IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

214 CWP-5386-2018 Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 BHUPENDER SINGH ….PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ANR.

….RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Sushil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the respondents.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J

1. Prayer The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint petitioner on the post of Constables (GD) in UR (9) category in ‘C’ CRPF or of Rifleman (GD) in ‘F’ Assam Rifles for General Area Type of vacancy from the State of Haryana or in the deficient states where vacancies have not been filled on the basis of diverting policy provided in clause 10(iv) of the Advertisement, whereby the commission has the discretion to divert candidates from surplus states to deficit states after accommodating all available candidates in such deficit states, subject to category-wise reservation maintained.

2. Facts The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) invited applications for the posts of Constable (GD) in CAPFs, namely ITBP, BSF, CISF, CRPF, SSB, and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles through an advertisement dated 15.12.2012, with the last date for submission of applications being 11.01.2013 (Annexure P-1). The recruitment process comprised Physical Standards Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Examination, and Medical Examination, with vacancies allotted state-wise for candidates domiciled in the respective states. The petitioner applied under category 9-UR before the last date and was allotted Roll No. 2201135620. The final result for male candidates was declared on 22.04.2014, wherein the petitioner secured 85 marks. As per the cut-off declared by SSC on 30.05.2014, the last selected candidates from Haryana in CAPFs—specifically CRPF (‘C’) and Assam Rifles (‘F’)—had also obtained 85 marks in the UR (9) category. Despite being medically fit and having equal marks, the petitioner’s name did not appear in the selection list. The petitioner later filed an RTI on 07.03.2015 seeking clarification but received an unsatisfactory response dated 21.04.2015, merely referring him to the website for cut-off details. A legal notice seeking redressal was sent on 12.12.2017 (Annexure P-2), but SSC, in its reply dated 01.01.2018 (Annexure P-3), rejected his claim, stating that although his total marks were equal to the last selected candidates in CRPF (‘C’) and Assam Rifles (‘F’), his Part-A marks were lower.

3. Contentions On behalf of petitioner The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner secured

85 marks, equal to the last selected candidates in the UR (9) category for Haryana in CAPFs, CRPF (‘C’) and Assam Rifles (‘F) and was medically fit, yet his name was omitted from the selection list. Such exclusion is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The rejection of his candidature on the ground of lower Part-A marks, despite equal total marks, is unjustified since the advertisement did not prescribe Part-

A marks as a tie-breaking or determining factor.

It is submitted that, under clause 10(iv) of the advertisement, the petitioner could have been considered for appointment in other states where vacancies in the same category remained unfilled, particularly as candidates with lower marks, such as Roll No. 2201141650 (Manjeet), were allowed to join in Rajasthan, in violation of the merit principle. The respondents’

selective approach amounts to unfair and discriminatory treatment. It is alleged that a second list was published including candidates with lesser marks, but the same was not made public to prevent higher-merit candidates from raising objections, thereby compromising transparency in the recruitment process.

Additionally, the cut-off for Haryana in the UR (9) category was unreasonably high compared to other states, contrary