Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010060472026 2026:GAU-AS:13510 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1771/2026 CHANDAN NEWAR S/O TUL BAHADUR NEWAR, RESIDENT OF NO. 2, WALKHABI, BOGIBIL, PO BOGIBIL, PS BARBARUAH, DIST DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, 786004 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY , MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF BLOCK NO-1 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-03 3:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GROUP CENTRE CRPF KHATKHATI KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM 4:THE COMMANDANT GROUP CENTRE CRPF KHATKHATI KARBI ANGLONG ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D DOLEY, MS A DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS. R DEVI(C.G.C) Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO ORDER Date : 14.09.2026 Heard Mr. R. P. Sarma, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC for the respondent, Union of India. [2.] The learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner is aggrieved with the cancellation of his appointment in the post of Constable/GD in CRPF through the Communication dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure-E). He submits that the reason for such cancellation was that the caste of the petitioner i.e., OBC was not found to be listed in the Central List for Assam State and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for any relaxation in the recruitment. The learned senior counsel submits that in fact, the petitioner secured his appointment not on the basis of such relaxation but purely on merit since he had secured marks comparable to the general candidates. Therefore, the impugned cancellation order is not sustainable and the same should be set aside. The learned senior counsel submits that in fact the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in as many as three others cases, which are: (i) order dated 09.09.2026 passed in WP(C)/1768/2026 (Pankaj Newar v. The Union of India and Ors 2026: GAU-AS:13138); (ii) order dated 21.07.2026 passed in WP(C)/1750/2026 (Ramesh Sinha and 3 Ors. v. The Union of India and 5 Ors) and (iii) Order dated 09.09.2026 passed in WP(C)/1759/2026 (Parash Newar v. The Union of India & Ors. 2026:GAU- AS:13137). The learned senior counsel therefore submits that the present case being a covered case, the same may be disposed of in similar lines. Page No.# 3/3 [3.] Ms. R. Devi, learned CGC also submits that as per the instructions she has received from the group centre Khatkhati the petitioner did not avail any relaxation under the OBC category but in all the documents submitted by him, the category of the petitioner has been mentioned as OBC candidate. [4.] From a perusal of the documents appended to the writ petition and upon considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and including the instructions received by the learned CGC it only appears that the petitioner applied for the post in question as an OBC candidate but he has scored marks equivalent to other general candidates and that he has not been given any relaxation for being OBC candidate. Under the circumstance, if his selection is based on his performance and on merit, the benefit of the appointment given to him cannot be denied to him solely on the ground that his community is not included in the Central List of OBC. The case of the petitioner is therefore found to be squarely covered by the aforementioned decision of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned cancellation of appointment dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure-E) is found to be not sustainable and the same is set aside. The petitioner shall be treated as continuing in service as Constable GD pursuant to his appointment order dated 24.01.2026. [5.] The respondent authorities shall give effect to this order forthwith and extend to the petitioner all consequential service benefit including seniority in accordance with law. [6.] The writ petition stands allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant