J&K HC Holds BSF Domicile Relaxation Cannot Bar SC Candidates from Open Merit Pool
The High Court found that physical standard relaxations granted on domicile grounds, not caste, cannot force SC candidates into the reserved quota, directing supernumerary appointments if no vacancies exist.
Four Scheduled Caste candidates from Jammu & Kashmir, who scored higher than many candidates selected in the open merit list for BSF Constable (General Duty) posts, challenged a select list dated 21 January 2021 arising from Advertisement Notice dated 21 July 2018. Justice Rajnesh Oswal, sitting singly at the Jammu Bench, allowed the writ petition, holding that height and chest relaxations granted to the petitioners on account of their J&K domicile — a benefit equally available to all applicants from the Union Territory regardless of category — could not be treated as caste-based relaxations under Para 11(xiv) of the SSC Advertisement Notice. Confining them to the reserved quota solely because they had availed domicile relaxations, while similarly situated open-merit candidates faced no such restriction, violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Recruitment Process and the Petitioners’ Position
Respondent No. 2 invited applications under Advertisement Notice dated 21 July 2018 for recruitment to Constable (General Duty) posts in the Central Armed Police Forces, the National Investigation Agency, the Secretariat Security Force, and Rifleman (General Duty) in the Assam Rifles. The selection process involved a Computer-Based Examination, followed by a Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Standard Test, and Medical Examination.
The petitioners — Amit Kundal, Sahil Kumar, Chetan Kumar, and Ankesh Kumar — are permanent residents of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and belong to the Scheduled Caste category. They qualified the written examination. At the Physical Standard Test held at BSF Camp Paloura, Jammu, they were measured as follows: Amit Kundal stood at 175 cm with a chest of 78–83 cm; Sahil Kumar at 169 cm; Chetan Kumar at 167 cm; and Ankesh Kumar at 167.5 cm with a chest of 78–83 cm.
The physical standard norms prescribed a minimum height of 170 cm for male candidates in the General, SC, and OBC categories. A reduced threshold of 165 cm applied specifically to Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Dogras, Marathas, and candidates from Assam, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir. The corresponding chest standard for J&K residents was 78 cm unexpanded, against the general requirement of 80 cm. The petitioners availed the J&K domicile relaxation, not any relaxation tied to their SC status.
After qualifying all stages, the petitioners were not selected. The cut-off for the unreserved (open merit) category in BSF Border Guarding Districts (Post Code-A) stood at 57.40899, while the petitioners had secured 59.32587, 59.05198, 58.11991, and 59.28827 marks respectively. The cut-off for the SC category in that very list was a substantially higher 60.11553. A similar pattern appeared in the Assam Rifles list, where the last open merit candidate cleared at 58.02482 against an SC cut-off of 60.32360.
The Legal Dispute: Which Paragraph of the Notice Applied
The entire contest turned on two paragraphs of the SSC Advertisement Notice. Para 11(xiii) provides that SC, ST, OBC, and Ex-Servicemen candidates selected on their own merit, without relaxed standards, must be accommodated against unreserved vacancies in the overall merit list. Para 11(xiv) provides that SC, ST, OBC, and Ex-Servicemen candidates who qualify on the basis of relaxed standards — covering age limit, height, chest measurement, experience, qualifications, or extended zones of consideration — must be counted against reserved vacancies irrespective of their merit position.
The official respondents took the position that because the petitioners had availed height or chest relaxations, Para 11(xiv) applied squarely, and they could only be considered against the SC reserved quota. Since they had not cleared the SC cut-off, they were not selected. Respondents also argued that private respondents Nos. 3 to 50 who were from the SC category and selected against unreserved vacancies had not availed any height or chest relaxation, distinguishing their position from the petitioners.
The petitioners countered that the relaxation they received was granted exclusively because of their J&K domicile and was uniformly available to all applicants from the UT — unreserved and reserved alike. No relaxation of any kind was granted to them on the strength of their SC status. Para 11(xiv), they argued, was designed to address caste-based or category-specific relaxations, not domicile-based relaxations available to the general public within a geography.
The Union of India, represented by Mr. Vishal Sharma, Senior DSGI, relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Sajib Roy, (2025) SCC Online SC 1943, to urge that having availed relaxed physical standards, the petitioners were locked into the reserved quota.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Oswal began by examining the physical standard table in the Advertisement Notice. The notice prescribed no height or chest relaxation for SC candidates as a class. The reduced height of 165 cm and the reduced chest of 78 cm were available to Garhwalis, Kumaonis, Dogras, Marathas, and all residents of Assam, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu & Kashmir, without regard to category. An unreserved candidate from J&K faced the same 165 cm threshold as a SC candidate from J&K.
The court concluded that the relaxations availed by petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 in height, and by petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 in chest measurement, were “attributable exclusively to their domicile in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, and was entirely unrelated to their caste status.”
Reading Paras 11(xiii) and 11(xiv) together, the court held that Para 11(xiv) is triggered only where a candidate avails relaxed standards that are specifically reserved for SC, ST, OBC, or Ex-Servicemen categories. Where the relaxation is equally available outside those categories, invoking Para 11(xiv) to confine such candidates to the reserved quota is unsustainable. The official respondents had failed to show that any relaxation beyond what was available to general category J&K residents had been extended to the petitioners.
The court found support in the Gauhati High Court decision in Jitendra Thakur and others v. Union of India and others, WP(C) No. 1681/2021, decided on 7 June 2022, which had observed that relaxed eligibility standards linked to region apply uniformly to all SC/ST candidates and candidates from the relevant states, and that marks in the selection process have no nexus with such qualifying standards. The Delhi High Court in Hemant Pokhriyal v. Staff Selection Commission and others, 2021 SCC Online Del 4591, had similarly held that region-based height or chest relaxations available to all candidates from an area — regardless of category — cannot be used to restrict meritorious reserved-category candidates to the reserved quota.
The Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Sajib Roy was distinguished. In that case, the candidate had applied under the OBC category and availed an age relaxation directly tied to OBC status. In the present matter, no benefit flowed from caste. The domicile relaxation applied uniformly irrespective of category, making the precedent inapplicable.
The court characterised the official respondents’ distinction — treating petitioners differently from SC candidates who had not availed height or chest relaxation — as discriminatory and in direct contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court held that the petitioners’ SC status had operated as a “distinct disadvantage” to them, which is constitutionally impermissible.
Balancing Equities on Relief
Having found a grave injustice, the court turned to the question of remedy. Ordinarily, it noted, the appointment of less meritorious candidates would have to be set aside. However, by the time of the judgment, the candidates selected against those posts had already undergone training funded by the Union of India and had been in active service for approximately five years. Displacing them at this stage, the court found, would be harsh and iniquitous, particularly since no fault was attributable to them.
An earlier interim order dated 2 July 2021 had directed the official respondents not to operate the waiting list of four Constable (GD) Border Guarding District posts in BSF for J&K. An affidavit filed by the DIG (Adm) CRPF, Office of IGP Jammu Sector, Bantalab, Jammu, in compliance with a subsequent order dated 30 September 2024, disclosed that no vacancy pertaining to the Constable (GD) Examination 2018 existed as of the date of filing, and that such vacancies had been rolled forward into the Constable (GD) Examination 2021 cycle. Recruitment for 2021 and 2022–23 had since concluded.
The court drew on the Supreme Court’s direction in Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 11 SCC 352, where appointment orders were directed against existing vacancies and supernumerary posts were directed to be created where none existed.
Order
Justice Oswal disposed of the writ petition with two directions. First, the official respondents shall issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners if vacancies are available; if no vacancies are available, the official respondents shall create supernumerary posts for their adjustment, provided there is no other legal impediment. Second, the consequential order must be passed within three months from the date a copy of the judgment is furnished to the official respondents by the petitioners.
The judgment was pronounced on 17 July 2026 and marked as speaking and reportable.