/2022 INSC 0154/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4585 of 2018
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.            ... APPELLANT(S)
Versus
PROBIR GHOSH AND ORS.        ... RESPONDENT(S) 
 
WITH 
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1441­1442 OF 2022
(@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 30408­30409 OF 2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4586­4587 OF 2018
J U D G M E N T
V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
1. By   a   Notification   dated   03.12.2011,   the   Staff   Selection
Commission   invited   applications   for   recruitment   (i)   of   Constables
(GD)   in   Central   Armed   Police   Forces   (CAPFs)   such   as   ITBP,   BSF,
CISF,   CRPF   and   SSB;   and   (ii)   of   Rifleman   (GD)   in   Assam   Rifles.
Initially the number of posts sought to be filled up was notified as
39574, but the same was revised to 48802.
1

2. As   per   the   Notification,   the   process   of   recruitment   was   to
comprise   of   Physical   Standards   Test,   Physical   Efficiency   Test,
Written Examination and Medical Examination.  
3. The closing date for submission of applications was fixed as
04.01.2012. However, candidates residing in North Eastern States,
Jammu   &   Kashmir,   Sikkim,   a   few   districts   of   Himachal   Pradesh,
Andaman   &   Nicobar   Islands   and   Lakshadweep   were   entitled   to
submit the applications on or before 11.01.2012.
4. The Notification made it clear that the recruitment would be
based   upon   reservations   mentioned   in   the   Appendix,   state­wise
and category­wise.  Apart from the reservation for OBC, SC and ST
candidates, the Notification provided for reservation for candidates
domiciled in  Naxal and Militancy  affected areas and select border
districts of some states in each of the services such as ITBP, BSF
etc. In fact, relaxation in the upper age limit was also granted not
only   for   SC,   ST,   OBC   and   ex­serviceman   candidates,   but   also   for
those   domiciled   in   certain   areas   and   those   dependents   of   victims
killed in 1984 riots or in the communal riots of 2002 in Gujarat.
5. Appendix­A   to   the   Recruitment   Notification   dated
2

03.12.2011 showed that the vacancies were separately earmarked,
(i)  service­wise, such as Assam Rifles, BSF, CISF, CRPF, ITBP and
Sashastra Seema  Bal;   (ii)   State and  Union  Territory   wise  such as
Andaman   and   Nicobar,   Andhra   Pradesh,   Arunachal   Pradesh   etc.;
and   (iii)   Intra­State   wise   for   the   entire   State   as   well   as   Naxal
affected   areas/border   districts   of   the   same   State.   Appendix­C   to
the Notification indicated how the border districts of North Eastern
States,   Bihar,   Gujarat,   Himachal   Pradesh,   Jammu   &   Kashmir,
Punjab   and   Rajasthan   were   also   divided   into   one   or   more
categories   and   how   the   vacancies   are   distributed   among   these
areas.   The   vacancies   in   every   service   in   respect   of   every   State,
under   Appendix­A   to   the   Notification   were   distributed   further   on
the basis of the Rule of Reservation for OBCs, SCs and STs. 
  6. At the cost of repetition it must be pointed out that the total
number   of   about   48802   vacancies   were   distributed   service­wise,
state­wise,   reserved   category­wise   and   domiciliary   status­wise   in
respect of border districts and Naxal/Militancy affected areas.
7. Annexure­II   to   the   Recruitment   Notification   contained
“ Instructions   for   filling   up   the   application”.   Column   No.16   under
3

paragraph   4.0   of   the   said   Instructions   dealt   with   “ preference   for
posts ”.  This Column No.16 under paragraph 4.0 of Annexure­II to
the   Recruitment   Notification   dated   03.12.2011   reads   as   follows:
“Candidates   should   carefully   indicate   preference   for   post   under
different   forces.   Option   once   exercised   will   be   final   and   no   change
will be allowed under any circumstances.” 
8. The   format   of   the   certificate   to   be   produced   by   candidates
belonging   to   Scheduled   Castes   and   Scheduled   Tribes,   was
provided   in   Annexure­VI.     The   format   of   the   certificate   to   be
produced by OBCs was given in Annexure VII.  
9. Since   vacancies   were   notified   service­wise,   state­wise   and
category­wise,   Annexure­XII   to   the   Recruitment   Notification
indicated   the   code   numbers   allotted   to   all   the   States   and   Union
Territories   and   Annexure   XIII   separately   indicated   the   code
numbers allotted to different border districts of the North­Eastern
States,   Bihar,   Gujarat,   Himachal   Pradesh,   Jammu   &   Kashmir,
Punjab,   Rajasthan   and   West   Bengal.   Annexure­XIV   provided   the
code numbers separately for the Naxal/Militancy affected districts
in   some   of   the   States   such   as   Andhra   Pradesh,   Bihar,   Orissa,
4

Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh etc.  
10. After   the   completion   of   the   process   of   selection,   the   Staff
Selection   Commission   published   a   Select   List   of   candidates   on
17.10.2012.   Finding   that   their   names   did   not   find   a   place   in   the
final   Select   List   and   contending   that   candidates   who   secured
lesser marks than them are included in the Select List, a group of
26 persons filed a writ petition in WP (C) No.5520 of 2012 on the
file   of   the   Gauhati   High   Court.   In   addition   to   the   contention
revolving   around   the   marks   secured   by   them   and   the   marks
secured by some of the selected candidates, this group of 26 writ
petitioners   also   contended   that   though   two   of   them   belonged   to
OBC   category,   they   had   been   treated   under   the   unreserved
category.  Therefore, these candidates sought a writ of  certiorari  to
quash the final Select List of candidates, in so far as the State of
Assam is concerned with a further direction to the respondents in
the writ petition to prepare a fresh Select List.  
11. The said writ petition WP (C) No.5520 of 2012 was taken up
by a learned Judge of the Gauhati High Court along with 14 other
writ   petitions.     All   the   15   writ   petitions   were   allowed   by   the
5

learned Judge, by a common order dated 04.01.2016.
12. Following   the   decision   rendered   on   04.01.2016   in   the   said
batch   of   15   writ   petitions,   the   learned   Single   Judge   also   allowed
other   similar   writ   petitions   by   separate   orders   dated   26.02.2016,
14.03.2016,   21.03.2016,   30.03.2016,   31.03.2016,   06.04.2016,
06.06.2016 and 09.06.2016.
13. Aggrieved by  these orders, the  Union  of India and the Staff
Selection   Commission   filed   an   intra­court   appeal   before   the
Division  Bench.  It was stated in the Memorandum  of Appeal that
there were totally 476 candidates before the learned Single Judge
in   various   writ   petitions   and   that   out   of   those   candidates,   61
persons had been selected subsequently when revised results were
announced.
14. However,  the  intra­court  appeal  was  filed  with   a  delay.     By
an   order   dated   24.10.2016   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court
refused   to   condone   the   delay   in   filing   the   intra­court   appeal.
Therefore,  the Union  of  India and  the  Staff Selection  Commission
have come up with Civil Appeal No.4585 of 2018, challenging  the
order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   dated   04.01.2016   passed   in
6

WP(C) No.5520 of 2012. 
15. In this appeal (Civil Appeal No.4585 of 2018) only two issues
arise   for   consideration.   They   are,   (i)   whether   the   rejection   of   the
OBC  certificate  of  a  few  candidates  on   the  ground  that   they  were
not in the prescribed format and the consequent categorization of
those   candidates   as   general   category   candidates   is   correct?;   and
(ii)   whether   candidates   who   have   indicated   preference   to   a
particular service can be kept out of consideration for appointment
to   other   services,   despite   these   candidates   having   secured   more
marks than the selected candidates in those other services?
16. One   candidate   who   was   issued   with   an   order   of
appointment,   but   which   was   subsequently   cancelled   on   the
ground   that   he   did   not   belong   to   the   border   district   to   which   he
was selected, filed an independent writ petition before the Gauhati
High Court in WP (C) No.6153 of 2013. Holding  that  the domicile
of   a   person   in   one   particular   border   district   will   not   debar   him
from being  considered for  appointment in another border district,
the   Gauhati   High   Court   allowed   the   said   writ   petition   by   a
Judgment dated 16.05.2016. A petition for review was filed by the
7

Union   of   India,   but   the   same   was   also   dismissed.   Therefore,
challenging   the   order   allowing   W.P.(C)   No.6153   of   2013   and
challenging  the   order   passed   in   the  Review   Petition,   the  Union   of
India and the Staff Selection Commission have come up with two
civil appeals in C.A. Nos.4586­4587 of 2018.
17. One candidate approached the Delhi High Court by way of a
writ   petition   in   W.P.(C)   No.8571   of   2015   contending   that   though
he indicated his preference for one particular service, he is entitled
to be considered for appointment in other services, on the basis of
his   own   merit.   This   writ   petition   was   allowed   by   the   Delhi   High
Court by an Order dated 03.10.2018. The petition for  review filed
by   the   Union   of   India   was   also   dismissed   on   05.04.2019.   As
against   the   order   passed   in   the   writ   petition   and   the   review
petition,   the   Union   of   India   and   the   Staff   Selection   Commission
have come up with SLP(C) Nos.30408­30409 of 2019.
18. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos.30408­30409 of 2019.   
Civil Appeal Nos.4586­4587 of 2018
19. Since   the   issue   involved   in   these   two   appeals   lies   on   a
narrow compass, we shall take up these appeals first.
8

20. As we have indicated in paragraph 14 above, the respondent
in   this   writ   petition   belongs   to   the   Scheduled   Tribe   and   is
domiciled   in   Baksa   District   of   Assam.   In   Annexure­XIII   to   the
Recruitment Notification dated 03.12.2011, the border districts of
Assam   were   divided   into   two   categories.   The   border   districts   of
Dhubri, Cachar & Karimganj were given Code No.“01”. The border
districts   of   Baksa,   Chirang,   Kokrajhar   &   Udalguri   were   assigned
Code   No.“02”.     Since   the   respondent   belonged   to   Baksa   District,
he   was   entitled   to   be   considered   as   a   candidate   belonging   to   the
border districts of Assam with Code No.“02”.  
21. Paragraph 2 of the Recruitment Notification stated that the
state­wise   and   category­wise   tentative   number   of   vacancies   to   be
filled   up   are   indicated   in   the   Appendix.   Appendix­C   to   the
Recruitment Notification indicated the vacancy position in respect
of   CT   (GD)   (male   and   female)   of   B.G.   Districts   of   CAPFs.   The
relevant   portion   of   Appendi x­C   to   the   Recruitment   Notification,
which   relates   to   the   two   categories   (Code   Nos.   01   and   02)   of   the
border   districts   of   Assam   are   reproduced   for   easy   reference   as
follows:
9

State Districts
falling in
their area Border Security Force (Male) Border Security Force (Female) Assam Rifles (Male) INDO TIBETAN BORDER
POLICE FORCE (MALE) Shashastra Seema Bal (male) G.Total
UR OBC SC ST Total UR  OBC SC ST Total UR OBC SC ST Total UR OBC SC ST Total UR OBC SC ST Total UR OBC SC ST Total
Assam
Dhubri , 
Cachar, 
Karimgan
j 83 42 11 19 155 20 10 3 4 37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 52 14 23 192
Baksa, 
Chirang, 
Kokrajhar
& 
Udalguri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 21 6 9 78 42 21 6 9 78
10

22. The   last   portion   of   paragraph   1   of   the   Recruitment
Notification   indicated   the   importance   of   the   domiciliary   status.   It
reads as follows:
“ State­wise   vacancies   are   available   for   candidates
domiciled in the State and reservation is also available
for   candidates   domiciled   in   naxal   and   militancy
affected   areas   and   select   border   districts   in   each
CAPFs”.
23. Note­III   under   para   2  of   the   Recruitment   Notification   reads
as follows:
“ As   the   vacancies   have   been   allotted   to   the   concerned
States/UTs, candidates are required to submit domicile
certificates   of   the   States   indicated   by   them   in   the
application at the time of the medical examination.”
24. Paragraph   4(C)   of   the   Recruitment   Notification   contained
instructions   regarding   the   “process   of   certification   and   format   of
certificates”.  The relevant portion of paragraph 4C reads as follows:
“… Candidates   belonging   to   the   State/UT   will   only   be
considered   for   recruitment   in   their   respective   State/UT
on   production   of   valid   “Domicile   Certificate”   issued   by
the competent authority so authorized by the concerned
State/UT   to   prove   their   domiciliary   status.   Since   the
State   of   Assam   is   not   issuing   Domicile
Certificate/PRC, candidates belonging to the state
of   Assam   are   not   required   to   submit   the   same.
However, their selection will be subject to verification of
11

residential   status   from   the   concerned   District
Authorities.    West  Pakistani  refugees   who   have  settled
in   J   &   K   but   have   not   been   given   the   status   of   J   &   K
citizen   of   the   State   will   be   recruited   without   the
condition   of   having   a   domicile   certificate   from   the
designated authority of the J & K State.” 
25. Admittedly   the   respondent   in   these   two   civil   appeals
belonged to the border district of Baksa which came under Code
“02”. As per Appendix­C to the Notification, the vacancies for the
border   districts   coming   under   Code   “02”   of   the   State   of   Assam
were   “nil”   in   respect   of   BSF   (Male   and   Female),   Assam   Rifles
(Male)   and   ITBP   (Male).   Therefore,   he   could   not   have   been
considered for the vacancies earmarked for the border districts of
Assam coming under Code “01”.  
26. But   unfortunately   the   High   Court,   in   the   impugned   order,
proceeded   on   a   curious   reasoning   that   all   border   districts   are
liable   to   be   treated   alike   and   that   once   a   person   is   found   to
belong   to   one   border   district,   he   is   entitled   to   be   considered   in
respect of all border districts.
27. The   aforesaid   reasoning   of   the   High   Court,  if  accepted,   will
tantamount   to   tampering   with   the   Recruitment   Notification.
12

Once vacancies are earmarked separately for  different categories
of border districts, even in the Recruitment Notification, it is not
possible   to   hold   that   all   border   districts   are   to   be   treated   alike.
Different   considerations   may   weigh   with   the   recruiting
authorities   for   categorizing   the   border   districts   into   two   types.
Therefore,   the   High   Court   was   not   justified   in   granting   relief   to
the   respondent   on   the   ground   that   he   must   be   considered   as   a
person   domiciled   in   the   border   district   where   vacancies   were
available, though he belonged to another border district, to which
no vacancy was notified. 
28. Relying   upon   one   portion   of   paragraph   4(C)   of   the
Recruitment   Notification   which   we   have   extracted   in   paragraph
24 above ( in bold  letters ), it is contended by the  learned counsel
for the respondent that when the State of Assam was admittedly
not   issuing   domicile   certificates,   it   is   not   proper   to   discriminate
between 2 different categories of border districts. 
29. But   we   are   not   impressed   with   the   above   argument.   The
requirement   to   produce   a   domicile   certificate   stands   on   a
13

different   footing   from   the   categorization   of   border   districts.
Paragraph 4(C) of the Recruitment Notification dispenses with the
requirement   of   certificate,   in   so   far   as   the   State   of   Assam   is
concerned.   But   it   does   not   make   the   categorization   of   border
districts inapplicable. 
30. Therefore, the Civil Appeal Nos. 4586 and 4587 of 2018 are
allowed   and   the   impugned   orders   passed   in   W.P.(C)   No.6153   of
2013 and in the review application are set aside. The writ petition
filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed.
Civil  Appeal  No.  4585 of 2018  & Civil  Appeals  arising  out of
Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.30408­30409 of 2019
31. As we have indicated in paragraph 13 above, two questions
arise   for   consideration   in   C.A.No.4585   of   2018.   Only   one
question   arises   for   consideration   in   the   other   Civil   Appeals
arising out of the judgment of the Delhi High Court.
32. The question that is common to the appeal arising out of the
judgment of the Gauhati High Court and the appeals arising out
of the Delhi High Court is whether candidates who have indicated
14

preference   for   a   particular   service   can   be   kept   out   of
consideration   for   appointment   to   other   services,   despite   such
candidates   having   secured   more   marks   than   the   selected
candidates in those other services.
33. In   Column   No.16   under   paragraph   4.0   of   Annexure­II,
which   is   the   brochure   containing   instructions   for   filling   up   the
application,   candidates   were   called   upon   to   carefully   indicate
preference   for   the   post   under   different   Forces.   It   was   also   made
clear that option once exercised will be final and that no change
will be allowed thereafter.
34. The preference for BSF was to be indicated by the alphabet
“A”. The preference for CISF, CRPF, SSB, ITBP and Assam Rifles
are to be indicated respectively by the alphabets “B”, “C”, “D”, “E”
and   “F”.   The   respondents   are   candidates   who   have   clearly
indicated   their   preference   to   one   service   only.   Some   candidates
have  indicated   preferences  to   multiple   services,  as   there   was   no
prohibition under the Recruitment Notification to do so.
35. What the Staff Selection Commission did was, to confine the
15

consideration of candidates who indicated preference only to one
service,   to   that   service   only.   Candidates   who   indicated   multiple
preferences were considered for all those services and depending
upon   the   cut   off   marks,   they   were   allotted   to   any   one   of   the
services.
36. Unfortunately,   the   respondents   in   these   appeals   indicated
preference only to one service. They did not secure more than or
equal to the cut­off mark for that service in the category to which
they   belonged.   It   is   true   that   candidates   who   secured   lesser
marks   than   these   respondents   have   been   selected   in   other
services,   but   it   was   because   of   the   expression   of   their   openness
for appointment to any service, even at the time of submitting the
application. The respondents have become wiser after the event.
37. The High Court proceeded on the basis that the candidates
cannot   be   pinned   down   to   the   preference   indicated   in   the
application form and that appointing persons who secured lesser
marks   and   rejecting   those   who   secured   higher   marks   on   this
ground, would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
16

38. In   doing   so,   the   High   Court   clearly   overlooked   Column
No.16 under paragraph 4 of Annexure­II, to the Notification.  This
is clearly erroneous.
39. However,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   relied
upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in
Ram   Bilash   Ram   vs.   State   of   Bihar   and   others 1
  and   the
decision   of   the   Allahabad   High   Court   in   Bindhyachal   Kumar
Singh  vs.   Union of India and others. 2
.
40. In   Ram   Bilash   Ram   (supra),   the   High   Court   of   Patna
interpreted the word “preference” to mean a mere indication of a
choice   and   held   that   the   same   cannot   be   taken   to   indicate   the
rejection   of   other   options.   The   relevant   portion   of   the   judgment
reads as follows:­
“   11.   So, the ordinary meaning of “preference” is to give
priority   to   one   over   another.   It   would   mean   that   by
giving preference to one the person shows his liking for
it   over   the   others.   This   does   not   mean   that   by   giving
preference   or   priority   to   one,   he   shows   his   dislike   for
others and opts against them. So, if the appellant gave
preference   to   some   services/posts,   it   cannot   be   said
that   he   has   withdrawn   his   candidature   for   the   rest   of
the   services/posts.   Any   contrary   inference   drawn   on
1   1986 SCC OnLine Pat 268
2   2013 SCC OnLine All 9828
17

the   basis   of   preference   list   would   be   opposed   to   the
principle of natural justice. If  one says that  her prefers
a   five­roomed   house,   it   cannot   be   interpreted   to   mean
that he would not accept a four­roomed house if no five­
roomed   house   is   made   available   to   him.   The   term
“preference”   always   indicates   that   the   person   has   a
choice to make. It cannot be interpreted to mean that if
he  is  not  offered  the  thing  for which  he  has  shown  his
preference, he will not accept the other things offered to
him   for   which   also   he   was   otherwise   eligible   and   for
which   also   he   was   candidate   from   the   very   beginning.
If  the applicant had no choice left with him, as  he was
not   found   suitable   for   the   services/posts   for   which   he
had   shown   preference,   it   cannot   be   said   that   he   has
abandoned   his   claim   for   the   rest   of   the   services,   as   it
cannot   be   presumed   that   he   would   prefer   to   remain
unemployed,   if   he   did   not   get   services/posts   of   his
choice.”
But   in   paragraph   12   of   the   said   decision   itself,   the   High   Court
made it clear that “ it would have been a different matter had
there been a rule or instruction to the contrary” . In the case
on hand the instructions were very clear and hence the decision
of the Patna High Court will not apply.
41. In   Bindhyachal Kumar Singh   (supra), the Allahabad High
Court   was   concerned   with   a   case   where   the   candidate   left   the
column   relating   to   preference,   blank.   Therefore,   the   High   Court
held   that   in   the   absence   of   any   condition   or   instruction   to   the
18

effect that if any column in the application form is left blank, the
application form would be rejected, and the approach adopted by
the   Staff   Selection   Commission   was   not   correct.   Therefore,   the
said case is also not on par with the case on hand.
42. As   a   matter   of   fact,   a   similar   question   came   up   for
consideration   before   this   Court   in   Union   of   India   vs.   M.V.V.S
Murthy 3
.   The   candidate   in   that   case   preferred   Indian
Administrative   Service   in   the   Civil   Services   Examination,   1983.
He was actually selected for IPS. He did not accept it but chose to
appear for the next year Examination. When he could not make it
in the next year examination, he gave a representation seeking at
least   to   be   allotted   to   IPS   for   the   CSE   ‘83   batch   on   the   ground
that   candidates   who   had   secured   lesser   marks   than   him   have
been allotted  to IPS  in CSE 1983. When  it  was  not accepted, he
approached the court, but this Court rejected his claim. 
43. Paragraph   5   of   the   said   decision   clinches   the   issue   and   it
reads as follows:­
3   (1987) Supp.SCC 371
19

“ 5.   Indisputably   the   respondent   confined   his   prefer ­
ence only to the Indian Administrative Service. The note
appearing   below   column   22   in   the   application   form
reads thus:
“ In  respect  of   the   services/posts  not   covered  by  the
entries   above,   it   will   be   assumed   that   you   have   an
equal   preference   for   those   services/posts.   You   will
therefore, be considered for any of those services if you
cannot be allotted to the services of your preference.”
The real meaning of this note appears to us to be that if
preferences given by the candidate are not available to
be accommodated on the basis of the results of the can ­
didate's   preference   in   the   selection   examination,   in ­
stead of being rejected he would be available to be con ­
sidered   for   the   other   service.   As   already   pointed   out,
the   Civil   Services   Examination   is   a   combined   examina ­
tion   for   several   services   and   when   a   vacancy   is   not
available within the field of the candidate's choice, it is
open   to   the   Central   Government   to   consider   the   candi ­
date for other services. The effect of this note is not that
preferences   given   by   a   candidate   securing   a   place
lower   to   the   respondent   would   not   be   entitled   to   his
preference   because   he   has   been   placed   below   the   re ­
spondent   in   ranking.   If   ranking   alone   is   to   be   the
test,   preferences   would   have   no   meaning.   On   the
other   hand,   the   procedure   that   preferences   are   accept ­
able with reference to the position in the final list till va ­
cancies   in   the   services   preferred   are   exhausted   is   the
most   logical   one   and   meets   the   requirements   of   the
scheme. Merely because  the  respondent  was  placed  at
the   280th   place   in   the   merit   list   and   someone   else
placed   at   No.   291   was   being   offered   the   Indian   Police
Service   in   keeping   with   his   preference,   would   not   give
the respondent any cause of action…”
44. Therefore,   the   High   Court   was   clearly   wrong   in   granting
relief   to   the   respondents   (i)   by   diluting   the   significance   of
20

preferences given by candidates; and  (ii)  in nullifying the effect of
the   instructions   contained   in   Column   No.16   of   paragraph   4   of
Annexure­II to the Recruitment Notification.
45. Coming  to  the  second issue which  arises only  in  respect  of
two respondents in Civil Appeal No.4585 of 2018, the case of the
appellant is that those two candidates produced caste certificates
to   show   that   they   belonged   to   the   OBC   category,   but   those
certificates were not in the format prescribed in Annexure­VII, to
the  Recruitment  Notification.  It is the  argument  of the  appellant
that   paragraph­4   of   the   “important   instructions   to   candidates ”   in
the   Recruitment   Notification   made   it   clear   that   certificates   in
respect   of   these   claims   should   be   in   the   format   prescribed.
Paragraph 4 reads as follows:­
“ 4.   Candidates   seeking   reservation   benefits   as
SC/ST/OBC/ExS   must   ensure   that   they   are   entitled   to
such   reservation   as   per   eligibility   prescribed   in   the
Notice.     They   should   also   be   in   possession   of   the
certificates   in   the   format   prescribed   by   Government   of
India   in   support   of   their   claim   when   the   copies   of   the
certificates   will   be   sought   after   the   Written
Examination.”
46. The   High   Court   rejected   the   contention   of   the   appellant   on
21

the  ground  that what is of importance is the substance and  not
the   form   and   that   a   certificate   holder   has   no   control   over   the
format of the certificate.
47. Defending   the   judgment   of   the   High   Court,   it   is   contended
by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents   that   so   long   as   the
status   of   the   respondents   is   not   disputed   by   the   Staff   Selection
Commission,   it   is   not   open   to   them   to   raise   hyper­technical
objections   on   the   basis   of   the   format   in   which   the   certificate   is
produced.   This   is   especially   so   when   the   candidates   have   no
control   over   the   authorities   who   are   competent   to   issue   the
certificates.   Therefore,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondents
submitted   that   the   order   of   the   High   Court   in   respect   of   the
candidates   belonging   to   OBC   category,   does   not   call   for   any
interference.
48. It is true that the power to issue caste certificates vests with
the   officers   of   the   State   Government   and   that   there   is   no
uniformity   in   this   regard.   Therefore,   some   leverage   has   to   be
given.
22

49. But the case of the appellant in the above appeal is that the
indication   regarding   non­creamy   layer   status   in   the   caste
certificate is one of substance and not of form. The very eligibility
to   seek   the   benefit   of   reservation   would   depend   upon   the   non­
creamy layer status.
50. However, the respondents have filed as Annexure R­8, along
with   their   application   for   vacating   the   stay   (I.A.No.76255   of
2018),   a   caste   certificate   which   actually   contains   a   declaration
about the non­creamy layer status of one of the respondents. On
the   basis   of   this   certificate   it   was   contended   by   the   learned
counsel   for   the   respondents   that   the   certificate   was   actually   in
the format prescribed in Annexure­VII to the Notification.
51. But we do not know whether what is produced before us as
Annexure   R­8   along   with   I.A.No.76255   of   2018   was   the   caste
certificate   actually   produced   by   that   respondent.   If   this   is   the
certificate that he had actually enclosed to his application, there
would   have   been   no   occasion   for   the   High   Court   to   examine
whether the objection relates to substance or mere form. At this
23

level, in an appeal before the highest Court, it is not possible for
us to look into this question of fact. This is especially so since the
recruitment relates to uniformed services, where physical fitness
of   the   incumbents   is   of   utmost   importance.     A   period   of   more
than   10   years   have   now   passed   from   the   date   of   Notification.
Therefore,   at   this   stage   it   is   not   possible   to   enter   into   disputed
questions of fact and grant relief to those two respondents.
52. In   view   of   the   above,   these   appeals   are   also   liable   to   be
allowed.   But   before   we   do   so,   we   must   deal   with   one   last
contention of Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel for the
respondents.   Inviting   our   attention   to   the   fact   that   by   the   order
impugned, the High Court disposed of 15 writ petitions, but the
appellants   have   chosen   to   file   only   one   appeal   against   one   of
those   writ   petitions.   It   was   contended   by   the   learned   senior
counsel   that   after   having   allowed   the   common   order   passed   in
other   writ   petitions   to   attain   finality,   it   is   not   open   to   the
appellants to blow hot and cold.
53. In   normal   circumstances,   the   above   argument   would   have
24

really appealed to us as it is legally well founded. But in this case
even   admittedly   some   of   the   petitioners   who   approached   the
court   have  been   granted   relief,   due   to  the   revision  of  Merit   List.
It   means   that   each   of   the   candidates   who   were   before   the   High
Court   had   some   distinguishable   feature   and   some   of   them   got
the relief even from the appellants. Therefore, the contention that
the   appellants   cannot   blow   hot   and   cold   in   respect   of   a   few
candidates may not hold water.  
54. Therefore, the  appeals are allowed and the impugned order
of the High Court is set aside.  There will be no order as to costs.
… ..…………....................J.
                                     (Hemant Gupta)
.…..………......................J
                                                   (V. Ramasubramanian)
New Delhi
February 17,  2022
25