Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010147062026 2026:GAU-AS:10481-DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/257/2026 ANIL KUMAR ID NO 1063, S/O SRI BHAGWAN, R/O VILL. KOHLAWAS, PO SANWAR BONDKLAN, DIST. BHIWANI, HARYANA-12704 VERSUS 1.THE UNION OF INDIA AND 2 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES DIRECTORATE GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES LAITKOR SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-10 3:PRESIDING OFFICER RECRUITMENT BOARD ASSAM RIFLES JORHAT ASSAM THROUGH THE COMMANDING OFFICER 3 MAINTENANCE GROUP OF ASSAM RIFLES JORHAT ASSAM Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. H. Buragohain, Advocate. Advocate for the Respondent : Ms. A. Gayan, Central Government Counsel. Page No.# 2/5 –B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 29.07.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned Advocate for the appellant and Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents/Union of India & 2 Ors. 2. The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 16.06.2026 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in WP(C) No.4099/2018, rejecting his claim that the recruitment process undertaken by the Assam Rifles for the post of Havildar Clerk pursuant to an advertisement dated 05.10.2012 was rigged. 3. According to the appellant, the advertisement notified a total 328 vacancies, which included candidates of General, OBC, Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) categories with separate allocations and it was further clarified in the advertisement that the merit list would be prepared State-wise and Category-wise. However, according to the appellant, there was no disclosure with respect to the number of allotted seats for the States. 4. The appellant along with others had participated in the recruitment process but was not selected. According to the information garnered by him, only 156 candidates were initially selected against 328 advertised vacancies, leaving 172 posts unfilled. It further appears from the records that for the State of Haryana, from where the appellant hails, Page No.# 3/5 the Recruiting Authority allocated 4(four) seats. 5. The contention of the appellant is that 6(six) candidates were allegedly appointed in the State of Haryana quota. There is further allegation of the appellant of 2(two) of the candidates having been selected surreptitiously without there being any record of their having participated in the recruitment process. 6. The primary concern of the appellant, therefore, is that once it was declared that the allocated seats for the State of Haryana would be 4(four), then any alteration in that quota was not permissible. However, if the same was permissible in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), relied upon by the Recruiting Agency, the quota could have been increased further against the unfilled vacancies and lastly, it was argued on behalf of the appellant that because of the lack of transparency in the appointment against more than 4(four) allotted seats, the purity of the recruitment process stood severely compromised. 7. Against the afore-noted contentions, Ms. A. Gayan, learned Central Government Counsel has submitted that the advertisement clearly specified that the distribution of vacancies would be based on the policy issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and that the vacancies were tentative which could have been increased or decreased according to the situation. The vacancies so notified initially would be subject to variation and the Recruiting Agency shall have a right to make any change in the advertisement or cancel the same without assigning any reasons. There was 10% reservation for Ex- serviceman in each category which was not clearly shown in the Page No.# 4/5 advertisement. Pursuant to the advertisement, the appellant had participated in the recruitment process but was not selected only for the reason of being low in the merit list. The merit list was prepared State-wise and Category-wise. It was also pointed out by Ms. Gayan that an SOP dated 23.04.2003 existed for guidance in the matters of recruitment in Assam Rifles. 8. Ms. Gayan contends that for explicable reasons, taking into account the geographical location of the State of Haryana, 4(four) seats were allotted to it. However, later, the allocation was varied in terms of the SOP which permitted such variation in case of sufficient number of candidates not coming forward for enlistment and the vacancies remaining unfilled. In that case, the planning in the SOP was that allocations could be diverted, but with the specific approval of the Director General of Assam Rifles (DGAR), to the other States/Union Territories where higher representation is felt necessary on administrative considerations. The contention raised on behalf of the respondents/Recruiting Agency is that the allocation of the number of vacancies with respect to the State of Haryana had been increased. 9. True it is that there is no document available on record before the Writ Court or in this memo of appeal, which would clarify as to under what consideration and on which date the allocation was diverted to the State of Haryana. However, the fact remains that more than 4(four) Page No.# 5/5 persons were appointed in that recruitment process in the State of Haryana quota. 10. Taking this fact into account, the learned Single Judge found that all the appointees in the State of Haryana quota had scored more marks than the appellant. 11. In that view of the matter, the claim of the appellant was rejected. 12. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant before this Court is that the process having been shrouded secrecy but it does not inspire confidence. 13. On perusal of the records and after hearing of the parties, we are of the view that the number of allocated seats for the State of Haryana was increased in the event of non-fulfillment of 328 advertised vacancies and all the appointees under the said quota in their respective categories had scored better marks than the appellant. This being the case and the appellant only having a right to be considered and not possessing any vested right to selection, has not made out any case for our interference in this appeal. 14. This appeal is thus dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant