1. Recruitment for Constable (GD) — Candidates from Rajasthan applied against vacancies of other States without domicile certificates — Candidature rejected at document verification. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 677
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
A candidate applying via a state of migration must provide documentary proof of residency in that state. Furthermore, the principle of 'negative equality' prevents the use of Article 14 to claim benefits based on illegalities committed in favor of other candidates.
Subject
Administrative Law - Service Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Recruitment Process - Requirement of Domicile/Permanent Residential Certificate - Candidates applying from a state of migration are required to produce a valid Domicile/Permanent Resident Certificate of the state indicated in the application form (Paras 18-19) - Failure to produce such certificate justifies cancellation of candidature (Para 20).
(B) Provisional Appointment - No vested right is created by a provisional appointment letter that is specifically subject to the verification of documents; if the candidate fails to satisfy eligibility conditions, the appointment is liable to be cancelled (Para 21).
(C) Negative Equality - Concept of equality under Article 14 is positive; a plea of discrimination cannot be raised by citing an illegality committed in favor of others - A wrong decision in favor of one person does not create a vested right in favor of others (Para 22).
Facts of the case:
Candidates originally belonging to a specific state applied for recruitment against vacancies of other states, claiming they had migrated. During document verification, they failed to produce domicile certificates for the states they applied from, instead producing certificates from their state of origin. They challenged the rejection of their candidatures, alleging discrimination as some other similarly situated candidates were allegedly allowed to join.
Findings of Court:
The recruitment advertisement explicitly stipulated that candidates must produce a valid domicile certificate for the state mentioned in the application. The petitioners provided no evidence or documentation to prove that the states from which they applied were indeed their states of migration.
Issues: Whether the rejection of candidature due to the failure to produce a valid domicile certificate for the applied state is legal, and whether a claim for parity can be sustained by citing alleged illegalities in favor of other candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that adherence to recruitment conditions is mandatory and that a claim of being a resident of a "state of migration" must be supported by documentary evidence. It further ruled that provisional appointments based on document verification are not absolute rights. Most importantly, it observed that the principle of "negative equality" prevents candidates from seeking the extension of an illegality to themselves under the guise of Article 14.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
(B) Provisional Appointment - No vested right is created by a provisional appointment letter that is specifically subject to the verification of documents; if the candidate fails to satisfy eligibility conditions, the appointment is liable to be cancelled (Para 21).
(C) Negative Equality - Concept of equality under Article 14 is positive; a plea of discrimination cannot be raised by citing an illegality committed in favor of others - A wrong decision in favor of one person does not create a vested right in favor of others (Para 22).
Facts of the case:
Candidates originally belonging to a specific state applied for recruitment against vacancies of other states, claiming they had migrated. During document verification, they failed to produce domicile certificates for the states they applied from, instead producing certificates from their state of origin. They challenged the rejection of their candidatures, alleging discrimination as some other similarly situated candidates were allegedly allowed to join.
Findings of Court:
The recruitment advertisement explicitly stipulated that candidates must produce a valid domicile certificate for the state mentioned in the application. The petitioners provided no evidence or documentation to prove that the states from which they applied were indeed their states of migration.
Issues: Whether the rejection of candidature due to the failure to produce a valid domicile certificate for the applied state is legal, and whether a claim for parity can be sustained by citing alleged illegalities in favor of other candidates.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that adherence to recruitment conditions is mandatory and that a claim of being a resident of a "state of migration" must be supported by documentary evidence. It further ruled that provisional appointments based on document verification are not absolute rights. Most importantly, it observed that the principle of "negative equality" prevents candidates from seeking the extension of an illegality to themselves under the guise of Article 14.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
-
constitutional law
-
fundamental rights
- right to equality (article 14) (Para 22)
-
fundamental rights
- practice and procedure
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 claim rejection contrary to all-India recruitment scheme and discriminatory; respondents assert explicit advertisement requiring domicile certificate of State applied from. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
3. Advertisement explicitly required domicile certificate for State applied from. Petitioners offered no proof of migration to other State, and provisional appointment confers no vested right. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 )
4. No negative equality under Article 14; illegal benefit to others cannot be perpetuated. Candidates must comply with explicit advertisement conditions and produce required certificates. (Para 22 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed; respondents directed to conduct fact-finding enquiry into alleged irregular appointments and pass orders after hearing affected candidates within three months. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 )
6. Does a provisional appointment letter create a vested right to continue in service?
No. A provisional appointment expressly subject to verification of documents does not confer any vested right; if required documents are not produced, the provisional appointment is liable to be cancelled. (Para 21 )
7. Can equality be claimed based on illegal benefits granted to others?
No. Article 14 embodies positive equality; there is no negative equality. A wrong decision in favor of one does not create a vested right in others, and courts will not perpetuate illegality. (Para 22 )
8. Is a candidate bound to produce the domicile certificate of the State against whose vacancies he applied?
Yes. The advertisement mandated submission of a valid Domicile/Permanent Residential Certificate of the State/UT indicated in the application form at document verification; failure entails cancellation. (Para 3 , 17 , 18 , 19 )
9. What constitutes valid migration for claiming benefits in another State?
A candidate must plead and prove migration with supporting documents such as domicile, permanent residence, or caste certificate from the migrated State; mere application from that State is insufficient. (Para 18 )
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
