SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the Union Government to appoint four Scheduled Caste candidates to Constable (General Duty) posts in the Border Security Force (BSF) and Assam Rifles. These candidates were denied selection despite securing higher marks than others chosen under the Open Merit category. The court clarified that physical relaxations in height and chest measurements granted to petitioners due to their domicile in Jammu and Kashmir should not be construed as relaxations availed based on their Scheduled Caste status.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that the court ordered the petitioners’ appointment against available vacancies or, if none exist, the creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate them, provided no other legal impediment is present. Justice Rajnesh Oswal delivered the judgment in a petition filed by Amit Kundal and others against the Union of India and other respondents. The judgment, reserved on June 30, 2026, was pronounced and uploaded on July 17, 2026.
The official respondents are mandated to issue appointment orders within three months of the petitioners providing a copy of the judgment. The dispute stemmed from a recruitment process initiated in July 2018 for Constable (General Duty) posts across Central Armed Police Forces, the National Investigation Agency, Secretariat Security Force, and Rifleman (General Duty) in the Assam Rifles. The selection involved a computer-based examination, followed by physical efficiency tests, physical standard tests, and medical examinations.
The petitioners, Amit Kundal, Sahil Kumar, Chetan Kumar, and Ankesh Kumar, all permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir and belonging to the Scheduled Caste category, had successfully cleared the written examination. They subsequently participated in the Physical Efficiency Test and Physical Standard Test at BSF Camp Paloura, Jammu. During these tests, they were granted physical relaxations applicable to candidates from Jammu and Kashmir.
The petitioners challenged the select list issued on January 21, 2021, contending that individuals with lower marks had been selected for Open Merit vacancies, while they, despite superior merit, were overlooked. They sought the annulment of the selection of lower-merit candidates and their own appointment against either Open Merit or Scheduled Caste vacancies.
Central to the dispute were the marks obtained by the candidates. For the BSF Post Code-A, the cut-off for the unreserved category was 57.40899. The four petitioners, however, had scored 59.32587, 59.05198, 58.11991, and 59.28827 marks, respectively. Similarly, for Assam Rifles Post Code-F, the Open Merit cut-off was 58.02482, with the petitioners scoring higher. They argued that their higher marks should have qualified them for consideration against Open Merit vacancies.
Furthermore, the petitioners highlighted that the final cut-off marks for the Scheduled Caste category were higher than those for the Open Merit category in some instances. For BSF Border Guarding District quota, the SC cut-off was 60.11553 compared to the Open Merit cut-off of 57.40899. In Assam Rifles, the respective figures were 60.32360 and 58.02482. This situation, they argued, effectively prevented reserved-category candidates with superior marks from competing for Open Merit positions.
The respondents, however, argued that the petitioners had applied under the SC category and had benefited from relaxations in height and chest measurements. They cited Paragraph 11(xiv) of the recruitment notice, which states that SC, ST, OBC, and Ex-Servicemen candidates qualifying based on relaxed standards are to be counted against reserved vacancies. The respondents maintained that the petitioners could not subsequently claim consideration for Open Merit vacancies.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr Ankur Sharma, assisted by Ms Himani Khajuria, asserted that the physical relaxation was not linked to their SC status but was a general benefit available to candidates from Jammu and Kashmir, regardless of their category. Therefore, they argued, this relaxation should not disqualify them from competing for Open Merit vacancies.
Representing the official respondents, Mr Vishal Sharma, DSGI, assisted by Mr Karan Sharma, CGSC, contended that the petitioners’ application under the SC category and acceptance of physical relaxations barred their adjustment against unreserved vacancies, citing Paragraph 11(xiv). They also referred to a Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Sajib Roy.
Justice Oswal, however, drew a critical distinction between relaxations granted based on caste and those based on domicile or region. The recruitment notice stipulated a minimum height of 170 cm for male candidates in General, SC, and OBC categories, but reduced it to 165 cm for candidates from specified categories, including residents of Jammu and Kashmir. A similar reduction was made for chest measurements for male candidates from Jammu and Kashmir.
The court observed that the relaxations in height and chest measurements were not exclusive to the Scheduled Caste category but were uniformly available to candidates residing in Jammu and Kashmir. “The relaxation granted to the residents of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir applies uniformly across both unreserved and reserved categories,” Justice Oswal held. “Consequently, the petitioners did not receive any benefit on account of their Scheduled Caste status, but rather on account of their domicile.”. The court further stated that a combined reading of Paragraphs 11(xiii) and 11(xiv) indicated that reserved-category candidates selected on their own merit, without utilizing category-specific relaxations, should be accommodated against unreserved vacancies.
The court found that the authorities had failed to demonstrate that the petitioners received any relaxations beyond those generally available to candidates outside reserved categories. It concluded that the distinction made by the respondents was discriminatory and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The High Court also referenced judgments from the Gauhati and Delhi High Courts. The Gauhati High Court in Jitendra Thakur and others v. Union of India and others held that physical relaxations are qualifying standards and final ranking is determined by marks. The Delhi High Court in Hemant Pokhriyal v. Staff Selection Commission and others ruled that regional relaxations cannot exclusively categorise candidates as reserved category members while ignoring their merit.
Justice Oswal distinguished the Supreme Court precedent in Sajib Roy, noting that in that case, the candidate had used an age relaxation directly linked to OBC status. Here, the relaxations were based on domicile and uniformly available, irrespective of category. The court, however, refrained from cancelling the appointments of the lower-merit candidates already in service, citing the substantial public funds spent on their training and their approximately five years of service. It deemed removing them at this late stage as harsh and iniquitous, as no fault could be attributed to them.
The litigation saw interim orders, including a directive on July 2, 2021, to not operate the waiting list for four Constable (GD) posts for BSF in Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequently, on September 30, 2024, authorities were asked to disclose vacancies. The respondents later stated that no vacancies from the 2018 recruitment remained, with subsequent recruitment processes having concluded.
The High Court applied the principle from Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan, allowing for the appointment of non-selected candidates against existing vacancies, and the creation of supernumerary posts if necessary. The court directed the respondents to appoint the four petitioners against available vacancies or create supernumerary posts within three months of receiving the judgment, subject to no other legal impediments.
The Chenab Times News Desk