Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJ
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-17736/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Joby P Varghese, Rashi, Aby P Varghese
For the Respondents: Vikram Singh Dalal, Pankaj Kumar, Satwik Mitra, Syed Abdul Haseeb, Nasreen Khatoon, Muhammad Aamir Khan, Syed Abdur Rahman

Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an irregularity; erroneous conferment of benefit to others does not create a right to demand similar illegality.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equality - Cannot be invoked to perpetuate irregularity - If benefit erroneously conferred upon others in previous recruitment, cannot be claimed as matter of right by subsequent candidates - Principle of equality does not provide for multiplication of errors. (Paras 19, 20, 23, 24)

(B) Service Law - Recruitment - Selection process guided by terms of advertisement - Candidates must satisfy eligibility criteria - Rejection of candidature for non‑conformity with stipulated conditions (certificates not issued by recognized sports federation) - Even if some candidates with similar certificates were inadvertently selected earlier, that does not create enforceable right. (Paras 11, 14, 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners, sportspersons, applied for post of Constable (GD) under sports quota pursuant to advertisements issued by respondent force. Their applications were rejected during scrutiny on ground that sports certificates were not issued by federation recognized by Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports or affiliated to Indian Olympic Association. Petitioners claimed that in previous recruitment cycle, similarly situated candidates with similar certificates were shortlisted and appointed, and that their exclusion was violative of Article 14. Court had permitted some petitioners to participate subject to outcome; some later qualified, others rendered infructuous. Respondents contended that rejection was as per advertisement terms and that any previous erroneous selection does not confer right on present petitioners.

Findings of Court:
The court held that Article 14 cannot be invoked to perpetuate an irregularity. If a benefit has erroneously been conferred, others cannot claim the same benefit as a matter of right. The argument of parity, though attractive at first blush, could not stand scrutiny. The court noted that even if some candidates with deficient applications were appointed in previous process, such appointments would be improper and the respondents were examining those instances. To accede to petitioners' prayer would be to countenance a course of action at odds with Article 14.

Issues: Whether rejection of petitioners' candidature for non‑conformity with advertisement criteria is discriminatory when similar certificates were accepted in previous recruitment. Whether Article 14 entitles petitioners to parity with those who may have been erroneously selected.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of equality under Article 14 does not require the court to multiply errors. Erroneous conferment of benefit in the past does not create a right to demand similar illegality. The selection process must be guided by the terms of advertisement; eligibility criteria cannot be relaxed on ground of alleged discrimination. Result : Writ petitions dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.

J U D G M E N T

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. By the present writ petitions, the Petitioners essentially seek issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari thereby setting aside the decision of the Respondents - rejecting the application of the respective Petitioners for consideration to the post of Constable (GD) sports quota – 2025 in the BSF in terms of the advertisement dated 10.10.2025 (in W.P.(C) 17736/2025) and advertisement dated 19.12.2025 (in W.P.(C) 3642/2026).

2. Succinctly stated, the pertinent facts germane to the adjudication of the present petitions are as follows:

2.1. The Petitioners in the respective petitions are stated to be sportspersons who participated in various junior level National and State Championships organised by various sports federations in India.

2.2. By advertisement dated 10.10.2025, Respondent No. 1 invited online applications towards certain vacancies for the recruitment of meritorious sportspersons to the post of Constable (General Duty) under sports quota 2025 in the BSF. The Petitioners in W.P.(C) 17736/2025 also applied in the recruitment process against the vacancies under respective sporting activities, however, despite the commencement of physical and medical examination of the candidates, the Petitioners were not issued admit cards for participation in the selection process. Upon enquiry, the Petitioners learnt that their sports certificates were not acceptable and did not conform to the terms of the advertisement. It is the case of the Petitioners that they fulfilled the eligibility criteria as stipulated under the Advertisement dated 10.10.2025, and that certain similarly situated candidates with similar certificates were shortlisted, selected and even appointed as Constable (GD) sports quota by Respondent No. 1.

Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioners filed W.P.(C) 17736/2025.

2.3. Similarly, another advertisement dated 19.12.2025 was issued by Respondent No.1 for selection to the post of Constable (GD) under the sports quota – 2025. Thereafter, the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 3642/2026 submitted their application forms along with supporting certificates in respect of different sporting activities. The Petitioners herein were also not issued admit cards by Respondent No. 1 to participate in the selection process. Akin to the grievance raised by the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 17736/2025, the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 3642/2026 also contend that they were rejected on the ground that their certificates did not conform with the conditions stipulated in the advertisement. They further contend that similarly situated candidates have been appointed as Constable (GD) under the previous advertisement. Consequently, the Petitioners filed W.P.(C) 3642/2026.

3. By order dated 24.11.2025, this Court permitted the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 17736/2025 to participate in the further selection process as sports quota candidates subject to the outcome of the Petition. Vide order dated 08.04.2026, this Court recorded the submission made on behalf of the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 17736/2025 that out of 05 Petitioners, 03 Petitioners have been qualified and with respect to the remaining 02 Petitioners, W.P.(C) 17736/2025 is rendered infructuous.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the rejection of the candidature of the Petitioners in the respective petitions is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the Petitioners in the respective petitions meet the eligibility criteria stipulated under the respective advertisements.

5. He submitted that the selective acceptance of certificates from the same federation for other candidates while rejecting those of the Petitioners is manifestly arbitrary. He submitted that without any verification of the authenticity and recognition of the certificates submitted by the Petitioners, summary rejection of their candidature is wholly arbitrary. He submitted that once Respondent No. 1 previously accepted similar certificates from the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6595

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIAnil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJDEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. – AppellantVersusBORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR. – RespondentW.P.(C)-17736/2025

Article 14 of the Constitution cannot be invoked to perpetuate an irregularity; erroneous conferment of benefit to others does not create a right to demand similar illegality.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Amit Mahajan, JJ
DEEPAK KUMAR & ORS. – Appellant
Versus
BORDER SECURITY FORCE & ANR. – Respondent
W.P.(C)-17736/2025