WP(C)/4981/2026 of SRI MUNNA CHAUHAN Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS on 13 September 2026

ORDER

Date : 14.09.2026

Heard Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Bhattacharya, learned CGC for the respondents. [2.] Although the learned CGC has sought for some time for obtaining instructions in the matter but having regard to the grievance projected by the petitioner and importantly, an earlier decision of this Court taken on 07.04.2026 in WP(C)/555/2026 (Shri Chandan Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.), the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage. [3.] The case of the petitioner is that he belongs to an OBC community and certified as such vide Certificate dated 28.08.2024. He is also as an OBC belonging to the Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) and certified by the District Commissioner West Karbi Anglong on 01.03.2025. He participated in the recruitment process for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police

Forces and having qualified in computer based test and PST/PET test, he was required to produce an OBC NCL Certificate issued as on 14.10.2024 in terms of Clause-6.5 of the Advertisement dated 05.09.2024, by which the crucial dated for OBC NCL Certificate was given as 14.10.2024. Since the petitioner could not produce such certificate his candidature was rejected vide rejection slip dated 01.12.2025. [4.] Mr. R. Bora, learned counsel referring to the important notice with regard to submission of OBC Certificate by the candidates issued by the Staff Selection Commission, Govt. of India on 17.08.2017 (Annexure-E) submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in SLP No.3116/2017 (Union of India v. Abdul Rasheed) the Commission has decided not to insist on candidates producing OBC Certificates issued within the cut off dates of three years, before the last date of receipt of applications and up to 180 days after the closing date of applications mentioned in the Notices. The learned counsel submits that by taking into account 180 days of time given, the OBC NCL Certificate of the petitioner issued on 01.03.2025 is only within time. He submits that this Court in a case of similar nature filed by Shri Chandan Chauhan (Supra) upon considering the important notice issued by the Staff Selection Commission had disposed of the writ petition by directing the respondent authorities to revisit the process by applying the benefits conferred by the said notice dated 17.08.2017. He submits that similar direction may be passed in the instant case as well. [5.] Upon hearing the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record including the important notice dated 17.08.2017, it only appears that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the said important notice and therefore, the impugned rejection slip dated 01.12.2025 is found to be unsustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. The respondent authorities shall now revisit the process by applying the benefits conferred by the important notice dated 17.08.2017 by putting up the case of the petitioner for medical examination. The selection for further appointment of the writ petitioner shall however be subject to the outcome of the medical examination. [6.] The exercise directed herein to be completed within a period of 60(sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [7.] With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of as allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant