Summary
Candidates in a central armed-forces recruitment sought consideration beyond their stated service choices and separately earmarked border-district vacancies. The Court held that the notification’s final-choice and district-category requirements controlled; higher marks alone did not override them. On OBC certificates, non-creamy-layer status was substantive, but the Court declined to resolve the disputed certificate-production facts or grant relief after a decade. The Union’s appeals were allowed and the challenged High Court orders set aside.
Issues
- Whether domicile in one notified border-district category permitted consideration in another category.
- Whether a single-service preference could be expanded after results because other services had lower cut-offs.
- Whether defects concerning OBC non-creamy-layer certification were merely matters of form.
- Whether unappealed companion writ orders barred these appeals in the circumstances.
Held
- Vacancies were allocated by force, State, reservation category and specified district grouping. Exemption from producing an Assam domicile certificate did not remove those district categories. A candidate from a group with no relevant vacancies could not claim another group’s earmarked posts. (¶ 20-30)
- Candidates could indicate multiple service choices, but the respondents selected only one. The instructions expressly made that option final. Candidates obtaining lower marks in other services were differently situated because they had opted for those services; the High Courts could not disregard the notification. (¶ 33-44)
- Some latitude was appropriate for certificate formats issued by different State authorities, but non-creamy-layer status was substantive eligibility. The Court could not determine whether the certificate produced before it was the one originally supplied, and declined to resolve that factual dispute or grant the two candidates relief at this late stage. (¶ 45-51)
- The objection based on unappealed companion writ orders would ordinarily carry weight, but candidates had distinguishable circumstances and some had already obtained selection through revised results. It did not bar the appeals here. (¶ 52-53)
- The Union’s appeals were allowed and the impugned High Court orders set aside. In the separate border-district matter, the candidate’s writ petition was expressly dismissed. There was no order as to costs. (¶¶ 30, 54)
Result
Appeals allowed; challenged High Court orders set aside, with the border-district candidate’s writ petition dismissed. No costs.