Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Narayan Lal Chhaba S/O Shri Kana Ram vs Staff Selection Commission on 25 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:8091]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
(1) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2470/2023
Mahesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Chhote Lal Gurjar, Aged about 23
years, R/o Village Ladiya, Post Paragpura, Tehsil Reni, District
Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
----Respondents
Connected With
(2) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2449/2023
Mukesh Meena S/o Shri Om Prakash Meena, Aged about 25
years, R/o Village Gaizi, Post Parasoli, Tehsil Dudu, District
Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(3) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2541/2023
Banwari Lal Jat S/o Shri Badri Lal Jat, Aged about 26 years, R/o
Village Khatwad Post Jhag, Tehsil Mozmabad, District Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (2 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(4) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2591/2023
Nandram Jat S/o Shri Raghunath Jat, Aged about 23 years, R/o
Village Nolya Post Dudu, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(5) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2620/2023
Bhagchand Gurjar S/o Sri Nanda Ram Gurjar, Aged about 19
years, R/o Aama Ki Dhani, Gaiji Post Padasoli, Tehsil Dudu,
District Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (3 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(6) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2621/2023
Rakesh Kumar Jat S/o Shri Vishram Jat, Aged about 20 years,
R/o Village Madhopura, Post Dantri, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(7) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2622/2023
Sita Ram Jat S/o Shri Dana Ram Jat, Aged about 26 years, R/o
VPO- Chainpura, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(8) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2623/2023
Deepak Meena S/o Shri Sakram Meena, Aged about 20 years,
R/o Village Gaizi Post Padasoli, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (4 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(9) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2624/2023
Sanvar Mal Kumhar S/o Shri Ganesh Kumhar, Aged about 22
years, R/o Village Itakhol, Post Dhandholi, Tehsil Didi, District
Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(10) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2667/2023
Manoj Bamal S/o Shri Chouthu Ram Jat, Aged about 26 years,
R/o V/p Tiloniya, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (5 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(11) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2672/2023
Dharmraj Choudhary S/o Rameshwar Lal Choudhary, Aged about
23 years, R/o Riyado Ka Mohalla, Lordi, Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(12) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2793/2023
Laxman Choudhary S/o Lala Ram Choudhary, Aged about 23
years, R/o Village Bhagwanpura, Post Sergarh, Tehsil Masuda,
District Ajmer.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(13) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2816/2023
Jitendra Choudhary S/o Harphool Choudhary, Aged about 25
years, R/o Kudiyo Ki Dhani, Badi Ka Kheda Bagru, Tehsil
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (6 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
Sanganer, District Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(14) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3334/2023
Vishram Prajapat S/o Shri Ramesh Prajapat, Aged about 26
years, R/o Near Sarkari School, Mahatgaon, Post Rahlana, Tehsil
Dudu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 FTR HQ (special ops), Border Security force, PO : IAF,
Yelahanka, Bangalore-560063
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(15) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3335/2023
Mohit Singh S/o Shri Kiran Pal Singh, Aged about 26 years, R/o
Village Rahalana, District Jaipur.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (7 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(16) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3336/2023
Aman Verma S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Verma, Aged about 22
years, R/o Village Chimanpura, Post Bhatton Ki Gali, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(17) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3337/2023
Kishan Lal Choudhary S/o Ramdhan Choudhary, Aged about 21
years, R/o Village Ganeshpura, The. Mouzmabad, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (8 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
(18) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3338/2023
Narayan Lal Chhaba S/o Shri Kana Ram, Aged about 25 years,
R/o Village Rampura, Post Buharu, Tehsil Roopangarh, District
Ajmer.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(19) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3339/2023
Omprakash Choudhary S/o Shri Prahalad Choudhary, Aged about
23 years, R/o Jato Ka Mohalla, Tumbipura, Post Mojamabad,
Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(20) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3340/2023
Abhishek Jat S/o Shri Banwari Lal Jat, Aged about 22 years, R/o
Ghauslya Ki Dhani, Jaitpura, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
—-Petitioner
Versus
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (9 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi -110003.
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Commandant, C.I.S.F. Unit, NTPC, Dadri, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, (U.P.)
4 Senior Commandant, C.I.S.F., RTC, Bhilai, Chhatisgarh.
—-Respondents
(21) S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3031/2024
1. Jitendra S/o Shri Mahaveer Meena, Age about 21 years,
R/o Village Palri Bhoptan, Post Badhun, Tehsil Rupang
Garh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan
2 Arjun Singh S/o Shri Raghuveer Singh, Age about 28
years, R/o VOP Harsoli, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur
(Presently District Dudu), Rajasthan
3 Ummed Singh Choudhary S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad
Choudhary, R/o Village Govindpura, Post Khelniya, Tehsil
Uniyara District Tonk, Rajasthan
4 Kalu Ram Choudhary S/o Shri Mani Ram Choudhry, Age
about 25 years, R/o Village Itakhoi, Post Dhandholi, Tehsil
Dudu, District Jaipur (Presently District Dudu), Rajasthan
—-Petitioners
Versus
1 Staff Selection Commission through Chairman, Block No.
12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
2 Director General, Directorate General CRPF (Recruitment
Branch), East Block-07, Lebel-4, Sector 01, K.R. Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3 Inspector General, Narthern Frontier, ITB Police, Ministry
of Home Affairs, Government of India, P.O. Seemadwar,
Dehradun (Uttrakhand)-248146.
4 Deputy Inspector General, RTC Karera, ITBP Force,
District Shivpuri (MP) 473662
—-Respondents
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (10 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
For Petitioners : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma Advocate
with Ms. Kritika Rajawat Advocate,
Mr. Abhinav Srivastava Advocate, Mr.
Ayush Bishnoi Advocate & Ms.
Manasvita Sharma Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Ashish Kumar Advocate with Mr.
Devesh Yadav Advocate.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA
Judgment
Date of conclusion of arguments :: 18.02.2026
Date on which judgment was reserved :: 18.02.2026
Whether the full judgment or only
the operative part is pronounced :: Full Judgment
Date of pronouncement :: 25.02.2026
1. Since the facts, cause of action and question involved in
all these writ petitions are similar, therefore, with the consent of
the parties, the writ petitions were heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment.
2. For the sake of convenience, facts stated in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 2470/2023 (Mahesh Kumar Gurjar vs. Staff
Selection Commission & Others) are being taken into
consideration.
3. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent-Staff Selection
Commission issued an advertisement in the 2021 inviting
applications for direct recruitment on the posts of Constable (GD)
in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), NIA, SSF and Rifleman
(GD) in Assam Rifles Examination. As per the advertisement, the
vacancies of Constable (GD) were although to be filled on all India
basis in SSF and in CAPFs, the vacancies were divided Statewise.
As per the advertisement, the candidates were to be considered
for recruitment in their respective States/UTs on production of
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (11 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
valid Domicile/Permanent Residential Certificate issued by the
competent authority so authorised by the concerned District/UT to
prove their domiciliary status at the time of documents
verification, failing which the candidature of the concerned
candidate was liable to be cancelled.
4. The advertisement also permitted the candidates, who
have migrated from one State to another State to apply even from
State of migration. However, for claiming reservation, all such
candidates belonging to castes of SC/ST or OBC, were required to
make an informed choice whether to get benefit of reservation in
the State of origin or to appear as unreserved candidates from the
State of migration. No request for change of option was
permissible and in case, a candidate opts to avail the benefit of
reservation from State of origin then, he/she was required to
submit information about the District and State of origin as well as
the District and State of current domicile in the application form.
5. The application forms were to be filled online and the
candidates were required to give correct information, else
incorrect information would entail result of cancellation of
candidature of the respective candidate.
6. The petitioners in all the writ petitions, originally
pertain to different Districts of State of Rajasthan, however, in the
application forms, they opted to apply in reserved category from
different States other than Rajasthan.
7. As per the petitioners, they all participated in the
selection process and secured sufficient marks so as to include
their names for basic training. However, during the documents
verification, their candidatures were rejected on the ground that
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (12 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
although the petitioners belong to Rajasthan, yet they have been
selected for the post of Constable (GD) against the vacancies of
other States, but during documents verification, they failed to
produce a Domicile/Caste Certificate etc. issued by other State
and rather the Domicile/Caste Certificate etc. produced by the
petitioners were issued by the authorities of State of Rajasthan.
Under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed instant writ
petitions. Prayer made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2470/2023 is
being reproduced as under:
“It is therefore, prayed may kindly call for the record
concerning the case and after perusing the same, please
accept the writ petition and by way of writ, order, and
direction: —
(i) Quash and set-aside letter/order dt. 02.1.2023,
whereby, petitioner was not allowed in further basic
training for the post of Constable (GD) in CISF, in
pursuance of offer of appointment letter dt. 14.11.2022,
even after allow and training of some days.
(ii) Direct to the respondents, to allow to continue in the
basic training for the post of Constable (GD) in CISF with
all consequential benefits.
(iii) Any other relief which Hon’ble Court deemed fit and
proper by considering facts and circumstance of the case
granted in the favour of the petitioner.”
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
rejection of candidatures of the petitioners on account of not
submitting Domicile/Residential Certificate of other State, from
which they submitted their applications, is totally against the
scheme of recruitment. It was submitted that the recruitment in
question being on all India basis, the candidates were allowed to
appear even from their State of migration and were not required
to produce Domicile /Residential Certificate of such State of
migration, yet in quite and arbitrary manner, despite securing
sufficient marks in the recruitment process, the petitioners have
been deprived of their legitimate right to get appointment. The
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (13 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
petitioners have also submitted that many other candidates, who
although belong to State of Rajasthan and filled their applications
from other States, have been permitted to join on the post of
Constable (GD) without being required to produce any
Domicile/Residential Certificate issued by authorities of such other
States. As such, the stand taken by the respondents is quite
discriminatory and they have adopted a policy of pick and choose.
9. The respondents have filed reply/additional affidavit so
as to counter the writ petitions and submitted that the scheme of
recruitment and examination was explicitly clear and in the
advertisement itself, it was made clear that although the
candidates can also apply from migrated State, yet they were
required to produce Domicile/Residential Certificate of such
migrated State.
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
although all the petitioners have submitted their application forms
from the States other than Rajasthan, showing such other States
as the States of migration, yet they have not produced any
document whatsoever either before the recruiting agency or in the
application form or even with the instant writ petitions to show
that such “other State” was their State of migration.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted
that the pleadings in the writ petitions are totally vague, as no
statement whatsoever has been made in all the writ petitions that
such States (other than Rajasthan) were their States of migration.
Not a single document showing the petitioners to be migrated
residents of such other States has been produced. Therefore,
under such circumstances, the respondents have not committed
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (14 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
any mistake in rejecting candidature of the petitioners and not
allowing them to join. Learned counsel submits that any order
earlier issued for permitting the petitioners to join for basic
training was provisional in nature subject to satisfying other
prescribed eligibility conditions. Therefore, merely on receiving
such provisional letter for training would not create any vested
right in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners cannot claim
appointments and joining pursuant to such provisional letter as a
matter of right.
12. As regards contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners that so many other candidates, who although belong to
State of Rajasthan and applied from other States, have been
allowed to join in different CAPFs without producing any
Domicile /Caste Certificate of the other States, it has been
submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that such
appointment orders clearly contain a condition that the
appointments were provisional and subject to status of domicile or
Domicile Certificate being verified. Condition No. 2(xiv) of the
provisional appointment letters further make it clear that in case
during verification, it is revealed that the claim of belonging to
other State, against whose vacancy selection has been made is
found to be false, the services will be terminated forthwith without
assigning any further reasons and without prejudice to such
further action as may be taken under the provisions of the Indian
Penal Code. Thus, it has been submitted that in case any of the
candidate as pointed out by the petitioners, who has been
appointed despite not possessing requisite Domicile Certificate,
and on enquiry, if such allegations are found true, then, necessary
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (15 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
legal action as per Condition No. 2(xiv) of the provisional
appointment letters shall be taken. Learned counsel for the
respondents submitted that the petitioners have attempted to get
appointment without even possessing the Domicile Certificate of
other State. By way of filing instant writ petitions, the petitioners
are trying for validating their irregular act. Therefore, learned
counsel for the respondents prayed that writ petitions may be
dismissed.
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully examined the material on record.
14. As the controversy involved in the instant writ petitions
revolves around different conditions of the advertisement
(Annexure-1 of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2470/2023), it would be
relevant to reproduce following conditions contained therein:
“1.6 Vacancies of Constable (GD) in SSF will be filled on All
India basis whereas vacancies in all other CAPFs will be
filled as per the vacancies available in various States/ UTs.
In addition, vacancies are earmarked for the Border
Guarding Districts and Militancy/ Naxal affected Districts
which are reserved for the candidates of these districts
only.
3.3 As the vacancies in CAPFs have been earmarked
States/ UT-wise, candidates are required to submit
Domicile/ Permanent Residential Certificate of the State/
UT indicated by them in the online Application Form at the
time of DME/ Documents Verification failing which his/her
candidature will be cancelled forthwith and the candidate
will not be allowed to appear in the Detailed Medical
Examination. If a candidate produces Domicile/ Permanent
Resident Certificate (PRC) issued by a State other than the
State mentioned in his/her application, he/ she shall not be
allowed to change the State at the time of Document
Verification and his/her candidature shall be cancelled
straightaway. Therefore Candidates should fill the
Application Form very carefully.
4 Nationality/ Citizenship: Candidate must be a citizen
of India. Vacancies are state/ UT wise hence a candidate
must submit domicile/ PRC against his state/UT.
6.1 Candidates who wish to be considered against
vacancies reserved/ or seek age-relaxation are required to
submit requisite certificate from the competent authority,
in the prescribed format, when such certificates are sought
by concerned CAPFs for document verification at the time(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (16 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]of DME. Otherwise, their claim for SC/ST/OBC/ EWS
category will not be entertained and their candidature/
applications will be considered under Un-reserved (UR)
category. Further, if a candidate has sought any other age-
relaxation or claimed ESM status and is not able to produce
the relevant certificate, he will be considered in his
respective category i.e. SC/ST/OBC/EWS/ UR. The formats
of the certificates are annexed with the Notice of
Examination.
6.2 A candidate belonging to a caste of SC, ST or OBC
category, on migration from one State to another
State will have to make an informed choice whether
to get the benefit of reservation in the State of origin
or to appear as unreserved candidate from the State
of migration. Such choice will have to be exercised by
the candidate in the online Application Form. No
request for change of such option, after the
submission of Application Form, will be entertained
by the Commission. In case, a candidate opts to avail
the benefit of reservation from the State of origin, he
will have to submit information about the District and
State of his origin as well as the District and State of
his current domicile in the Application Form and his
candidature will be considered from the State of
origin. Such candidates will not be required to submit
Domicile Certificate from the State of origin.
6.5 Candidates may also note that in respect of the above,
their candidature will remain provisional till the veracity of
the concerned document is verified by the Appointing
Authority. Candidates are cautioned that they will be
debarred from the examinations conducted by the
Commission in case they fraudulently claim SC/ST/OBC/
EWS/ ESM status or avail any other benefit.
6.6 Candidates will be considered for recruitment in their
respective State/UT on production of valid “Domicile/
Permanent Residential Certificate (PRC)” issued by the
competent authority so authorized by the concerned
State/UT to prove their domiciliary status at the time of
Documents Verification (DV) failing which his candidature
will be cancelled forthwith. The Domicile/ PRC certificate
must be of the State/ UT indicated by the candidates in
their online Application Form, failing which, their
candidature will be cancelled forthwith.
6.7 Since the State of Assam is not issuing Domicile
Certificate/ Permanent Residence Certificate, candidates
belonging to the state of Assam are not required to submit
the same. However, their selection will be subject to
verification of residential status from the concerned District
Authorities.
13.13 Candidates will be considered for the vacancies of a
State/ UT and further for the vacancies of Border Guarding
Districts, Militancy/ Naxal affected Districts based on the
information provided by them in the online Application
Form and subsequent submission of relevant Domicile
Certificate at the time of DME/ Document Verification.
CANDIDATES SHOULD BE VERY CAREFUL AND MUST
EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE WHILE PROVIDING
INFORMATION ABOUT DOMICILE STATE AND(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (17 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]DISTRICT IN THE ONLINE APPLICATION FORM. NO
REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF DOMICILE STATE AND
DISTRICT WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY THE
COMMISSION AFTER SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION
FORM UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. IF THERE IS
ANY VARIATION OF DISTRICT AND/OR STATE
MENTIONED BY THE CANDIDATE IN THE ONLINE
APPLICATION FORM AND THE DOMICILE
CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THEM AT THE TIME OF
DME/ DOCUMENT VERIFCATION, THEIR
CANDIDATURE WILL BE CANCELLED FORTHWITH
AND THEY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE DETAILED MEDICAL EXAMINATION.
19 Important instructions to candidates:
5 A candidate belonging to a caste of SC, ST or OBC
category, on migration from one State to another
State will have to make an informed choice whether
to get the benefit of reservation in the State of origin
or to appear as unreserved candidate from the State
of Migration. Such choice will have to be exercised by
the candidate in the online Application Form. No
request for change of such option, after the
submission of Application Form, will be entertained
by the Commission. In case, a candidate opt to avail
the benefit of reservation from the State of origin, he
will have to submit information about the District and
State of current domicile as well as the District and
State of his origin in the Application Form. His
candidature in such cases will be considered from the
State of origin.
11 CANDIDATES MUST BE VERY CAREFUL AND
SHOULD EXERCISE DUE DILIGENCE WHILE
PROVIDING INFORMATION ABOUT DOMICILE STATE
AND DISTRICT IN THE ONLINE APPLICATION FORM.
NO REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF DOMICILE STATE AND
DISTRICT WILL BE ENTERTAINED BY THE
COMMISSION AFTER SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION
FORM UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. IF THERE IS
ANY VARIATION OF DISTRICT AND/OR STATE
MENTIONED BY THE CANDIDATE IN THE ONLINE
APPLICATION FORM AND THE DOMICILE
CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED BY THEM AT THE TIME OF
DME, THEIR CANDIDATURE WILL BE CANCELLED
FORTHWITH AND THEY WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE DME.”
15. In addition to above, it would also be relevant to
reproduce relevant paras of application form filled by petitioner
Mahesh Kumar Gurjar and annexed with S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No. 2470/2023 as under:
17 PREFERENCE OF EXAMINATION CENTERS
EXAMINATION CENTER EXAMINATION CENTER EXAMINATION CENTER
(FIRST PREFERENCE) (SECOND PREFERENCE) (THIRD PREFERENCE)
JAIPUR (2405) ALWAR (2402) KOTA (2407)(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (18 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]18 STATE/UT OF DOMICILE 19 DISTRICT OF DOMICILE
RAJASTHAN ALWAR
20.1 HAVE YOU MIGRATED FROM THE STATE/UT OF 20.2 WHETHER YOU WOULD
YOUR ORIGIN TO ANOTHER STATE/UT LIKE TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF
RESERVATION FROM THE
STATE/UT OF YOUR ORIGINYES YES
20.3 STATE/UT OF ORIGIN 20.4 DISTRICT OF ORIGIN
TAMIL NADU CHENNAI
21 CANDIDATE BELONGS TO MILITANCY/ NAXAL 22 CANDIDATE BELONGS TO
AFFECTED DISTRICT BORDER DISTRICTNO NO
16. Thus, it is quite clear that although the respondent-
Union of India through Staff Selection Commission intended to fill
up the posts while initiating recruitment process on all India basis,
yet in order to rationalise the recruitment, the vacancies were
required to be filled by Statewise.
17. In the advertisement itself, it was made clear that a
candidate can apply from his/her State of origin or from State of
migration, yet while submitting said option, the candidate was
required to produce Domicile Certificate of respective State.
18. This Court examined the pleadings of the writ petitions
and has not found that in any of the writ petition, the petitioner,
although applied from a State other than Rajasthan, despite
originally belonging to State of Rajasthan (State of origin), yet not
a single fact has been pleaded to support the stand that the other
State (such as State of Tamil Nadu, Assam etc.) was his/her State
of migration. The term, “State of migration”, obviously here refers
to a State which although is not the State of origin of the
respective candidate, but on account of certain reasons, the
candidate has migrated to another State. In order to show such
migration, the candidate was required to produce at least some
document such as Certificate of Permanent Residence, Domicile
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (19 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
Certificate, Caste Certificate or any other similar document.
However, neither there are pleadings to this effect, nor are there
any documents on record of any of the writ petition to support
such claim.
19. Under such circumstances, where Conditions No. 3.3,
6.2 and 6.6 of the advertisement are quite clear that the
candidates were although permitted to apply by opting for any
other State, other than State of origin, yet they were bound to
produce Domicile/Caste Certificate or any other certificate so as to
support their claim for recruitment against the vacancies of such
other State. The scheme of recruitment revealed in the
advertisement would also make it clear that it was not open for
the candidates to apply against the vacancies of any State of their
choice. They could have applied only for the vacancies of their
State of origin or State of migration and such application should
be supported by valid documents in support of their claim.
Admittedly, none of the petitioners in the writ petitions have
produced or indicated any document to prove that the State from
which they have applied was their State of migration.
20. Condition No. 13.13 and sub-clause 11 of Condition No.
19 of the advertisement are also clear that the candidates should
be very careful and must exercise due diligence while providing
information about domicile State and District in the application
form and any variation from the information, if found during
documents verification, would entail cancellation of their
candidature. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the
respondents have not committed any irregularity or illegality in
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (20 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
rejecting candidature of the petitioners and not to continue their
basic training.
21. It is also settled proposition of law that mere issuance
of provisional appointment letter containing specific condition that
the provisional appointment is subject to verification of
documents, would not create any vested right in favour of such
provisional appointee and under such circumstances, where
despite having provisional appointment, the candidate fails to
submit documents in support of his/her application form, then
such provisional appointment is bound to be cancelled.
22. So far as contention of the petitioners that so many
candidates, whose names have been indicated by the petitioners
in the memos of writ petitions as well as in additional affidavits,
and who also belong to State of Rajasthan, which is their State of
origin, yet they applied from any other State without placing any
document on record to show that such other State was their State
of migration, is concerned, in considered opinion of this Court, the
petitioners are not going to be benefitted from such argument. It
is settled proposition of law that equality and parity is a positive
concept. There is no concept of negative equality and provisions of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to raise a
plea of discrimination by citing an example of illegality taken place
to extend benefits to others. In the case of Chandigarh
Administration & Another vs. Jagjit Singh & Another,
(1995) 1 SCC 745, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a
wrong decision in favour of one person would not create vested
right in favour of others. Even otherwise, merely if an illegality has
been committed in favour of others, illegal benefit in favour of
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (21 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
petitioners also even by way of court’s order would amount to
perpetuating illegality already committed. No such writ or
direction can be issued so as to perpetuate the illegality, which
would otherwise ruin the entire recruitment scheme and
fundamental structure of the recruitment process. Hence, the
plea of discrimination raised by the petitioners is totally baseless
and unfounded.
23. In view of above discussion, this Court does not find
any merit and substance in the instant writ petitions and the same
are, hereby, dismissed.
24. However, mere dismissal of these writ petitions would
not absolve the respondents from their basic responsibility to
maintain parity. As undertaken by learned counsel for the
respondents on instructions, the respondents will conduct a fact
finding enquiry so as to examine the allegations made by the
petitioners that the candidates, who do not possess requisite
Domicile /Caste Certificate of alleged State of migration, have
been allowed to join and are still continuing in the service. In
case, such facts are prima facie found to be correct, then under
such circumstances, where such appointees are not parties to the
present writ petitions, the respondents shall afford opportunity of
hearing to them by way of issuing show cause notice along with all
the details and thereafter, orders in accordance with law shall be
passed by the respondents. The said exercise shall be completed
by the respondents within a period of three months from today
and compliance report thereof shall be filed before this Court.
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:8091] (22 of 22) [CW-2470/2023]
25. Office is directed to post these matters before this
Court in the second week of July, 2026 to see the compliance of
the aforesaid directions issued by this Court.
26. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
27. Office is also directed to place a copy of this judgment
on record of each connected writ petition.
(ANAND SHARMA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /
(Uploaded on 25/02/2026 at 01:34:16 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/02/2026 at 08:58:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
