Appointment offers cannot be cancelled without due process and opportunity for a hearing, especially based on questionable verification of documents.

ORDER :

BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Since the issue involved in the present batch of Writ Petitions is identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4. It is the case of the Petitioners that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 24.11.2023 under Annexure-1 to fill up the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Petitioners made their respective applications and faced the selection process.

4.1. It is further contended that in terms of the provision contained in Para- 3.3 of the advertisement, Petitioners along with their applications also submitted domicile certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Kalahandi so obtained by them and enclosed to the Writ Petition.

4.2. It is contended that by accepting such domicile certificate issued in favour of the Petitioners, Petitioners were not only allowed to participate in the selection process, but also they were issued with offer of appointment vide order dtd.23.12.2024. Not only Petitioners were also allowed to join, but also undergo the training pursuant to the offer letter dtd.23.12.2024. However, while so continuing, Petitioners were not allowed to continue with the training, because of the impugned order passed on 04.08.2025, so communicated vide letter dtd.17.11.2025 under Annexure-6.

4.3. It is contended that subsequent to issuance of the offer letter dtd. 23.12.2024, in terms of the provisions contained under Para-3.3. of the advertisement, when clarification was sought for from the concerned Tahasildar, with regard to genuineness of the domicile certificates so produced by each of the Petitioners, concerned RI submitted a report that Petitioners are not resident of Bhawanipatna. Basing on such RI report, the offer of appointment so issued in favour of the Petitioners in the present batch of cases was cancelled vide the impugned communication dtd.17.11.2025, basing on the order passed on 04.08.2025 by Opposite Party No.4. It is contended that, since Petitioners were issued with the domicile certificate by the concerned Tahasildar, unless and until the same is set aside in accordance with law, basing on a subsequent report submitted by the concerned RI, such offer of appointment could not have been cancelled vide the impugned order.

4.4. It is accordingly contended that the order cancelling the appointment of the Petitioners vide order dtd.4.8.2025 requires interference of this Court and Petitioners be allowed to continue in their service, where they had joined.

5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with respective CGCs on the other hand contended that, pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioners were allowed to participate in the selection process and offer of appointment was also issued to each of the Petitioners which is not disputed. However, after issuance of such offer of appointment, in terms of the provisions contained under Para-3.3. of the advertisement, when the domicile certificates submitted by the Petitioners were sent for verification to the concerned Tahasil, the Tahasildar when reported that Petitioners are not permanent residents residing at Bhawanipatna, such offer of appointment was cancelled vide the impugned order dtd.17.08.2025 under Annexure-6-Series, so communicated on 17.11.2025.

5.1. It is contended that since after being asked to verify the genuineness of the domicile certificate, the report came from the Tahasildar, Kalahandi-Opposite Party No.5 that the said certificates are not genuine one and Petitioners are not o