Sr. No. 44 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 924/2021 Vinkal Singh Aged 31 Years S/o Sh Surjeet Singh R/o Village Bhupapul PO Bhagwa Tehsil Doda District Doda ….Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Abrar Khan, Advocate v/s 1.Union of India through Director General Indo Tibetan Border Police Force, S S Deswal Block No. 2 CGO Complex Lodi Road New Delhi, PIN 110003. 2. Commandant 24 BNITBP C/o 56 APO Leh PO Chuglmsar- 194104. ….Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE ORDER 06.08.2025 1. The petitioner, in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has challenged the order dated 31.01.2020, whereby his statutory appeal against the termination order dated 16.01.2019 from the post of Constable (GD) in the Indo-Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBPF) was rejected and the order of termination was confirmed. 2. The short grievance projected by the petitioner is that he was selected, recruited, underwent training, enrolled, and thereafter appointed as Constable (GD) in ITBPF through Staff Selection Commission (SSC) Examination, 2013. While 2 serving with the respondents, his services were terminated vide order dated 16.01.2019. Against the termination order, an appeal/representation dated 07.11.2019 was filed, which came to be dismissed vide the impugned order dated 31.01.2020. The reason assigned therein was that the petitioner was recruited through SSC by availing the benefit of “Other Backward Class” (OBC) category on the basis of a “Resident of the Backward Area” (RBA) Certificate, which is not recognised as OBC by the Government of India. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of filling up the application form, the petitioner could not differentiate between the categories of RBA and OBC. It is urged that after clearing the Physical Endurance Test, Written Test and Medical Examination, the petitioner was called for document verification, wherein his certificates were duly scrutinized by the authorities, and no error was pointed out at that stage. It is contended that the petitioner was thereafter recommended for appointment and joined service. According to him, no opportunity of hearing was afforded prior to passing of the impugned order. It is further submitted that the respondents, having verified the documents at the time of enrolment, could not, after the lapse of four years of service, revisit the eligibility and cancel the appointment. 3 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has filed objections stating that the petitioner was selected in the CAPFs Examination, 2013 conducted by the SSC and was allotted to ITBPF. Subsequently, one Parvinder Singh, who had been allotted to BSF from the same examination under OBC category, was found ineligible for the said category. When the said candidate was issued notice, he disclosed the name of the present petitioner as another candidate who had availed the same benefit on the basis of a similar RBA certificate. The Directorate General, ITBPF, vide letter dated 13.07.2018, sought clarification from SSC. The SSC, by communication dated 13.07.2018, declared a revised result, wherein the petitioner was shown as “Not Qualified”. It is submitted that the petitioner belongs to the General Category and was not entitled to the benefit of reservation under OBC. His services were, therefore, terminated in exercise of powers under Rule 25 of the ITBPF Rules, 1994, based on proper and reliable evidence. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. From the record, it is evident that the petitioner had applied for the post of Constable (GD) in ITBPF under the OBC category by producing a certificate that categorized him as a “Resident of the Backward Area” (RBA). However, the RBA category, although recognized in the State of Jammu & 4 Kashmir for local reservations, is not recognized as an OBC category by the Government of India for Central Government recruitments. 7. It is also not in dispute that the recruitment was conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), a Central agency, and the reservation benefit under the OBC category was extended only to those candidates who were recognized as OBC under the Central List maintained by the National Commission for Backward Classes (NCBC). The petitioner, therefore, did not fall under the Central OBC list and was not eligible for selection against the reserved OBC seats. 8. The further argument that the petitioner’s documents were verified and no objection was raised at the time of his appointment also lacks merit. Mere verification of documents at the initial stage cannot confer legitimacy on a claim that is fundamentally ineligible. The employer has the right, and indeed the duty, to revisit and rectify errors in appointments, especially those concerning eligibility and reservation fraud, even after the passage of time. Since the very basis of his appointment under the OBC category is flawed, the respondents were justified in terminating his services under Rule 25 of the ITBPF Rules, 1994, which provides for termination in cases of ineligibility or misrepresentation. As for the claim that no opportunity of hearing was granted, the record reveals that the petitioner had submitted a 5 representation dated 05.01.2019, which was duly considered by the Commanding Officer 23 BN before the passing of the impugned order dated 31.01.2020. 9. In view of the above discussion, the Court finds no merit in the petition. The termination order dated 16.01.2019 and the rejection of appeal dated 31.01.2020 do not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE JAMMU BIR 06.08.2025 BIR BAHADUR SINGH 2025.08.19 14:08 I am the author of this document