Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010015082026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case : WP(C)/1123/2026 KIRAN RAY AND 3 ORS S/0-NAREN RAY VILL- KHARIJA BISHPANI P.O.- SILIKHAGURI P.S.-PANBARI DIST.-CHIRANG ASSAM PIN-783390 2: JAYANTA RAY S/O LATE GANESH CHANDRA RAY VILL- NO.1 DARANGA P.O- ANANDA BAZAR P.S- BIJNI DIST- CHIRANG ASSAM PINI- 783390 (ROLL NO- 5105041672) 3: ARUP KUMAR DAS S/O SHAJIN DAS VILL- BHATAMARI P.O0 SULIAKATA P.S- PANBARI DIST- CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 781317 (ROLL NO- 5105053688) 4: LAKHAN HASDA S/O SABLE HASDA VILL- LADANGURI P.S- BIJNI Page No.# 2/6 DIST- CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783393 (ROLL NO- 5105063646) VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-110001. 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/ SECRETARY STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK- 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER) STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION RUKMININAGAR P.O- ASSAM SACHIVALAYA GUWAHATI-06 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BOARDER SECURITY FORCE (BSF) BLOCK NO. 10 LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003 5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) CGO COMPLEX LODHO ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003 6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE GROUP CENTRE AMERIGOG GUWAHATI-23 ASSAM 7:THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE GUWAHATI FRONTIER HQ PATGAON P.O- AZARA DIST.- KAMRUP Page No.# 3/6 ASSAM PIN- 781017 8:THE PO EXECUTIVE BOARD DV/DME/RME-CT(GD) EXAM 2025 O/O- THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE GUWAHATI FRONTIER HQ PATGAON P.O- AZARA DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM PIN- 781017 9:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER CHIRANG KAJOLGAON DIST- CHIRANG ASSAM PIN- 783385 ------------ Advocate for : MR. K R PATGIRI Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA ORDER 07.04. 2026 Heard Mr. K. R. Patgiri learned counsel for the petitioners, also heard Ms. S. Baruah, 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, whereby the candidature of the petitioners stood rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioners under the respective categories by taking into account of the OBC (NCL) Page No.# 4/6 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 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 respondent authorities refused to accept their OBC (NCL) certificate. Subsequently the certificate which was submitted by the writ petitioners and the candidature of the petitioners 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 & Page No.# 5/6 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. 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. 7. 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. 8. In respect of the 4 (four) petitioners of this writ petition, it is seen that the OBC (NCL) certificate which was produced by the Petitioner No. 2 is valid. Therefore the case can be considered for the Petitioner No. 2 in terms of the notification dated 17.08.2017, as the OBC (NCL) certificate was received by the petitioner on 10.01.2025 and the same was submitted on 03.12.2025 i.e. the date of document verification. 9. 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 Page No.# 6/6 writ petitioners are concerned it appears that only the Petitioner No. 2 shall be covered by the benefit extended vide circular dated 17.08.2017. 10. In view of such submissions made and upon perusal of the pleadings available before the Court, is clear that only the Petitioner No. 2 was deprived of the benefit specified under notification dated 17.08.2017. Therefore, the extended benefit of time period under the notification dated 17.08.2017 is required to be extended in the case of the Petitioner No. 2. 11. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the authorities who will consider the OBC (NCL) certificate of the Petitioner No. 2 and give the due benefit to the said petitioner as have been conferred under the notification dated 17.08.2017. 12. The claims of the other writ petitioners (except Petitioner No. 2) however are not maintainable as their OBC (NCL) certificates were already expired on a date when they were presented for document verification. 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 No. 2 for medical examination, if not already been done. And, if he is found medically fit upon completion of the examination, then necessary appointment order shall be issued. 14. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant