SC Candidates Availing Domicile-Based Relaxation Eligible For Selection Under Open Merit In BSF Recruitment: J&K&L High Court

The High Court, while finding that the petitioners had suffered grave injustice despite securing higher marks than selected candidates, directed the authorities to issue appointment orders in their favour if vacancies were available, and to create supernumerary posts for their adjustment if vacancies were not available.

The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the select list for recruitment to the posts of Constable (General Duty) in CAPFs and Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles, where the petitioners claimed that less meritorious candidates had been selected in the open merit list while they were excluded despite securing higher marks.

A Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed: “A conjoint reading of Paragraphs 11(xiii) and 11(xiv) of the Notice reveals that if candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), Other Backward Class (OBC), or Ex-Servicemen categories are selected on their own merit, without availing themselves of relaxed standards reserved exclusively for those categories, they must be accommodated against unreserved vacancies. The respondents have failed to demonstrate that the petitioners were granted any relaxed standards beyond those generally available to the candidates outside the reserved categories (SC, ST, OBC, and Ex-Servicemen). Consequently, the official respondents cannot rely upon Paragraph 11(xiv) of the Notice to contend that merely because the petitioners applied under the SC category, they must be counted exclusively against the reserved quota”.

The Staff Selection Commission had invited applications for recruitment to Constable (General Duty) posts in CAPFs, NIA, SSF and Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles. The process involved a computer-based examination, Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Standard Test and medical examination. Since vacancies were allocated State/UT-wise, candidates were required to produce domicile or permanent resident certificates for the State or Union Territory indicated in their applications.

The petitioners, permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, qualified the written examination and were granted physical standard relaxation in height or chest based on their domicile or Dogra status. They argued that they secured higher marks than the open merit cut-off for the relevant posts, but were wrongly excluded because the authorities treated their domicile-based relaxation as a reserved-category relaxation.

The Union resisted the plea, contending that since the petitioners had applied under the Scheduled Caste category and availed physical relaxations, Paragraph 11(xiv) of the recruitment notice required them to be counted only against reserved vacancies. It also relied on Union of India v. Sajib Roy (2025), where the candidate had used age relaxation linked to OBC status.

The High Court examined the physical standards prescribed for Constable/Rifleman posts and noted that the general height standard for male candidates was 170 cm, but a lower standard of 165 cm applied to Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Dogras, Marathas and candidates belonging to Assam, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu and Kashmir.

The Court observed: “Crucially, no relaxation in height or chest measurements is afforded to the candidates solely on account of their SC status. Instead, the lower minimum height requirement of 165 cm for males and 155 cm for females is restricted to categories such as Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Dogras, Marathas, and residents of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir.”

On chest measurement, the Court similarly held: “In this regard as well, no relaxation is extended to candidates on account of their Scheduled Caste status. However, a relaxed standard of 78 cm unexpanded, with a 5 cm expansion, is specifically prescribed for male candidates who are residents of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.”

The Court read Paragraphs 11(xiii) and 11(xiv) of the notice together and held that reserved category candidates selected on their own merit, without category-exclusive relaxation, must be accommodated against unreserved vacancies.

The Court found that the authorities' approach converted the petitioners' Scheduled Caste status into a disadvantage, despite the relaxation being domicile-based and not caste-based.

The Court held: “The petitioners have not been granted the benefit of relaxation in height and chest measurements on account of their SC category status. As such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners' SC status has resulted in a distinct disadvantage to them.”

It further observed: “The distinction drawn by the official respondents in their response is discriminatory and directly contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned action of the respondents is wholly unsustainable and cannot be countenanced in law.”

The Court relied on Jitendra Thakur v. Union of India (2022), where the Gauhati High Court held that relaxed physical standards based on region were qualifying standards and did not affect the marks on which merit was determined.

The Court also referred to Hemant Pokhriyal v. Staff Selection Commission (2021), noting that height or chest relaxation available to candidates from a specific region, whether reserved or unreserved, could not result in categorising such candidates exclusively as SC, ST or OBC while ignoring their merit position.

The Court distinguished Union of India v. Sajib Roy (2025), relied upon by the Union, on the ground that the candidate there had used age relaxation directly tied to OBC status. The present case involved relaxation based on domicile, uniformly available across categories.

The Court observed: “In the said judgment, the candidate applied under the OBC category and utilized an age relaxation tied directly to that caste status. In the present case, however, the petitioners received no benefits based on their Scheduled Caste status. Instead, they received a relaxation based on their domicile, which was uniformly available to all applicants regardless of category.”

The Court found that the petitioners had been excluded despite higher merit, but declined to set aside appointments of candidates already trained and in service for five years.

The Bench stated: “This Court has no hesitation in holding that a grave injustice has been caused to the petitioners, who were excluded from selection despite possessing higher merit than the candidates selected by the official respondents.”

It added: “Ordinarily, the appointment of candidates possessing lower merit must be set aside. However, taking into consideration that the Union of India has expended substantial public funds on their training and that the said candidates have been in active service for the past five years, ousting them at this late stage would be harsh and iniquitous, particularly since no fault can be attributed to them.”

The Court then relied on Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018), where the Supreme Court directed appointment against existing vacancies or creation of supernumerary posts where posts were unavailable.

The High Court disposed of the petition by directing the authorities to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners if vacancies were available. If no vacancies were available, the authorities were directed to create supernumerary posts for their adjustment, subject to there being no other legal impediment.

The consequential order was directed to be passed within three months from the date the judgment is furnished to the authorities.

Case Title: Amit Kundal and others v. Union of India and others

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Appearances

For the Petitioners: Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, Advocates

For the Respondents: Vishal Sharma, DSGI, Senior Advocate, with Karan Sharma, CGSC

Click Here to Read/Download Judgment