JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.

1. The action of cancellation of the appointments of the petitioners as Constables (GD) in the CRPF is the subject matter of dispute in this petition filed by the 6 petitioners who have joined together. Initially, the petition was filed challenging an order dated 24.07.2021 by which even before a final decision was taken by the competent authority pending verification, the offer of appointment of the petitioners were cancelled. Subsequently, on issuance of the final cancellation order dated 30.01.2023, the writ petition was amended and it is both the orders which are the subject matters of challenge.

2. Before going to the issue which requires a determination, it would be convenient if the facts of the case are narrated in brief.

3. The 6 petitioners are all indigenous residents of the State of Nagaland in various districts. Pursuant to a recruitment process for amongst others, the post of Constables (GD) in the CRPF, the petitioners had offered their candidatures. As per the advertisement, the selection process was based on 4 stages, namely, Computer Based Examination, Physical Examination Test (PET), Physical Standard Test (PST) and Medical Examination. On being successful in all the aspects, the petitioners were offered appointments on 15.02.2021 whereafter they had reported and were assigned duties. The petitioners were also given Force numbers. However, vide the first impugned communication dated 24.07.2021 issued by the office of the DIG, the offer of appointment was cancelled on the ground that there were discrepancies in the district of domicile and the district of permanent residence. Though the letter indicated that further verification was being done, the offer of appointment was already cancelled vide order dated 24.07.2021 and since the representations filed by the petitioners were rejected, the writ petition was instituted. Subsequently, the order dated 30.01.2023 was passed of final cancellation and accordingly, as indicated above, the amended writ petition has been filed.

4. I have heard Shri T.B. Jamir, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners whereas the respondents are represented by Shri Yangerwari, learned CGC.

5. Shri Jamir, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the discrepancy, if any, is of trivial nature which does not, in any manner gave any advantage to the petitioners in the selection process. It is submitted that in such a recruitment which involves a number of candidates, the applications are required to be filled up online in which some discrepancies of this nature may occur. He has submitted that there is no dispute that the petitioners are all permanent residents of the State of Nagaland for which the recruitment was also involved. The learned Senior Counsel, by drawing the attention of the relevant documents has also submitted that special emphasis were made for Border Guarding districts and against S. No. 38 to 42 pertaining to the State of Nagaland, Phek District was also notified as one of the Border Guarding Districts. He submits that the petitioner nos. 4 and 5 are indeed from Phek district and by not disclosing the said aspect, the said two petitioners have actually been in a disadvantageous permission. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to those States earmarked having militancy affected districts and so far as the State of Nagaland is concerned, all the districts are stated to be militancy affected districts. The learned Senior Counsel has also referred to Note III in the advertisement whereby change of the domicile/permanent resident district can be changed only when those are issued by another State. It is accordingly submitted that even a change in the domicile and permanent resident districts is not barred if an incumbent is from the same State. The learned Senior Counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 11 relating to the mode of selection and Clause 15 regarding the jurisd