##PAGE1##

GAHC010008302025 2026:GAU-AS:10729 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : WP(C)/280/2025 PARTHA SARATHI SHILL S/O SHRI BASUDEV SHILL, R/O VILL- LANKA, P.O.-LANKA, DIST- HOJAI, ASSAM-782446 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-110001

2:THE STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION (SSC)

REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN/SECRETARY STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION BLOCK-12 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003

3:THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR (NER)

STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION RUKMINI NAGAR P.O.-ASSAM SACHIVALAYA GUWAHATI-06

4:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER SECURITY FORCE (BSF)

BLOCK NO. 10 LODHI ROAD PRAGATI VIHAR NEW DELHI-110003

5:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE (CISF)

BLOCK NO. 13 CGO COMPLEX NEW DELHI-110003

6:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF)

CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003

7:DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES NONGRIMMAW LAITUMUKHRAH GORALINE SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-793011

8:DIRECTOR GENERAL INDO TIBETAN BORDER POLICE (ITBP)

BLOCK NO. 10 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-110003

9:DIRECTOR GENERAL SHAHASRA SEEMA BAL (SSB)

5-6 VIVEKANANDA MARG EAST BLOCK R.K. PURAM NEW DELHI-11002 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MR. D DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MRS S BARUAH (C.G.C),MR. D DEKA :::BEFORE:::

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI Date of hearing : 31/07/2026 Date of Judgment : 31/07/2026 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. S. Baruah, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, pursuant to an Advertisement dated 27.10.2022 issued by the Staff Selection Commission inviting applications for recruitment to 24,369 posts of Constable (General Duty) in different Central Armed Police Forces for the recruitment year 2022, the petitioner submitted his candidature and participated in the selection process. It is the case of the petitioner that he successfully qualified the various stages of the recruitment process, including the requisite medical examination. However, he was ultimately not selected as his score fell short of the prescribed cut-off by 2½ marks, which were deducted on account of his answer to Question No. 8 being treated as incorrect.

The specific grievance of the petitioner is that the answer key published by the Staff Selection Commission in respect of Question No. 8 is erroneous. According to the petitioner, although he had correctly answered the said question, he was denied the marks solely because of an incorrect answer key, thereby depriving him of selection. The question in issue reads as follows:

“What is the maximum length of the touch line in a football match?”

1. 100 m Question ID: 26433090753 2. 110 m Status: Answered 3. 120 m Chosen Answer: Option No. 3 (120 m)

4. 90 m”

3. The final answer key published by the Staff Selection Commission treats Option No. 2 (110 m) as the correct answer. The petitioner, however, contends that the correct answer is Option No. 3 (120 m), as prescribed under the Laws of the Game issued by the International Football Association Board (IFAB). According to the petitioner, despite submitting objections through the prescribed online mechanism as well as subsequent representations, the respondents failed to rectify the error. It is contended that had the petitioner been awarded the marks for the aforesaid question, he would have secured marks above the cut-off and consequently would have been selected.

4. Mr. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Laws of the Game issued by the International Football Association Board clearly prescribe that the maximum length of the touch line in a football match is 120 metres (130 yards). It is submitted that only in respect of international football matches is the maximum touch line prescribed as 110 metres (120 yard