SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has directed the Union Government to appoint four Scheduled Caste candidates who were denied selection to Constable (General Duty) posts in the BSF and Assam Rifles despite securing higher marks than candidates selected in the Open Merit category. The court ruled that physical relaxation in height and chest measurements granted to the petitioners because of their domicile in Jammu and Kashmir could not be treated as a relaxation availed on account of their Scheduled Caste status. It ordered that the petitioners be appointed against available vacancies and, if no vacancies exist, supernumerary posts be created for their adjustment, subject to there being no other legal impediment.
Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed the judgment in WP(C) No. 1279/2021, filed by Amit Kundal and others against the Union of India and other respondents. The judgment was reserved on June 30, 2026 and pronounced on July 17, 2026. The full judgment was uploaded the same day.
The court directed the official respondents to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners if vacancies are available. In the event that vacancies are not available, the respondents have been directed 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 the petitioners furnish a copy of the judgment to the official respondents.
The dispute arose from the recruitment process initiated through an Advertisement Notice dated July 21, 2018 for Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces, National Investigation Agency and Secretariat Security Force, besides Rifleman (General Duty) in the Assam Rifles. The selection process consisted of a Computer-Based Examination followed by the Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Standard Test and medical examination.
The petitioners—Amit Kundal, Sahil Kumar, Chetan Kumar and Ankesh Kumar—are permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir and belong to the Scheduled Caste category. After qualifying the written examination, they appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test and Physical Standard Test at BSF Camp Paloura, Jammu, where they were granted relaxation in physical standards applicable to candidates from Jammu and Kashmir.
The petitioners subsequently challenged the select list dated January 21, 2021, arguing that candidates who had secured fewer marks than them had been selected against Open Merit vacancies, while the petitioners, despite their superior merit, were excluded. They sought quashing of the selection of the lower-merit candidates and appointment against the Open Merit or Scheduled Caste vacancies.
The marks formed the central part of the dispute. For BSF Post Code-A, the cut-off for the unreserved category was 57.40899, while the four petitioners had secured 59.32587, 59.05198, 58.11991 and 59.28827 marks respectively. In Assam Rifles Post Code-F, the Open Merit cut-off was 58.02482. The petitioners argued that their superior marks should have enabled them to be considered against Open Merit vacancies.
The petitioners also pointed out that the final cut-off for the Scheduled Caste category was higher than the Open Merit cut-off. In the BSF Border Guarding District quota, the SC cut-off was 60.11553 against 57.40899 for Open Merit, while in Assam Rifles the corresponding figures were 60.32360 and 58.02482. According to the petitioners, this meant that reserved-category candidates with higher marks were effectively prevented from competing for Open Merit vacancies.
The respondents, however, maintained that the petitioners had applied under the SC category and had availed themselves of relaxation in height and chest measurements. They relied on Paragraph 11(xiv) of the recruitment notice, under which SC, ST, OBC and Ex-Servicemen candidates qualifying on the basis of relaxed standards are to be counted against reserved vacancies. The respondents argued that the petitioners therefore could not subsequently migrate to Open Merit vacancies.
The petitioners’ counsel, Mr Ankur Sharma, assisted by Ms Himani Khajuria, argued that the physical relaxation had nothing to do with their SC status. It was available to candidates from Jammu and Kashmir irrespective of whether they belonged to a reserved or unreserved category. Therefore, they argued, the relaxation could not be treated as a category-specific concession preventing their consideration against Open Merit vacancies.
Appearing for the official respondents, Mr Vishal Sharma, DSGI, assisted by Mr Karan Sharma, CGSC, argued that the petitioners had applied as SC candidates and had accepted physical relaxations. He contended that Paragraph 11(xiv) barred their adjustment against unreserved vacancies. He also relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India v. Sajib Roy, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943.
Justice Oswal, however, found a crucial distinction between a relaxation available because of a candidate’s caste category and one available because of domicile or region.
The recruitment notice prescribed a minimum height of 170 cm for male candidates in the General, SC and OBC categories, but reduced the requirement to 165 cm for candidates belonging to specified categories, including Dogras and candidates residing in Jammu and Kashmir. Similarly, the prescribed chest measurement of 80 cm unexpanded with five cm expansion for General, SC and OBC male candidates was reduced to 78 cm unexpanded with five cm expansion for male candidates from Jammu and Kashmir.
The court noted that there was no relaxation in height or chest measurement available merely because a candidate belonged to the Scheduled Caste category. The relaxation received by the petitioners was instead linked to their status as residents of 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 held that a conjoint reading of Paragraphs 11(xiii) and 11(xiv) of the recruitment notice established that reserved-category candidates selected on their own merit, without availing themselves of standards relaxed exclusively for their reserved category, had to 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),” the court observed. It consequently held that the authorities could not rely on Paragraph 11(xiv) merely because the petitioners had applied under the SC category.
The High Court went further and found that the manner in which the petitioners had been treated had resulted in discrimination.
“The petitioners have not been granted the benefit of relaxation in height and chest measurements on account of their SC category status,” the court said. “As such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners’ SC status has resulted in a distinct disadvantage to them.” It held that the distinction drawn by the official respondents was discriminatory and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
In reaching its conclusion, the High Court also relied on judgments of the Gauhati and Delhi High Courts. In Jitendra Thakur and others v. Union of India and others, the Gauhati High Court had held that relaxed physical standards such as minimum height and chest measurements are qualifying standards and that final ranking is determined by marks obtained in the tests rather than by the relaxed physical standard.
The JK High Court also referred to the Delhi High Court judgment in Hemant Pokhriyal v. Staff Selection Commission and others, in which it was held that relaxation in height or chest available to candidates from a particular region, whether reserved or unreserved, cannot be used to categorise such candidates exclusively as SC, ST or OBC candidates while ignoring their merit among other categories.
Justice Oswal rejected the respondents’ reliance on Sajib Roy, holding that the Supreme Court precedent was distinguishable. In that case, the candidate had used an age relaxation directly linked to OBC status. In the present case, the petitioners had received no concession because of their SC status; their relaxation was based on domicile and was uniformly available irrespective of category.
The court nevertheless stopped short of cancelling the appointments of the lower-merit candidates already serving in the forces. It noted that the Union Government had spent substantial public funds on their training and that they had remained in active service for about five years.
“Ordinarily, the appointment of candidates possessing lower merit must be set aside,” the court observed. But it added that removing the selected candidates at this late stage “would be harsh and iniquitous, particularly since no fault can be attributed to them.”
The case had remained subject to interim orders during the pendency of the litigation. On July 2, 2021, the High Court directed the authorities not to operate the waiting list against four Constable (GD) posts for Border Guarding Districts in the BSF in Jammu and Kashmir. Subsequently, on September 30, 2024, the authorities were directed to disclose the vacancies available and whether the petitioners could be accommodated against them.
The respondents later informed the court that no vacancy from the 2018 Constable (GD) examination remained available and that the vacancies had been forwarded to the subsequent recruitment process. The 2021 and 2022-23 recruitment processes had also been concluded.
The High Court consequently invoked the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 11 SCC 352, under which non-selected candidates can be appointed against existing vacancies and, where necessary, supernumerary posts can be created for their adjustment.
Balancing the competing equities, Justice Oswal directed the respondents to appoint the four petitioners against available vacancies and, if vacancies are unavailable, create supernumerary posts for their adjustment, subject to there being no other legal impediment. The authorities have been given three months to pass the consequential order after receiving a copy of the judgment from the petitioners.
The judgment was pronounced at Jammu on July 17, 2026. The petition was disposed of with the above directions and the judgment was marked both speaking and reportable.
