Domicile Relaxation Is Not Caste Relaxation: J&K HC Orders Supernumerary Posts for BSF Constable Candidates Denied Open Merit Seats
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that height and chest relaxations granted to J&K residents cannot be treated as SC-category concessions, entitling higher-scoring petitioners to appointment or supernumerary posts.
Four Scheduled Caste candidates from the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, who scored higher than several candidates selected in the BSF Constable (General Duty) recruitment of 2018, were kept out of the final select list because the official respondents treated their domicile-based physical relaxations as caste-based relaxations. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, sitting singly at the Jammu bench, rejected that position on 17 July 2026. The court found that height and chest relaxations available uniformly to all J&K residents — irrespective of category — cannot trigger the clause that confines reserved-category candidates to the reserved quota. With no vacancies remaining in the 2018 cycle, the court directed the creation of supernumerary posts to remedy what it described as a grave injustice caused to the petitioners.
The Recruitment Process and What the Petitioners Sought
The Staff Selection Commission issued Advertisement Notice dated 21 July 2018 inviting applications for Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces, the National Investigation Agency, the Secretariat Security Force, and Rifleman (General Duty) in the Assam Rifles. The recruitment comprised a Computer-Based Examination, a Physical Efficiency Test, a Physical Standard Test, and a Medical Examination.
The four petitioners — Amit Kundal, Sahil Kumar, Chetan Kumar, and Ankesh Kumar — are permanent residents of J&K and belong to the Scheduled Caste category. They applied online for Constable (GD) across all branches. After clearing the written examination, they appeared for the Physical Standard Test at BSF Camp Paloura, Jammu.
The Physical Standard Test prescribed a minimum height of 170 cm for male General, SC, and OBC candidates. A reduced standard of 165 cm applied to Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Dogras, Marathas, and residents of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir. For chest measurements, male candidates in the General, SC, and OBC categories required 80 cm unexpanded with a 5 cm expansion, while J&K residents were required to meet only 78 cm unexpanded with a 5 cm expansion.
Each petitioner availed relaxation during the Physical Standard Test on the basis of their J&K domicile. Petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 received height relaxation — their measured heights were 169 cm, 167 cm, and 167.5 cm respectively. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 received chest relaxation, their chest measurements being 78–83 cm. All four qualified the Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test, and were ultimately declared fit in the Medical Examination.
Despite scoring above the unreserved cut-off — the four petitioners secured 59.32587, 59.05198, 58.11991, and 59.28827 marks respectively against an unreserved cut-off of 57.40899 for BSF (Post Code-A) and 58.02482 for Assam Rifles (Post Code-F) — they were not selected. The SC category cut-off was significantly higher: 60.11553 for BSF and 60.32360 for Assam Rifles. The petitioners challenged the select list dated 21 January 2021, seeking their inclusion against open merit vacancies or, alternatively, against the SC quota.
The Central Legal Dispute: Paragraphs 11(xiii) and 11(xiv) of the Notice
The dispute turned on two provisions in the Advertisement Notice.
Paragraph 11(xiii) of the Notice states that SC, ST, OBC, and Ex-Serviceman candidates selected on their own merit, without relaxed standards, along with candidates from other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserved quota. They are to be accommodated against unreserved vacancies according to their position in the overall merit list.
Paragraph 11(xiv) states that SC, ST, OBC, and Ex-Serviceman candidates who qualify on the basis of relaxed standards — covering age limit, height, chest measurement, experience, qualifications, or an extended zone of consideration larger than that available to General Category candidates — are to be counted against reserved vacancies, irrespective of their merit position.
Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ankur Sharma, argued that the relaxations granted to his clients were domiciliary in nature, not caste-based, and that Paragraph 11(xiv) could not be applied against them. The official respondents, represented by DSGI Mr. Vishal Sharma, argued that the petitioners applied under the SC category and accepted physical relaxations, placing them squarely within Paragraph 11(xiv). He relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Sajib Roy, (2025) SCC Online SC 1943.
How the Court Read the Physical Standards
Justice Rajnesh Oswal examined the Physical Standard Test criteria in detail. The court noted that no relaxation in height or chest measurements is available to candidates solely on account of their SC status. The reduced height standard of 165 cm for males, and the reduced chest standard of 78 cm, are prescribed for Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Dogras, Marathas, and residents of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, and J&K — a region-based classification that applies uniformly to General, SC, OBC, and all other candidates from those areas.
On that basis, the court held that the height relaxations availed by petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 were attributable exclusively to their J&K domicile, entirely unrelated to their caste. The chest relaxations availed by petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 likewise arose solely from their J&K domicile. The official respondents had not demonstrated that the petitioners received any relaxed standard beyond what was generally available to candidates outside the reserved categories.
Reading Paragraphs 11(xiii) and 11(xiv) together, the court concluded that only relaxations tied to reserved-category status — and not general domiciliary relaxations available across categories — could attract the restriction in Paragraph 11(xiv). The official respondents' position, that applying under the SC category and availing any physical relaxation automatically confines a candidate to the reserved quota, was rejected.
The court found that the distinction drawn by the official respondents was discriminatory and directly contravened Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. By treating the petitioners' SC status as a source of disadvantage rather than a benefit, the respondents had perversely inverted the reservation framework.
Precedents Considered
The Gauhati High Court's decision in Jitendra Thakur and others v. Union of India and others, WP(C) No. 1681/2021, decided on 7 June 2022, was cited with approval. The Gauhati court had observed that region-based relaxations in eligibility standards such as minimum height and chest measurement are qualifying criteria for participation in the recruitment process, and do not have any nexus with the marks obtained in the actual tests. Final ranking is determined by marks, not by the qualifying standard itself.
The Delhi High Court in Hemant Pokhriyal v. Staff Selection Commission and others, 2021 SCC Online Del 4591, had similarly held that height or chest relaxation available to candidates from a specific region, whether belonging to reserved or unreserved categories, cannot lead to their categorisation exclusively against SC, ST, and OBC vacancies while ignoring their merit position.
The Supreme Court decision in Union of India v. Sajib Roy relied upon by the respondents was distinguished. In Sajib Roy, the candidate had applied under the OBC category and used an age relaxation directly tied to that caste status. In the present case, the petitioners received no benefit on account of their SC status; their relaxation arose from their J&K domicile and was available uniformly across all categories. The court held that the precedent was not applicable on the facts.
Why No Vacancies Remained and the Remedy Chosen
The court acknowledged that ousting the already-appointed candidates was not a fair remedy. Those candidates — respondent Nos. 3 to 50 — had been in active service for approximately five years, and the Union of India had expended substantial public funds on their training. No fault could be attributed to them.
The court had, by interim order dated 2 July 2021, directed that the waiting list of four posts of Constable (GD) for Border Guarding Districts in BSF for J&K not be operated. By order dated 30 September 2024, the respondents were directed to file an affidavit on the availability of vacancies. The affidavit filed by the DIG (Adm) CRPF, Office of IGP Jammu Sector, Bantalab, Jammu stated that no vacancy pertaining to the Constable (GD) Examination 2018 existed as on that date, and that vacancies had been carried forward to the Constable (GD) Examination 2021, which itself had since been concluded along with the 2022–23 recruitment.
The court drew on the Supreme Court's directions in Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 11 SCC 352, where the Apex Court had directed appointment against existing vacancies and, in their absence, creation of supernumerary posts.
Order
Justice Rajnesh Oswal disposed of WP(C) No. 1279/2021 with two directions.
The official respondents were directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the four petitioners against available vacancies. If no vacancies are available, the official respondents are to create supernumerary posts for their adjustment, provided there is no other legal impediment.
The consequential order is to be passed within three months from the date a copy of the judgment is furnished by the petitioners to the official respondents.