Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Constable Recruitment in CAPFs: Union of India vs. Probir Ghosh (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 17 February 2022

Citation: (2022) INSC 174

Judges: Hemant Gupta, J. and V. Ramasubramanian, J.

Can a candidate’s preference for a specific armed force during recruitment limit their consideration for other forces, despite higher scores? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question, alongside the validity of OBC certificates not in the prescribed format, in a recent judgment concerning constable recruitment in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs). This case clarifies the importance of following the recruitment notification’s guidelines and the implications for candidates seeking positions in these forces. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice V. Ramasubramanian, with the opinion authored by Justice V. Ramasubramanian.

Case Background

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a notification on December 3, 2011, inviting applications for the recruitment of Constables (GD) in various Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) such as ITBP, BSF, CISF, CRPF, and SSB, and for Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. Initially, 39,574 posts were announced, which was later revised to 48,802. The recruitment process included Physical Standards Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Written Examination, and Medical Examination. The closing date for applications was January 4, 2012, with an extension until January 11, 2012, for candidates from certain regions.

The notification specified that recruitment would be based on state-wise and category-wise reservations, including those for OBC, SC, and ST candidates, as well as for candidates from Naxal and militancy-affected areas and specific border districts. Relaxations in the upper age limit were also available for certain categories. Vacancies were earmarked service-wise, state and union territory-wise, and intra-state-wise for the entire state and for Naxal-affected areas/border districts.

The recruitment notification included instructions for filling out the application, particularly regarding preferences for posts under different forces. It was clearly stated that once a preference was exercised, it would be final, and no changes would be allowed. The notification also provided formats for certificates to be produced by candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and OBC categories.

After the selection process, the SSC published a select list on October 17, 2012. Several candidates, finding their names absent from the list despite having higher marks than some selected candidates, filed writ petitions in the Gauhati High Court. These candidates also raised issues regarding the rejection of their OBC certificates and their categorization under the unreserved category.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Gauhati High Court initially addressed a batch of 15 writ petitions, including WP (C) No. 5520 of 2012, filed by candidates who were not selected despite having higher marks. The High Court allowed these petitions, leading to further similar petitions being allowed through subsequent orders. The Union of India and the Staff Selection Commission filed an intra-court appeal, but it was dismissed due to a delay in filing.

Separately, a candidate whose appointment was canceled for not belonging to the selected border district filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Gauhati High Court. The court held that a person’s domicile in one border district should not prevent consideration for another border district. The Union of India’s review petition was also dismissed.

Additionally, a candidate approached the Delhi High Court, arguing that despite indicating a preference for one service, he should be considered for other services based on merit. The Delhi High Court allowed this petition, and a subsequent review petition was also dismissed.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolved around the interpretation of the recruitment notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) on December 3, 2011. This notification outlined the terms and conditions for the recruitment of Constables (GD) in various Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles.

Key aspects of the notification included:

• State-wise and category-wise reservations: Vacancies were allocated based on domicile and category (OBC, SC, ST).
• Reservation for specific areas: Reservations were also provided for candidates from Naxal and militancy-affected areas and select border districts.
• Preference for posts: Candidates were required to indicate their preference for posts under different forces, with a clear statement that the option once exercised would be final and no change would be allowed.
• Certificate formats: The notification specified the format for certificates to be produced by candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The Supreme Court also considered the constitutional implications, particularly Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. The High Court had interpreted the recruitment process as violative of Article 14 by not considering candidates with higher marks for all available posts.

Arguments

The appellants, Union of India and the Staff Selection Commission, argued that the High Court erred in its interpretation of the recruitment notification. They contended that:

• Candidates were bound by the preferences they indicated for specific services.
• The notification clearly stated that the preference once exercised was final.
• OBC certificates not in the prescribed format were rightly rejected.
• Border districts were categorized differently, and candidates were eligible only for vacancies in their respective categories.

The respondents, the candidates who were not selected, argued that:

• The term “preference” should not mean the rejection of other options.
• Candidates with higher marks should not be rejected in favor of those with lower marks based on preferences.
• The substance of the OBC certificate should be considered, not just the format.
• All border districts should be treated alike, and domicile in one border district should allow consideration for all border districts.

The respondents relied on the decisions of the Patna High Court in Ram Bilash Ram vs. State of Bihar and others [1986 SCC OnLine Pat 268] and the Allahabad High Court in Bindhyachal Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and others [2013 SCC OnLine All 9828]. The Patna High Court interpreted “preference” as a mere indication of choice, not a rejection of other options. The Allahabad High Court dealt with a case where a candidate left the preference column blank, holding that the application should not be rejected for this reason.

The appellants, in response, distinguished these cases, pointing out that in the present case, the instructions were very clear about the finality of the preference. They also cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. M.V.V.S Murthy [(1987) Supp SCC 371], where it was held that a candidate who preferred a specific service could not later claim another service for which they were not initially considered.

The innovativeness of the argument by the respondents was in trying to interpret the term “preference” as a mere indication of choice, not a binding commitment. This was an attempt to get around the clear language of the notification.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. Whether the domicile of a person in one particular border district will debar him from being considered for appointment in another border district?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Ram Bilash Ram vs. State of Bihar and others [1986 SCC OnLine Pat 268] – Patna High Court: The court interpreted “preference” to mean a mere indication of choice, not a rejection of other options.
• Bindhyachal Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and others [2013 SCC OnLine All 9828] – Allahabad High Court: The court dealt with a case where a candidate left the preference column blank, holding that the application should not be rejected for this reason.
• Union of India vs. M.V.V.S Murthy [(1987) Supp SCC 371] – Supreme Court of India: The court held that a candidate who preferred a specific service could not later claim another service for which they were not initially considered.

Legal Provisions:

• Recruitment Notification dated 03.12.2011: The notification issued by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) which outlined the terms and conditions for the recruitment of Constables (GD) in various Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles.
• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Staff Selection Commission’s decision to restrict candidates to the service they had initially preferred. The Court reasoned that the recruitment notification clearly stated that the preference once exercised was final. The Court also held that candidates who secured higher marks but had not indicated a preference for a particular service could not claim appointment to that service.

Regarding the OBC certificate format, the Court acknowledged that the power to issue such certificates rests with state governments, leading to some variations. However, it emphasized that the non-creamy layer status was a matter of substance, not just form.

The Court also upheld the categorization of border districts, stating that different considerations may weigh with the recruiting authorities for categorizing them. Therefore, a candidate domiciled in one border district could not claim appointment in another border district where no vacancy was notified for their category.

The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the High Court was wrong in diluting the significance of preferences given by candidates and in nullifying the effect of the instructions contained in the recruitment notification.

How Each Authority Was Viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court distinguished the cases of Ram Bilash Ram vs. State of Bihar and others [1986 SCC OnLine Pat 268] and Bindhyachal Kumar Singh vs. Union of India and others [2013 SCC OnLine All 9828], stating that these cases were not applicable to the present situation due to the clear instructions in the recruitment notification.

The Court relied on its own decision in Union of India vs. M.V.V.S Murthy [(1987) Supp SCC 371], which supported the view that a candidate who had preferred a particular service could not later claim another service.

What Weighed in the Mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the integrity of the recruitment process and the binding nature of the instructions provided in the notification. The court emphasized the following points:

• Clarity of Instructions: The court repeatedly noted that the recruitment notification clearly stated that the preference once exercised was final. This clarity was a major factor in the court’s decision to uphold the restriction on candidates.
• Merit and Preference: While merit was important, the court found that the system of preference was logical and met the requirements of the scheme. It was not a violation of Article 14 to give preference to candidates who had clearly indicated their choice of service.
• Uniformity of Process: The court upheld the importance of following the prescribed format for certificates and the categorization of border districts. This was essential to maintain the integrity and uniformity of the recruitment process.
• Binding Nature of Notification: The court underscored that the recruitment notification was not just a guideline but a binding document that all candidates were expected to adhere to.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

The court considered and rejected alternative interpretations that would have allowed candidates to be considered for all services irrespective of their preferences. The court found that such interpretations would undermine the clarity and binding nature of the recruitment notification.

The final decision was reached by upholding the terms of the recruitment notification. The court found that the Staff Selection Commission had acted correctly in restricting candidates to their preferred services and in rejecting OBC certificates not in the prescribed format.

The court quoted from the judgment in Union of India vs. M.V.V.S Murthy [(1987) Supp SCC 371]:

“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 candidate’s preference in the selection examination, instead of being rejected he would be available to be considered for the other service.”

The court also quoted from the recruitment notification:

“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.”

The judgment was unanimous, with both judges agreeing on the final decision. There were no dissenting opinions.

The implications for future cases are that recruitment authorities can rely on the binding nature of the instructions provided in their notifications. Candidates must carefully consider their preferences and ensure that they meet all the requirements outlined in the notification.

There were no new doctrines or legal principles introduced in this judgment. The court primarily relied on existing legal principles and precedents to uphold the terms of the recruitment notification.

Key Takeaways

The key takeaways from this judgment are:

• Candidates must carefully consider their preferences for posts during recruitment, as these preferences are binding.
• Recruitment notifications are binding documents, and candidates must adhere to all instructions provided.
• OBC certificates must be in the prescribed format to be considered valid.
• Border districts can be categorized differently, and candidates are eligible only for vacancies in their respective categories.
• Recruitment authorities can rely on the binding nature of the instructions provided in their notifications.

The potential future impact of this judgment is that it reinforces the importance of clarity and adherence to the terms of recruitment notifications. It also emphasizes the need for candidates to be thorough and careful when filling out application forms.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not give any specific directions in this judgment, other than setting aside the orders of the High Courts and dismissing the writ petitions filed by the respondents.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the terms and conditions specified in a recruitment notification are binding on both the recruiting authority and the candidates. The court upheld the principle that a candidate’s preference for a particular service is final and cannot be changed after the application process is completed. The court also clarified that the substance of the OBC certificate is important, but the prescribed format must also be followed.

There was no change in the previous positions of law. The Supreme Court relied on existing legal precedents and principles to arrive at its decision.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Union of India and the Staff Selection Commission, setting aside the orders of the Gauhati and Delhi High Courts. The court upheld the binding nature of the preferences indicated by candidates in the recruitment notification, the requirement for OBC certificates to be in the prescribed format, and the categorization of border districts. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the terms and conditions of recruitment notifications and the finality of choices made by candidates during the application process.