RAVI KUMAR RAY vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 5674

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(g), 21, 226 - Principles of Natural Justice - Cancellation of Domicile Certificate - Right of hearing - Cancellation of a domicile certificate without affording opportunity of hearing to the holder is violative of principles of natural justice as it has civil and evil consequences - Writ Court under Article 226 can mould relief to ensure just and equitable outcome even if initial prayer is not fully suitable. (Paras 14, 16, 17)

(B) Moulding of Relief - Power of constitutional writ court to adjust or reshape remedies - Doctrine allows tailoring relief to specific circumstances to ensure just and equitable outcome, even if original prayer does not perfectly align with facts. (Para 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, an aspirant for the post of Constable (GD) in BSF 2022, was issued a Domicile Certificate on June 2, 2022 by the State authority. On the basis thereof, he received a provisional appointment letter on August 28, 2023. Subsequently, the State authority cancelled the Domicile Certificate on November 17, 2023 without any notice or hearing to the petitioner. Relying on this cancellation, the BSF authority cancelled the offer of appointment on December 5, 2023. The petitioner challenged the cancellation of appointment.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the cancellation of the Domicile Certificate was done in clear breach of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was granted. The Court held that the cancellation of the Domicile Certificate and the consequential cancellation of the offer of appointment are set aside. The Court further directed the BSF authority to proceed from the stage of the offer of appointment dated August 28, 2023, subject to the petitioner being otherwise qualified.

Issues: The main issues were whether the cancellation of the Domicile Certificate without hearing was valid and whether the Court could grant relief beyond the specific prayer in the writ petition.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that any administrative action having civil and evil consequences requires adherence to natural justice; cancellation of a domicile certificate without hearing is invalid. The Court also reaffirmed its power to mould relief under Article 226 to achieve justice. Result : Writ petition allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Aspirant for BSF post; appointment cancelled after domicile certificate cancelled by state without hearing. (Para 4 , 5 )

2. Petitioner argues no communication of cancellation; BSF and state argue certificate validly cancelled after enquiry. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 )

3. Cancellation of domicile certificate and appointment set aside; BSF directed to proceed from offer of appointment. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )

4. Does cancellation of a domicile certificate without affording an opportunity of hearing violate principles of natural justice?

Yes, because such cancellation has civil and evil consequences, mandating a right of hearing before cancellation. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )

5. Can a constitutional court mould relief to set aside an action not specifically challenged in the pleadings?

Yes, a writ court can tailor relief to ensure a just and equitable outcome, going beyond the strict wording of prayers. (Para 17 , 18 )

6. Is a provisional appointment valid if it was issued when the domicile certificate was still valid and later cancelled without hearing?

Yes, equity demands restoration of the appointment because the certificate was valid at issuance and its subsequent cancellation was procedurally invalid. (Para 15 , 18 , 19 , 20 )

Aniruddha Roy, J.

1. On the prayer of the learned Additional Government Pleader time to file second report pursuant to the direction of this Court dated June 23, 2025 on affidavit stands extended till today. The second report filed in court today is taken on record. Copy has been served.

2. Mr. Shambhu Nath Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, on instruction from his client submits that the petitioner shall not file any exception to the said report and accordingly the petitioner shall proceed on the basis of the existing record.

3. Accordingly, the writ petition has been taken up for final consideration.

Facts :

4. The petitioner was an aspirant for the post of C.T. (G.D.) in BSF – 2022 (for short, the said post). Inter alia, on the basis of a Domicile Certificate dated June 2, 2022 issued by the State authority, annexure R-2 at page 18 to the report on affidavit affirmed by respondent no. 6 on July 17, 2025 (for short, the second report of the State), the petitioner participated in the selection process and received an appointment, though provisional, under a letter of appointment dated August 28, 2023, annexure P-2 at page 62 to the writ petition.

5. By a further communication dated December 5, 2023, annexure P-4 at page 68 to the writ petition, the offer of appointment offered to the petitioner was cancelled by the BSF authority. The reasons for cancellation were principally that the petitioner had passed Matriculation from Bihar State which was not the Domicile State and the said Domicile Certificate dated June 2, 2022 was cancelled by the State authority, who has issued the same. Challenging the said cancellation of offer for appointment the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following principal prayer:

“a) A writ of Mandamus and/or nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents concerned and each one of them to withdraw, rescind, cancel, forbear, quash and not to give effect or further effect to the impugned Office Memo No. Rectt/CT(GD)- 2022/SB-Ptr/2023/4425-28 dated 5.12.2023 being the order of cancellation of offer of appointment for the post of Constable (GD) Exam. – 2022, pending disposal of the instant writ application;”

Submissions:

6. Mr. Shambhu Nath Ray, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referring to pages 35 to 47 to the writ petition submits that, the relevant sale deed by which the mother of the petitioner had purchased properties would show that, the properties were purchased in or around 2002 and since then more than fifteen years before the petitioner applied in the selection process, the parents of the petitioner are residing and domiciled in West Bengal. In support of the birth place of the petitioner being at West Bengal, learned counsel has relied upon a document at page 22 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner then has relied upon the document at page 50 to the writ petition, to show the educational certificates were also issued from the local school at West Bengal.

7. Learned counsel Mr. Ray further submits that, cancellation of the Domicile Certificate by the State authority on November 17, 2023 was never communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner was not aware of that at the relevant point of time, as such the petitioner was not in a position to challenge the said cancellation of the Domicile Certificate by the State authority.

8. In the light of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said letter of cancellation of the offer of appointment, being impugned in this writ petition, dated December 5, 2023 should be set aside and the appointment shall remain valid in favaour of the petitioner.

9. Mr. Soumak Bera, learned advocate appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 4, the BSF authority, submits that, from the letter of cancellation of the provisional appointment dated December 5, 2023 petitioner was aware of the cancellation of the Domicile Certificate by the appropriate State authority. He then refers to annexure P-5 to the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 5674

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Aniruddha Roy, J
RAVI KUMAR RAY – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – Respondent
WPA 12860 / 2024

Cancellation of a domicile certificate without affording opportunity of hearing violates natural justice; writ court can mould relief to set aside such cancellation and restore consequential benefits.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does cancellation of a domicile certificate without affording an opportunity of hearing violate principles of natural justice?

5. Can a constitutional court mould relief to set aside an action not specifically challenged in the pleadings?

6. Is a provisional appointment valid if it was issued when the domicile certificate was still valid and later cancelled without hearing?

2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 5674

CALCUTTA HIGH COURTAniruddha Roy, JRAVI KUMAR RAY – AppellantVersusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – RespondentWPA 12860 / 2024

Cancellation of a domicile certificate without affording opportunity of hearing violates natural justice; writ court can mould relief to set aside such cancellation and restore consequential benefits.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Does cancellation of a domicile certificate without affording an opportunity of hearing violate principles of natural justice?

5. Can a constitutional court mould relief to set aside an action not specifically challenged in the pleadings?

6. Is a provisional appointment valid if it was issued when the domicile certificate was still valid and later cancelled without hearing?

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Aniruddha Roy, J
RAVI KUMAR RAY – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – Respondent
WPA 12860 / 2024