Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010059622026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1750/2026 RAMESH SINHA AND 3 ORS S/O RABI KANTA SINHA, R/O VILL LENGTARPAR, P.O. MULIALA, P.S. RATABARI, DIST. SRIBHUMI, ASSAM, PIN NO 788737, ROLL NO 5111004914 2: MONOJ SINHA S/O MANO SINHA R/O VILL PURABTHAL P.O. PALOI P.S. DHOLAI DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN NO 788123 ROLL NO 5111000572 3: SWASTIK SINHA S/O SITESH SINHA R/O VILL NARSINGPUR PT V P.O. BEKIRPAR P.S. DHOLAI DIST. CACHAR ASSAM PIN NO 788123 ROLL NO 5111012150 4: RAJ SINHA S/O JAYANTA SINHA R/O VILL RUPAGRAM P.O. DULLABCHERRA P.S. RATABARI DIST. SRIBHUMI ASSAM PIN NO 788736 ROLL NO 511101011 Page No.# 2/8 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI, 1 2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN BLOCK NO 12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 03 3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION GUWAHATI ASSAM HOUSE FED COMPLEX DISPUR GHY 6 4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE RECRUITMENT EAST BLOCK 07 LEVEL 4 SECTOR 01 RK PURAM NEW DELHI 66 5:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GROUP CENTRE CRPF KHATKHATI KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN 782480 6:THE COMMANDANT GROUP CENTRE CRPF KHATKHATI KARBI ANGLONG ASSAM PIN 78248 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD H R AHMED, MR A MALEK Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS S BARUAH(C.G.C.) Page No.# 3/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 21.07.2026 Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Baruah, learned CGC appearing for the respondent authorities. 2. By way of the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the impugned letters dated 09.03.2026 and 10.03.2026, whereby their appointments as Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) came to be cancelled. The petitioners have also prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to permit them to continue in service. 3. The brief facts, as pleaded, are that pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.09.2024 issued for recruitment to the posts of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Rifleman (GD) in the Assam Rifles and Sepoy in the Narcotics Control Bureau Examination, 2025, the petitioners submitted their applications, participated in the selection process and were ultimately declared successful. 4. Consequent upon their selection, separate orders of appointment dated 24.01.2026 were issued in favour of the petitioners. However, by the impugned letters dated 09.03.2026, in respect of petitioner Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and dated 10.03.2026, in respect of petitioner No. 4 (Annexure-8 series to the writ petition), the respondent authorities Page No.# 4/8 cancelled their appointments. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been instituted. 5. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that although the petitioners had applied under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, they were ultimately recommended and selected against the Unreserved (UR) category on the basis of their own merit. It is contended that notwithstanding such recommendation and appointment under the Unreserved category, the respondent authorities cancelled their appointments solely on the ground that the petitioners belong to the Bishnupriya Manipuri Community, which is not included in the Central List of Other Backward Classes. Learned counsel submits that the impugned action is wholly arbitrary, suffers from complete non- application of mind and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is further argued that the petitioners neither derived nor sought to derive any benefit of reservation and, therefore, cancellation of their appointments on the aforesaid ground is legally unsustainable. 6. Per contra, Ms. Baruah, learned Central Government Counsel, submits that upon verification it was found that the petitioners’ community does not find place in the Central List of Other Backward Classes. Since the petitioners had applied claiming OBC status, they were rendered ineligible for appointment and, accordingly, the competent authority cancelled their appointments. It is her submission that the impugned action has been taken strictly in accordance with the Page No.# 5/8 applicable recruitment guidelines and does not call for interference. 7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record. 8. From the records, it appears that the petitioners had indeed submitted their applications under the OBC category. However, upon completion of the selection process, they were recommended against the Unreserved category. The relevant extract of the select list is reproduced below: Record Roll Name Father Name Cat1 Phase Alloc State Alloc cat Alloc Post Rank 28418 5111000572 Monoj Sinha Mano Sinha 6 B 4 9 C SL/38543 28587 5111004914 Ramesh Sinha Rabi Kanta Sinha 6 B 4 9 C SL/39107 28868 5111012150 Swastik Sinha Sitesh Sinha 6 B 4 9 C SL/38572 28798 5111010113 Raj Sinha Jayanta Sinha 6 B 4 9 C SL/39835 9. A perusal of the result sheet dated 15.01.2026 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) reveals that Category ‘6’ denotes the OBC category, whereas Category ‘9’ denotes the Unreserved category. Thus, although the petitioners had initially applied under the OBC category, the recruiting authority itself recommended and selected them against Unreserved vacancies. Page No.# 6/8 10. It further appears that after issuance of the appointment orders, the respondent authorities cancelled the appointments solely on the ground that the petitioners’ community is not included in the Central List of Other Backward Classes. The relevant stand taken by the respondents in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition is extracted below: “That with regard to the statement made in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition, the answering deponent humbly submits that the petitioners have not been arbitrarily or illegally ousted from service; rather, their appointments were cancelled upon finding them ineligible under the OBC category as per the Central List. The action has been taken strictly in accordance with the applicable guidelines, and therefore no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 11. The aforesaid stand of the respondent authorities cannot be sustained. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were ultimately selected and recommended under the Unreserved category. Their appointments were not made against any vacancy reserved for OBC candidates. It is equally undisputed that they secured selection on the strength of their own merit and not by availing any benefit flowing from reservation. 12. Once the petitioners were treated by the recruiting authority itself as Unreserved candidates and appointed against Unreserved vacancies, the question whether the community to which they belong is included in the Central List of Other Backward Classes becomes wholly Page No.# 7/8 inconsequential. The petitioners did not secure any undue advantage or displace any eligible reserved category candidate by virtue of their claim of OBC status. Therefore, cancellation of their appointments solely on the ground that their community is not included in the Central List of OBCs reflects a complete failure to appreciate the distinction between a candidate’s claimed social status and the category under which the candidate is actually selected. 13. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioners had been selected and appointed against Unreserved vacancies on their own merit, the respondent authorities could not have invalidated such appointments by reopening the issue of their OBC status, which had ceased to have any bearing on their selection. The impugned action is thus arbitrary, irrational and unsustainable in law. 14. Consequently, the impugned letters dated 09.03.2026 and 10.03.2026 (Annexure-8 series to the writ petition), whereby the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled, are hereby set aside and quashed. 15. As a necessary corollary, the petitioners shall be treated as continuing in service as Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces with continuity of service. The respondent authorities shall give effect to this order forthwith and extend to the petitioners all consequential service benefits in accordance with law. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed with the aforesaid Page No.# 8/8 direction. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant