Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010193272026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4947/2026 CT/GD 221403172 GAURAV S/O JAI PRAKASH, R/O VILLAGE- DALIPPUR SACHENDI, P.O. AND P.S. SACHENDI, DISTRICT- KANPUR NAGAR, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN- 209304. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY (P) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI -110001. 2:THE SECRETARY (P) TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING NORTH BLOCK NEW DELHI -110001. 3:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI DELHI- 110003. 4:THE CHAIRMAN STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD Page No.# 2/5 NEW DELHI-110003. 5:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION NORTH EASTERN REGION REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA BASISHTA ROAD P.O. DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781006. 6:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) SELECTION BOARD FOR SELECTION OF NORTH EASTERN REGION DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING HOUSEFED COMPLEX BELTOLA BASISHTA ROAD P.O. DISPUR GUWAHATI ASSAM- 781006 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P D NAIR, MR G ALAM,MR. H ROHMAN,DR. S R A NASER Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJAN MONI KALITA ORDER Date : 11.09.2026 Heard Mr. H. Rahman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned CGC for all the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this instant writ petition being aggrieved by the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for the post of Sub- Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) pursuant to SSC recruitment examination, 2024. Page No.# 3/5 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is presently serving as Constable (GD) in the BSF and after coming to know about the SSC recruitment examination, he applied for the post of Sub- Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) against the notice issued by the SSC dated 04.03.2024. 4. The petitioner’s case is that he appeared in the B.A. 3rd year examination for the session 2023-24 after obtaining due permission / NOC from the BSF and completed his last examination paper on 20.06.2024, i.e., well before the prescribed cut-off date of 01.08.2024 in terms of clause 7 of the of the aforesaid notice. It is stated that however, the result of the said examination was declared on 14.08.2024 resulting delay of 14 days which is entirely attributable to the university. 5. It is further stated that he applied for the SSC examination while B.A examination result was awaited and thereafter, he successfully qualified paper 1 as well as paper 2. Subsequently, he was called for the document verification and detailed medical examination on 20.09.2025, wherein the candidature was rejected by the respondent authorities solely on the ground that his Bachelor Degree was obtained after the cut-off date. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had appeared for the qualifying examination, i.e., B.A. prior to the cut- off date and his result was declared only 14 days after the cut-off date. Therefore, the 14 days delay should have been condoned by the respondent authorities in considering the fact that the result was Page No.# 4/5 delayed due to the reasons attributable to the university. 7. Learned CGC for all the respondents has submitted that it is a settled law that a person who applies for a certain post and if there is a qualifying criteria prescribed, he has to possess that qualifying criteria on or before the cut-off date as prescribed in the advertisement/ notice. In this connection, he referred to the clause 7 of the aforesaid notice dated 04.03.2024, which provides for essential qualification as on 01.08.2024. He further submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dharminder Singh (Civil Appeal No. 8828/2022) arising out of SLP(C) No. 6647/2021, has clearly laid down that cut-off date for acquiring the qualification advertised is the last date of application. He submits that it is apparent that in the instant case, the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification neither on the date of application nor on the cut-off date. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner does not have any merit in the instant case and the instant case should be dismissed. 8. This Court has heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and has considered the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Electricity Board Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Dharminder Singh (supra). 9. It is clear from the material available on record that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification of bachelor degree as on 01.08.2024. In this connection, it may be relevant quote hereinbelow the clause 7 of the Notice dated 04.03.2024, which provides for essential qualification (as on 01.08.2024): Page No.# 5/5 “Educational qualification for all posts is Bachelor’s degree from a recognized university or equivalent. The candidate who have appeared in their Bachelor’s degree or equivalent examination can also apply; however, they must possess essential qualification on or before the cut- off date, i.e., 01.08.2024.” 10. From the above, it is clear that the requisite qualification of Bachelor’s Degree, one has to possess on or before the cut-off date, i.e., 01.08.2024 to be eligible for apply and consideration. 11. However, in the instant case, the petitioner acquired the required Bachelor’s Degree only on 14.08.2024, which is after the cut-off date. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity on the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the candidature of the petitioner in the instant case as the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification on the cut-off date, i.e, 01.08.2024. 12. Accordingly, not finding any merit in the instant case, the instant case is dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant