Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010015082026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : WP(C)/1462/2026 SRI MUKUT RAY AND ANR S/O- BIPUL RAY. R/O- VILL.- BAKHAL GAON PT.II P.O.- NORTH SALMARA P.S.- ABHAYAPURI DIST.- BANGAIGAON ASSAM. 2: SRI JIBANTA RAJBONGSHI S/O- RANA RAJBONGSHI. R/O- VILL.- DEOHATI PT-II P.O.- DEOHATI B.O. P.S.- ABHAYAPURI DIST.- BONGAIGAON. 3: SRI SATENJAY MALLIK S/O- SHYAMLAL MALLIK. R/O- VILL.- PUB KHAMAR PARA P.O.- BAGARGAON P.S.- BIJNI DIST.- CHIRANG. 4: SRI BANTI DAS D/O- KANTESWAR DAS. R/O- VILL.- PALASHGURI P.O.- NARAYANPUR P.S.- MUSHALPUR DIST.- BAKSA ASSAM PIN- 781372. 5: SRI SURAJLAL CHOUHAN. Page No.# 2/7 S/O- HARI NANDA CHOUHAN. R/O- VILL.- KAKI RAMPUR FOREST VILLAGE P.O.- PURANAKAKI P.S.- KAKI DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM. 6: SRI MANESWAR CHAUHAN D/O- NARAYAN CHOUHAN. R/O- VILL.- JALUKBARI P.S.- KOIRABARI DIST.- UDALGURI ASSAM PIN- 784522. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-110010. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (HEAD QUARTER) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN LODHI ROAD BLOCK NO. 12 CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI -110003. 3:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (NORTH EASTERN REGION) REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR GUWAHATI- 781006 4:THE PRESIDING OFFICER RECRUITMENT BOARD CT (GD) 2024 GROUP CETRE CRPF AMERIGOG GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN- 781023. 5:THE PRESIDING OFFICER/ MEMBER OF EXECUTIVE BOARD. DV/DME/RME-CT (GD) EXAM 2025 CENTRE -CAPFS CH BSF PATGAON GUWAHATI Page No.# 3/7 ASSAM. 6:ABHAYAPURI CO- DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST.- BONGAIGAON ASSAM. 7:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHIRANG ASSAM. 8:DISTRICT COMMISSIONER BAKSA ASSAM. 9:LUMDING CO- DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST.- HOJAI ASSAM 10:BHERGAON CO- DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DIST.- UDALGURI ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. B P SINHA Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 07.04. 2026 Heard Mr. M. K. Misra learned counsel for the petitioner, also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for the Respondents. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of mandamus for setting aside of the Clause 6.5 of the advertisement dated 05.09.2024 as also the rejection slips of the Petitioners No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 dated 26.11.2025, 27.11.2025, 22.11.2025, 20.11.2025, 28.11.2025 and 25.11.2025 respectively, whereby the candidature of the petitioners stood rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the Page No.# 4/7 petitioners under the respective categories by taking into account of the OBC (NCL) certificate produced by the petitioners. 3. The petitioners had submitted their candidature in response to the advertisement dated 05.09.2024 issued by the Respondent authority inviting application for the appointment to the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and SSF, Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, and Sepoy in Narcotics Control Bureau. The date for submission of the online the application, the last date for submission of online application, the dates for correction and the tentative scheduled of dates for the Computer based examination were all notified. 4. In response to the said advertisement, the writ petitioners had submitted their applications supported by necessary documents. According to the writ petitioners, they belong to the OBC category, and therefore they had submitted their credential. However, the Non-Creamy Layer certificate which was applied for by the petitioners could be submitted only upon issuance of the said certificate by the concerned State Authorities. However the respondent authorities refused to accept this NCL certificate. Subsequently the certificate which was submitted by the writ petitioners and the candidature of the petitioners stood rejected notwithstanding that they would otherwise qualified for being selected and considered for the said recruitment. Being aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. According to the petitioners there is a conflict between the terms of the advertisement, more particularly Clause 6.5 and 6.6 and the notification dated 17.08.2017 issued by the Government of India. In the said notification dated 17.08.2017, the Clause 3.1 provides as under: “3. Keeping in view the difficulties faced by the candidates and the Page No.# 5/7 Order of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No. 3116/2017 in the matter of Union of India vs Abdul Rasheed, the Commission took up the matter regarding relaxation in the stipulated time limit (as indicated at para I above) with the Department of Personnel & Training. The Department of Personnel & Training in consultation with Department of Legal Affairs, endorsed the following decisions of the Commission as given below:- (i) With effect from 23.01.2017. (Le the date of dismissal of SLP No. 3116/2017 filed by the Commission in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India (UOI vs Abdul Rasheed)] the Commission will not insist on candidates producing OBC Certificates issued within the cut off dates Le. 3 years, before the last date of receipt of applications and up to 180 days after the closing date of applications mentioned in the Notices.” 6. However, in respect of the writ petitioners, the authorities rejected the candidature by issuing a rejection slips indicating that the OBC (NCL) certificate as on date 14.10.2024 was not produced and as a consequence the petitioner is treated to be overaged and not eligible to get relaxation of OBC. 7. Although, the respondents were given opportunities to complete their instructions. On written instructions, the learned CGC submits that the timeline prescribed under the notification dated 17.08.2017 still continue to hold the field. 8. According to the respondents the last date for submission of document was 14.10.2024 as per the advertisement dated 05.09.2024. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the notification dated 17.08.2017, it was provided that the Commission will not insist on the candidates producing the OBC certificate issued within the cut off date i.e. 3 years before the last date of receipt of applications and up to 180 days after the Page No.# 6/7 closing date of applications mentioned in the notices. 9. Keeping in view of the notification dated 17.08.2017 and Clauses 6.5 and 6.6 of the Advertisement dated 05.09.2024 if the benefit of 180 days is to be granted to the petitioners, then it is seen that the Petitioner No. 1, 4 and 5 have obtained their OBC (NCL) certificate on 26.12.2024, 20.12.2024 and 26.11.2024 respectively. This period of 180 days has to be counted from the crucial date of submission of the application which is 14.10.2024. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand, on the basis of instructions, submits that the notification still subsists, therefore in so far as the writ petitioners are concerned it appears that the Petitioner No. 1, 4 and 5 shall be covered by the benefit extended vide circular dated 17.08.2017. 11. In view of such submissions made before this Court, it is clear that the Petitioner No. 1, 4 and 5 were deprived of the benefit specified under notification dated 17.08.2017, and therefore the rejection of the candidature of the said petitioners calls for interference. 12. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 26.11.2025, 20.11.2025 and 28.11.2025 respectively should be interfered with and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authorities who will consider the OBC (NCL) certificate and give the due benefit to the Petitioners No. 1, 4 and 5 as have been conferred under the notification dated 17.08.2017. 13. The respondent authorities after revisiting the process by applying the benefit conferred under notification dated 17.08.2017 will pass appropriate orders putting up the petitioners for medical examination, if not already been done. The selection for further appointment of the writ petitioner however shall be subject to the outcome of the medical examination. 14. The claims of the other writ petitioners No. 2, 3 and 6 are found to be not Page No.# 7/7 acceptable as the date of issuance of the certificate are found to be 15.07.2025, 20.06.2025, 24.07.2025 respectively and which dates are found to be beyond the time period of 180 days in terms of the benefit conferred under notification dated 17.08.2017. 15. Accordingly, in terms of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of. 16. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant