Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010015082026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : WP(C)/555/2026 SRI CHANDAN CHAUHAN S/O- RAJESH CHAUHAN. R/O- VILL.- BOGORIGHAT NO.2 P.S.- KHERONI DIST.- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI INDIA. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY BLOCK-12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI. 3:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CRPF (RECRUITMENT BRANCH) EAST BLOCK-07 LEVEL-4 SCETOR -01 R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-110066. Page No.# 2/6 4:THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTH EAST ZONE CRPF 9TH MILE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE BLOCK-10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003. 6:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE FRONTIER HEADQUARTERS PATGAON NEAR AZARA RAILWAY STATION GUWAHATI DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM PIN- 781017. 7:THE PRESIDING OFFICER EXECUTIVE BOARD. DV/DME/RME-CT) (GD) EXAM-2025 CENTRE - CAPFs COMPOSITE HOSPITAL PATGAON BORDER SECURITY FORCE GUWAHATI. DIST.- KAMRUP(M) ASSAM 8:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER WEST KARBI ANGLONG HAMREN DIST.- WEST KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. R BORA Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Page No.# 3/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 07.04. 2026 Heard Mr. R. Boro learned counsel for the petitioner, also heard Mr. S.S. Roy, learned CGC for the Respondents. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus for setting aside of the Clause 6.5 of the advertisement dated 05.09.2024 as also the rejection slip dated 03.12.2025, whereby the candidature of the petitioner stood rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus to the respondents authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner under the respective categories by taking into account of the OBC (NCL) certificate produced by the petitioner. 3. The petitioner had submitted their candidature in response to the advertisement dated 05.09.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2 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 petitioner had submitted his application supported by necessary documents. According to the writ petitioner, he belongs to the OBC category, and therefore he had submitted his credential. However, the Non-Creamy Layer certificate which was applied for by the petitioner could be submitted only upon issuance of the said certificate by the concerned State Authorities. However the respondent authorities refused to Page No.# 4/6 accept this NCL certificate. Subsequently the certificate which was submitted by the writ petitioner and the candidature of the petitioner stood rejected notwithstanding that he 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 petitioner 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 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 the respect of the writ petitioner, the authorities rejected the candidature by issuing a rejection slip 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. Page No.# 5/6 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. According to the petitioner the date of document verification was held on 03.12.2025. On the said date the petitioner had submitted his OBC NCL certificate. However the same stood rejected by order dated 03.12.2015 that this documents were submitted after the cut off date and therefore the benefit of age relaxation of the writ petitioner was not available. 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 closing date of applications mentioned in the notices. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that his rejection was contrary to the notices and the circular issued by the Commission. Since the closing date of the application was 14.10.2024, the petitioner had submitted his certificate on 07.01.2025 therefore he should be covered the extended benefit under notification dated 17.08.2017. 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 petitioner is concerned it appears that he will be covered by the benefit extended vide circular dated 17.08.2017. 11. In view of such submissions made before the court notwithstanding that no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and also taking into Page No.# 6/6 consideration, the instructions received by the respondent authorities and which are placed before the Court, is clear that the petitioner was deprived of the benefit specified under notification dated 17.08.2017, and therefore the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner calls for interference. 12. Accordingly in view of the submissions made and upon perusal of the notification dated 17.08.2017, the rejection of the writ petitioner by order dated 03.12.2025 on the account that the non-creamy layer certificate as on date 14.10.2024 was not produce is herby interfered with and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the authorities who will consider the NCL certificate and give the due benefit to the petitioner 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 order putting up the petitioner for medical examination. The selection for further appointment of the writ petitioner however shall be subject to the outcome of the medical examination. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. 15. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant