UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus PROBIR GHOSH AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 931 · Decided: 17-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: HEMANT GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
931
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
PROBIR GHOSH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4585 of 2018)
FEBRUARY 17, 2022
[HEMANT GUPTA AND V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.]
Service Law: Staff Selection Commission – Eligibility under
Notification – Rule of Construction – In the instant case, the
respondents were applicants for different posts such as constables
in Central Armed Police Forces, rifleman in Assam Rifles, etc. –
They were kept out of merit list on the ground that they had failed to
fulfill the eligibility requirement as notified in the Notification –
Failure as alleged by the appellant authority was that one of the
respondent had applied for the vacancies, the reservation with
respect to which was circumscribed to a particular border district
to which he was domiciled and since the vacancies in said district
were not available, he could not be placed on merit list for the
vacancies limited to other border district – Also the other respondent
who indicated his preference for one particular service and not for
other services cannot be considered for the appointment in other
services on the basis of merit alone – Appellant authority also rejected
one of the respondent for being considered for appointment in OBC
reservation on the ground that the OBC certificate was not in a
prescribed format – Respondents successfully filed appeals before
High Courts – Hence instant appeals – Held: Once the vacancies
are earmarked separately for different categories of border districts
in the recruitment notification, it cannot be held that all border
districts are to be treated alike, and hence appointment for vacancies
in other border district cannot be made – Where the Notification
provides for preference with respect to posts and the preference is
made by the candidate with respect to only one particular post then
he cannot claim appointment on other posts for which he has not
made the preference on the basis of merit alone, particularly where
such notification provides that the preferences so made by the
candidate will be final and will not be changed under any
circumstances – The question of OBC certificate to be in a prescribed
format cannot be entertained in the appeal before the Apex Court
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 931
931
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
932
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
as it is a question of fact and the same cannot be assessed on merits
as considerable time period has lapsed and particularly in cases
where physical fitness of an incumbent in an uninformed service is
of utmost important.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. With respect to Civil Appeal Nos. 4586-4587 of
2018
The respondent belonged to the border district of Baksa
which came under Code “02”. As per Appendix-C to the
Notification, the vacancies for the border districts coming under
Code “02” of the State of Assam were “nil” in respect of BSF
(Male and Female), Assam Rifles (Male) and ITBP (Male).
Therefore, he could not have been considered for the vacancies
earmarked for the border districts of Assam coming under Code
“01”. But unfortunately, the High Court, in the impugned order,
proceeded on a reasoning that all border districts are liable to be
treated alike and that once a person is found to belong to one
border district, he is entitled to be considered in respect of all
border districts. The said reasoning of the High Court, if accepted,
will tantamount to tampering with the Recruitment Notification.
Once vacancies are earmarked separately for different categories
of border districts, even in the Recruitment Notification, it is not
possible to hold that all border districts are to be treated alike.
Different considerations may weigh with the recruiting authorities
for categorizing the border districts into two types. Therefore,
the High Court was not justified in granting relief to the
respondent on the ground that he must be considered as a person
domiciled in the border district where vacancies were available,
though he belonged to another border district, to which no vacancy
was notified. [Paras 25, 26, 27][940-G-H; 941-A-C]
2. With respect to Civil Appeal No. 4585 of 2018 & Civil
Appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.30408-
30409 of 2019
In Column No.16 under paragraph 4.0 of Annexure-II, which
is the brochure containing instructions for filling up the application,
candidates were called upon to carefully indicate preference for
the post under different Forces. It was also made clear that option
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
933
once exercised w

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.