Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 789

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Soumitra Saikia, J.
Deepjyoti Ray, S/O Prabin Ray – Petitioner
Versus
The Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To The Union Of India, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 2545 of 2026
Decided On : 20-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. K R Patgiri, Ms Chitralekha Das,Ms. P Talukdar,Ms. D. Devi
For the Respondent: Dy.S.G.I., Mr. S S Roy(C.G.C.),Ga, Assam

Administrative authorities are bound by existing notifications granting relaxations for the production of mandatory recruitment documents. Denying such policy-based benefits to a candidate, thereby causing the rejection of their candidature, constitutes an error that warrants judicial intervention to ensure fair selection processes.

Headnote:(A) Recruitment - Selection process - Caste category certification - Relaxation of time limits - Policy notifications providing extended timelines for submission - Mandatory nature of adherence to beneficial administrative circulars. (Paras 5, 7)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Mandamus - Rejection of application - Denying the benefit of extended timelines for document submission to a candidate - Illegality of enforcement of strict deadlines contrary to existing directives. (Paras 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for a recruitment drive but his candidature was rejected because the necessary caste certificate was not available by the application closing date. Consequently, he was treated as belonging to an unreserved category and subsequently failed to meet the required benchmarks. The petitioner challenged this, relying on an administrative notification that provides a relaxation period for the submission of such documents.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the administrative notification allowing for a relaxation in the time limit for submitting caste certificates was still in operation. The authorities had failed to extend this benefit to the petitioner, rendering the rejection of his candidature improper.

Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent authorities were justified in rejecting a candidate for failing to submit a certificate by a specific deadline, despite an existing administrative notification that provided for an extended window of time for such submissions.

Ratio Decidendi: Public authorities are bound to adhere to subsisting administrative policies designed to grant specific benefits or relaxations to candidates. Where such a beneficial notification exists, the rigid enforcement of advertisement-specific deadlines to the detriment of an eligible candidate is unsustainable and warrants judicial intervention to ensure compliance with established policy.

Result: Petition allowed; the matter is remanded to the authorities for reconsideration of the candidature.

Table of Content
1. factual overview of recruitment candidature rejection (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. applicability of notification governing obc certificate submission timelines (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. judicial mandate to consider certificates under existing grace periods (Para 10 , 11 , 12)

JUDGMENT :

SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. K.R Patgiri, 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 pf mandamus for setting aside of the Clause 6.5 of the advertisement dated 05.09.2024, whereby the candidature of the petitioner stood rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus to the respondent 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 his 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 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, but as on the last date of submission of documents, the required OBC (NCL) certificate was not available for considering his candidature under the OBC category. Therefore, the petitioner was treated under the Unreserved Category, and as he did not secure the required cut-off marks in that category he was not selected, otherwise he would have qualified and selected 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. The learned counsel for 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. The learned co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document