5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI 22 6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (RECRUITMENT) EAST BLOCK- 07 LEVEL-4 SECTOR-01 RK PURAM NEW DELHI- 66 7:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 0 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. U SAIKIA, MR. Z ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 10-09-2025 Heard Mr. Z. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition aggrieved by his non- selection to the post of Constable [G.D.] in Central Armed Police Forces [CAPFs]. Page No.# 3/5 3. It was by a Notice published on 21.07.2018 [Annexure-1], applications were invited by the Staff Selection Commission from candidates for a recruitment process initiated for filling up post Constable [General Duty] in Border Security Force [BSF], Central Industrial Security Force [CISF], Central Reserve Police Force [CRPF], Indo Tibetan Border Police [ITBP], Seshastra Seema Bal [SSB], National Investigation Agency [NIA] and Secretariat Security Force [SSF] and Rifleman [General Duty] in Assam Rifles as per the Recruitment Scheme formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs [MHA]. The last date of submission of application was 20.08.2018. The recruitment process consisted of Computer Based Examination [CBE], Physical Efficiency Test [PET], Physical Standard Test [PST] and Detailed Medical Examination [DME]. 4. The petitioner responding to the Notice dated 21.07.2018, submitted his candidature. Vacancies to be filled up were initially 54,953. Subsequently, the vacancies were increased up to 60,210. The petitioner participated in the recruitment process and has claimed that he came out successful in all segments availing the benefit of relaxation in the height and chest criteria, which were available for unreserved category in respect of Assam. The petitioner belongs to OBC category. The petitioner has, however, claimed that his candidature ought to have been considered under the unreserved category. 5. The Staff Selection Commission had declared the results by publishing the select list on 21.01.2021. 6. Ms. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel has submitted that, as per the instruction received by her that, all the posts advertised had been filled up and resultantly, there are no vacancies for considering the appointment of the petitioner. Ms. Baruah has further submitted that three candidates, similarly Page No.# 4/5 situated like the petitioner, had earlier approached this Court by a writ petition projecting their case in a similar manner and the said writ petition, W.P.[C] no. 3322/2024 has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches by an Order dated 28.06.2024. 7. The relevant excerpts of the Order dated 28.06.2024 read as under :- 2. By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are praying for quashing of the result/select list dated 21.01.2021 in respect of recruitment of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Force (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, 2018 and for a direction to the respondent authorities to publish a fresh result/revised select list in respect of the State of Assam by treating the candidature of the petitioners in the Unreserved Category. 3. The learned Central Government Counsel has submitted that as per the instructions received by her, all the posts advertised had been filled up and resultantly, there are no vacancies for considering the appointment of the petitioners. 4. The petitioners claim that they belong to the OBC category and they claim that they have secured more marks than the last candidate in the Unreserved Category. Accordingly, the petitioners claim that they are entitled for appointment in the said posts. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that under similar circumstances, in another writ petition, notice of motion has been issued by this Court. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that since all the advertised posts, pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.07.2018 had been filled up, the present writ petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches as the results were already declared on 21.01.2021. Page No.# 5/5 7. The fact that notice of motion had been issued in another writ petition shall not come in the way of not entertaining the present writ petition on the ground of delay and laches in approaching the Court after more than 3(three) years, that too, after all the posts of Constables (GD) in Central Armed Police Force (CAPFs), NIA & SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, 2018 has been filled up. 8. Accordingly, the Court does not find any merit in this writ petition and the writ petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 8. Mr. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to bring any distinction in the case of the petitioner from the case of the petitioners in W.P.[C] no. 3322/2024. 9. Nothing has been averred as to why after declaration of the results on 21.01.2021, the petitioner had waited till August, 2025 to prefer the instant writ petition. 10. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition is not merited having suffered delay and laches. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant