1. Recruitment for Constable (GD) — Candidates from Rajasthan applied from other States — Candidature rejected for failure to produce domicile certificates of those States. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 597
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Mahesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Chhote Lal Gurjar – Appellant
Versus
Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, New Delhi – Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 2449, 2470, 2541, 2591, 2620, 2621, 2622, 2623, 2624, 2667, 2672, 2793, 2816, 3334, 3335, 3336, 3337, 3338, 3339, 3340 of 2023, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3031 of 2024
Decided On : 25-02-2026
Important Points
Recruitment conditions in advertisements are binding, and claimants of migrated status must prove residency. Under Article 14, the principle of parity does not grant a right to benefit from illegalities extended to others, as there is no concept of 'negative equality.'
Subject
Service Law - Public Employment/Recruitment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Service Law - Recruitment - Adherence to terms of advertisement - Requirement of Domicile/Permanent Residential Certificate - Candidates applying from a state other than their state of origin must produce valid residency proof of the state from which they applied (Paras 14, 18 and 19) - Non-production of such certificates justifies cancellation of candidature as per explicit conditions of the recruitment scheme (Paras 19 and 20).
(B) Service Law - Provisional Appointment - No vested right - Mere issuance of a provisional appointment letter subject to document verification does not create a vested right in favor of the candidate; failure to satisfy eligibility conditions leads to valid cancellation of such appointment (Para 21).
(C) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Principle of Parity and Negative Equality - Equality is a positive concept and cannot be invoked to claim a benefit based on an illegality committed in favor of others - A wrong decision in favor of one person does not create a vested right for others to seek similar illegal benefits, as this would amount to perpetuating illegality (Para 22).
Facts of the case:
Candidates applied for the posts of Constable (GD) and Rifleman (GD) based on a recruitment advertisement that required candidates to be considered for recruitment in their respective states/UTs upon production of a valid Domicile/Permanent Residential Certificate. The advertisement allowed candidates who migrated to another state to apply from that state of migration. The petitioners, originally from one state, applied from other states as migrated residents but produced domicile certificates of their state of origin during document verification. Their candidatures were subsequently rejected. The petitioners challenged this rejection, claiming that other candidates in similar positions were permitted to join.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the recruitment conditions were explicitly clear: candidates must provide the domicile certificate of the state indicated in the application form. The petitioners failed to plead or provide evidence that the states they applied from were indeed their states of migration. The provisional appointment letters were contingent upon verification, and the failure to produce requisite documents nullified any claim to the post. The plea of discrimination was rejected as the law does not recognize "negative equality."
Issues: Whether the rejection of candidature was legal due to the failure to produce a domicile certificate for the state of migration, and whether a claim for parity can be made if other ineligible candidates were allegedly appointed.
Ratio Decidendi: Candidates are bound by the conditions of the recruitment advertisement, specifically the requirement to prove domiciliary status for the state they apply from. Provisional appointments do not confer absolute rights if eligibility is not met. Furthermore, under Article 14, an illegality extended to some individuals cannot be used as a ground to demand the same illegality for others.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
(B) Service Law - Provisional Appointment - No vested right - Mere issuance of a provisional appointment letter subject to document verification does not create a vested right in favor of the candidate; failure to satisfy eligibility conditions leads to valid cancellation of such appointment (Para 21).
(C) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Principle of Parity and Negative Equality - Equality is a positive concept and cannot be invoked to claim a benefit based on an illegality committed in favor of others - A wrong decision in favor of one person does not create a vested right for others to seek similar illegal benefits, as this would amount to perpetuating illegality (Para 22).
Facts of the case:
Candidates applied for the posts of Constable (GD) and Rifleman (GD) based on a recruitment advertisement that required candidates to be considered for recruitment in their respective states/UTs upon production of a valid Domicile/Permanent Residential Certificate. The advertisement allowed candidates who migrated to another state to apply from that state of migration. The petitioners, originally from one state, applied from other states as migrated residents but produced domicile certificates of their state of origin during document verification. Their candidatures were subsequently rejected. The petitioners challenged this rejection, claiming that other candidates in similar positions were permitted to join.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the recruitment conditions were explicitly clear: candidates must provide the domicile certificate of the state indicated in the application form. The petitioners failed to plead or provide evidence that the states they applied from were indeed their states of migration. The provisional appointment letters were contingent upon verification, and the failure to produce requisite documents nullified any claim to the post. The plea of discrimination was rejected as the law does not recognize "negative equality."
Issues: Whether the rejection of candidature was legal due to the failure to produce a domicile certificate for the state of migration, and whether a claim for parity can be made if other ineligible candidates were allegedly appointed.
Ratio Decidendi: Candidates are bound by the conditions of the recruitment advertisement, specifically the requirement to prove domiciliary status for the state they apply from. Provisional appointments do not confer absolute rights if eligibility is not met. Furthermore, under Article 14, an illegality extended to some individuals cannot be used as a ground to demand the same illegality for others.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Raghu Nandan Sharma, Kritika Rajawat, Abhinav Srivastava, Ayush Bishnoi, Manasvita Sharma
For the Respondents: Ashish Kumar, Devesh Yadav
For the Appellants : Raghu Nandan Sharma, Kritika Rajawat, Abhinav Srivastava, Ayush Bishnoi, Manasvita Sharma
For the Respondents: Ashish Kumar, Devesh Yadav
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claimed rejection contrary to all-India recruitment scheme and discriminatory; respondents asserted advertisement required domicile certificate and candidates failed to prove migration. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Advertisement required domicile certificate of State applied for; petitioners neither pleaded nor produced documents proving migration; provisional appointment does not confer vested rights. (Para 14 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. Candidates must support application with valid domicile certificate; provisional appointment subject to verification creates no vested right; no claim for negative equality. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed; respondents directed to conduct fact-finding enquiry into alleged irregular appointments and pass consequential orders after hearing affected candidates. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 )
6. Does a provisional appointment letter confer a vested right on the candidate?
No, a provisional appointment containing a condition that it is subject to verification of documents does not create any vested right; if documents are not submitted, provisional appointment is liable to be cancelled. (Para 21 )
7. Can a candidate claim benefit of negative equality under Article 14 if an illegality was committed in favor of others?
No, Article 14 cannot be invoked to claim negative equality; an illegal benefit granted to others does not create a vested right in favor of the petitioner, and courts will not perpetuate illegality. (Para 22 )
8. Is it mandatory to produce a domicile certificate of the State for which a candidate applies in a Statewise recruitment process?
Yes, the advertisement clearly required submission of domicile certificate of the State indicated; failure to produce it leads to cancellation of candidature, and variation between form and certificate is fatal. (Para 14 , 19 , 20 )
9. What must a candidate pleading migration from one State to another establish?
A candidate must plead and produce documentary evidence, such as a residence or caste certificate, showing the other State is the State of migration; absence of such proof justifies rejection. (Para 18 , 19 )
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. Since the facts, cause of action and question involved in all these writ petitions are similar, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts stated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2470/2023 (Mahesh Kumar Gurjar vs. Staff Selection Commission & Others) are being taken into consideration.
3. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent-Staff Selection Commission issued an advertisement in the 2021 inviting applications for direct recruitment on the posts of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA, SSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles Examination. As per the advertisement, the vacancies of Constable (GD) were although to be filled on all India basis in SSF and in CAPFs, the vacancies were divided Statewise. As per the advertisement, the candidates were to be considered for recruitment in their respective States/UTs on production of valid Domicile/Permanent Residential Certificate issued by the competent authority so authorised by the concerned District/UT to prove their domiciliary status at the time of documents verification, failing which the candidature of the concerned candidate was liable to be cancelled.
4. The advertisement also permitted the candidates, who have migrated from one State to another State to apply even from State of migration. However, for claiming reservation, all such candidates belonging to castes of SC/ST or OBC, were required to make an informed choice whether to get benefit of reservation in the State of origin or to appear as unreserved candidates from the State of migration. No request for change of option was permissible and in case, a candidate opts to avail the benefit of reservation from State of origin then, he/she was required to submit information about the District and State of origin as well as the District and State of current domicile in the application form.
5. The application forms were to be filled online and the candidates were required to give correct information, else incorrect information would entail result of cancellation of candidature of the respective candidate.
6. The petitioners in all the writ petitions, originally pertain to different Districts of State of Rajasthan, however, in the application forms, they opted to apply in reserved category from different States other than Rajasthan.
7. As per the petitioners, they all participated in the selection process and secured sufficient marks so as to include their names for basic training. However, during the documents verification, their candidatures were rejected on the ground that although the petitioners belong to Rajasthan, yet they have been selected for the post of Constable (GD) against the vacancies of other States, but during documents verification, they failed to produce a Domicile/Caste Certificate etc. issued by other State and rather the Domicile/Caste Certificate etc. produced by the petitioners were issued by the authorities of State of Rajasthan. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed instant writ petitions. Prayer made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2470/2023 is being reproduced as under:
"It is therefore, prayed may kindly call for the record concerning the case and after perusing the same, please accept the writ petition and by way of writ, order, and direction:-
(i) Quash and set-aside letter/order dt. 02.1.2023, whereby, petitioner was not allowed in further basic training for the post of Constable (GD) in CISF, in pursuance of offer of appointment letter dt. 14.11.2022, even after allow and training of some days.
(ii) Direct to the respondents, to allow to continue in the basic training for the post of Constable (GD) in CISF with all consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other relief which Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper by considering facts and circumstance of the case granted in the favour of the petitioner."
8. Learned counsel for the
