Page No.# 1/10 GAHC010128842017 2026:GAU-AS:4909 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2752/2017 PRADIP KUMAR RAY S/O. DHIRENDRA KR RAY, VILL. HURAMARA THAKURPARA, P.O. BOTGURI, P.S. ABHAYAPURI, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-01. 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CRPF NEW DELHI-01. 3:THE DIGP GROUP CENTRE CRPF IMPHAL MANIPUR. 4:THE COMMANDANT -69 BN CRPF MANTRIPUKHURI IMPHAL MANIPUR Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A M KHAN, MR.R ALI Advocate for the Respondent : SR. CGC, ASSTT.S.G.I.,MR.Y DOLOI(R- 1-4) Page No.# 2/10 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 01.04.2026 Heard Mr. A. M. Khan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Z. Rahman, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of Mr. Y. Doloi, learned CGC, for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has assailed an order of termination of services dated 11.06.2016. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner in pursuance to a process of recruitment initiated for appointment into the post of Constable in CRPF (GD) and other post in the Central Armed Police Forces, on his selection, was offered appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in CRPF. In terms of the said offer of appointment, the petitioner was to report for undergoing his training. The petitioner accordingly accepted the offer of appointment issued to him, and reported for undergoing the training. After completion of his Basic Training at the ATC, Rangareddy, w.e.f. 08.07.2013 to 07.10.2014, the petitioner was posted as Constable (General Duty) in the 69th Battalion, CRPF, which was at the relevant point of time placed at Mantripukhuri, Imphal, Manipur. The educational certificates as produced by the petitioner, being under a process of verification, services of the petitioner was not confirmed. The Page No.# 3/10 verification reports having been received from the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, and therein, it being reflected that the date of birth in the HSLC (Repeaters) Examination, 2004, as produced by the petitioner to be not in conformity with the date of birth as recorded in the records of the Board, the Commandant 69th Battalion, CRPF, carried out further enquiry in the matter by deputing an Official of the Force to Office of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam. The matter with regard to the manipulation of the date of birth of the petitioner in his HSLC certificate being confirmed, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide issuance of the order dated 11.06.2016, by invoking the provisions of Sub- Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner having already completed his training and being posted against a post in the Force, respondents could not have invoked the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and in the event, any misconduct was found to have been committed by the petitioner, herein, appropriate proceedings under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965, was mandated to be instituted. He submits that no proceedings under the Rules, 1965, being instituted, the termination of services by invoking the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, was Page No.# 4/10 clearly without jurisdiction and accordingly the said order would mandate an interference from this Court. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the HSLC certificate as furnished by the petitioner at the time of reporting for his training has been brought on record by the respondents in the affidavit filed by them in the present matter. He submits that in the said certificate, it has been recorded that the date of birth of the petitioner is ‘10.10.1988’. He further submits that upon verification of the said certificate, the authorities of the Board of Secondary Education Department, had brought on record that in terms of the date of birth as recorded in the records maintained by the Board, the date of birth of the petitioner is ‘01.02.1986’ and not ‘10.10.1988’, as reflected in the HSLC certificate produced by the petitioner. He further submits that the said manipulation with regard to the date of birth was so done to bring the petitioner within the age limit mandated for recruitment against the post as put up for recruitment vide the advertisement dated 03.12.2011. He submits that the petitioner being recruited as a member of the Disciplinary Force, the misconduct committed by him in furnishing forged documents, renders him unsuitable for continuation in the Force and accordingly, the order dated 11.06.2016, would not mandate an interference. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 7. The Staff Selection Commission had issued an advertisement dated Page No.# 5/10 03.12.2011, inviting applications from eligible candidates for the post of Constable (GD) in ITBPF, BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB and also Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. Clause 4 (A) of the said advertisement mandated the age limits. The age limit prescribed for an intending candidate to be eligible to apply was prescribed as 18 to 23 years as on 01.08.2012. Further it was stipulated that candidates intending to apply should not have been born earlier than ‘01.08.1989’ and not later than ‘01.08.1994’. In the said advertisement it was further stipulated that the date of birth as recorded in Matriculation/Secondary Examination Certificate or an equivalent certificate available on the date of submission of the application would only be accepted by the Commission for determining the age and no subsequent request for its change will be considered or granted. 8. The respondent in the affidavit had brought on record a HSLC (Repeaters) Examination, 2004 Certificate which is contended to have been furnished by the applicant for the purpose of ascertaining his age as on the date of application. The original of the said certificate was also produced at the time when the petitioner had reported for training. 9. A perusal of the said certificate reveals that the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded, therein, as ‘10.10.1988’. In the event, the date of birth of the petitioner is 10.10.1988, he is within the prescribed age limit for applying against the post put up for recruitment vide the advertisement dated 03.12.2011, inasmuch as, he being a candidate belonging to the Other Page No.# 6/10 Backward Class (OBC) community would be eligible for a relaxation of 03 (three) years with regard to the upper age limit prescribed. However, on a verification of the said certificate, by the authorities of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, it was reported that the date of birth of the petitioner recorded, therein, was forged and as per the records of the Board, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as ‘01.02.1986’. It is on the basis of the said verification report received from the authorities of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, that the respondent authorities proceeded to issue the order dated 11.06.2016, terminating the services of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner in the present writ petition has brought on record a different High School Leaving Certificate, than the one that was so furnished by him before the respondent authorities. The certificate now produced by the petitioner is named as HSLC (Private) Examination 2004, and therein, the date of birth of the petitioner was recorded as ‘01.02.1986’. Accordingly, the petitioner is found to have utilized 02(two) different High School Leaving Certificates for the purpose of establishing his age as on 01.08.2012, in terms of the stipulations of Clause 4 (A) of the advertisement. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the date of birth as recorded in the HSLC certificate, is brought on record in the writ petition as 01.02.1986 is erroneous, inasmuch as, in terms of the birth certificate of the petitioner, his date of birth is 10.10.1988. The petitioner has brought on record the said birth certificate as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Page No.# 7/10 This Court has perused the said birth certificate and finds that the same was based on a registration effected in the year 2013. The date of birth of the petitioner, therein, however is recorded as 10.10.1988. The petitioner having registered his birth only in the year 2013, the said certificate would be of no consequence for the purpose of determination of the age of the petitioner, inasmuch as, in the records of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, the date of birth of the petitioner was not corrected and a rectified certificate in this connection not issued. 12. Accordingly, considering the date of birth of the petitioner on the basis of the HSLC certificate now annexed to the present writ petition, as 01.02.1986, this Court finds that the petitioner, herein, is not within the permissible relaxation of upper age limit mandated to be extended to OBC i.e. relaxation of 03 (three) years, inasmuch as, even on grant of the relaxation of 03 (three) years with regard to the upper age limit, the petitioner would be still over aged for applying in pursuance to the advertisement dated 03.12.2011. 13. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view, that the petitioner was not within the age limit as prescribed as on 01.08.2012 to apply against the post advertised vide the advertisement dated 03.12.2011. 14. The respondents as noticed, hereinabove, had brought on record the certificate produced by the petitioner at the time of joining at his training centre. In the said certificate, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as ‘10.10.1988’, however, on the own showing of the petitioner, in the HSLC Page No.# 8/10 certificate, his date of birth is recorded as 01.02.1986, so admittedly the petitioner has forged his HSLC for the purpose of bringing his age within the age limit as mandated under the provisions of Clause 4 (A) of the advertisement dated 03.12.2011. The contentions raised by the respondents in the affidavit filed by them were not disputed by the petitioner by filing a rejoinder, therein. 15. Accordingly the contentions raised by the respondents and the documents brought on record, would mandate to be accepted by this Court. Accordingly the petitioner being found to have also forged documents for the purpose of recruitment to a Disciplined Force, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner would not mandate a consideration on merits. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its recent decision in the Case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. EX. CT. Vinod Kumar [order dated 12.11.2025, in SLP(C)No.24705/2023, with regard to an appointment procured basing on forged degree/certificate had held as follows; “8. Having considered the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the orders passed by the CAT as well as by the High Court are unsustainable. The fact that once on the basis of a forged degree/certificate, a person gets appointment in the uniformed service of the country, that being the police, which is supposed to uphold the rule of law, the act of the respondent is uncondonable. The further fact which is admitted is that there is absolutely, no rebuttal by the respondent that the certificate/degree presented by him before the appellants at the time of his appointment and on the basis of which, he was Page No.# 9/10 appointed as a Constable, is genuine. Having perused the original records and the letter from the issuing authority which categorically stating that the degree/certificate, in question, is forged and fabricated leaves no doubt that such fact cannot be controverted. Thus, no holding of a departmental inquiry in the particular facts and circumstances of the present case may not be a factor to vitiate the final order of dismissal from service passed against the respondent. Thus, on this short point, the appeal is allowed and the order of the CAT as affirmed by the High Court stands set aside. The punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent by the concerned appellants stands restored. No order as to costs.” 17. Applying the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Case of EX. CT. Vinod Kumar (supra) to the facts of the present case, this Court holds that the termination of the services of the petitioner vide the order dated 11.06.2016, would not mandate any interference. Further given the nature of the allegation leveled against the petitioner which is found to have been established basing on the report of the HSLC certificate issuing authority, there would arise no occasion holding of Departmental enquiry in the matter and the non holding of the full fledged Departmental enquiry in the matter, would not vitiate the order of termination of the services of the petitioner effected vide order dated 11.06.2016. Accordingly the termination of services of the petitioner vide the order dated 11.06.2016 stands affirmed. 18. In view of the above discussion, the present writ petition is held to be devoid of any merit and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed. However there Page No.# 10/10 would be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant