Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court at Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has quashed the cancellation of a petitioner’s appointment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force. The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner’s domicile certificate by the State authority, which formed the sole basis for rescinding the appointment offer, was carried out without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. In consequence, the Court declared that the cancellation order issued by the Border Security Force dated December 5, 2023, also stood quashed.

In a firm pronouncement, the Court directed that the BSF authority must proceed from the stage of the initial offer of appointment dated August 28, 2023, strictly in accordance with law. The Court clarified that the petitioner would not be entitled to any equity or right if found otherwise disqualified in law at any subsequent stage.

Also Read: S. 3 Employees’ Compensation Act | Death While Commuting To Work Covered Under Employment Injury | Supreme Court Clarifies ‘Notional Extension’ Doctrine Applies Even Beyond Factory Gates

The petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Border Security Force (BSF) under the recruitment process conducted in 2022. The petitioner participated in the recruitment based on a domicile certificate dated June 2, 2022, issued by the State authority. This certificate was annexed in the affidavit filed by the State authority on July 17, 2025.

Based on this domicile certificate, the petitioner was issued a provisional letter of appointment dated August 28, 2023. However, the appointment was subsequently cancelled by the BSF via communication dated December 5, 2023. The cancellation cited two principal grounds: the petitioner had passed matriculation from Bihar State, not West Bengal, and the domicile certificate had been cancelled by the issuing State authority.

The petitioner challenged the cancellation of the appointment in a writ petition. He sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw and forbear from giving effect to the cancellation order dated December 5, 2023.

Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, counsel submitted that property was purchased by the petitioner’s mother in 2002, and that his parents had been residing in West Bengal for more than fifteen years prior to the recruitment. Supporting documents, including educational certificates and evidence of the petitioner’s birthplace in West Bengal, were submitted as part of the writ petition.

It was argued that the cancellation of the domicile certificate by the State authority on November 17, 2023, had not been communicated to the petitioner, and he was unaware of it at the relevant time. As a result, he had no opportunity to challenge the said cancellation.

The counsel for BSF (respondent nos. 1 to 4) submitted that the petitioner had become aware of the cancellation of the domicile certificate upon receiving the BSF’s order of cancellation dated December 5, 2023. Supporting this, he cited a Right to Information (RTI) application filed by the petitioner seeking related information. The BSF maintained that they had cancelled the appointment based solely on the State authority’s communication that the domicile certificate stood cancelled as of November 17, 2023.

The State authority, represented by its counsel, submitted the second report filed in compliance with a previous court order dated June 23, 2025. Paragraph 15 of this report recorded that the domicile certificate was cancelled based on an enquiry by the Deputy Commissioner (Special Branch), Barrackpore, who could not trace the petitioner during verification. The report further stated: "The Petitioner was also not traced out in address given by him... therefore, it has become difficult for the SDO to consider the case of the Petitioner."

Four grounds were cited for cancellation:

1. No birth certificate from a government authority could be found.

2. The petitioner passed his secondary examination from the Bihar School Examination Board.

3. Neither the petitioner nor his family was located during the first enquiry; only family members were traced in the second enquiry.

4. The District Intelligence Branch (DIB) report was adverse to the petitioner.

The State authority concluded that the petitioner did not meet the domicile criteria and hence, the domicile certificate issued earlier was revoked and the cancellation was communicated to the BSF.

Justice Aniruddha Roy noted at the outset: "None of the affidavits/reports filed on behalf of the State authorities/respondent no. 6 shows that the cancellation of the Domicile Certificate of the petitioner was done upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner."

The Court acknowledged that the cancellation of a domicile certificate has significant civil consequences. Therefore: "A right of hearing was mandatorily required to be provided to the petitioner, which admittedly has not been provided."

It was recorded that as on August 28, 2023, the date of the offer of appointment, the domicile certificate was valid and in existence. The BSF had acted only on the subsequent cancellation communicated by the State authority: "The BSF authority merely proceeded on the communication of the State authority dated November 17, 2023."

The Court noted that the petitioner had not sought to challenge the cancellation of the domicile certificate in the writ petition. However, given the procedural irregularity, the Court held: "No opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before cancelling the said Domicile Certificate. The breach and violation of the principle of natural justice goes at and strikes the root of jurisdiction."

Invoking the doctrine of moulding of relief, the Court explained: "The principle of moulding of relief empowers this constitutional writ Court to adjust or reshape the remedies it can grant, even if the initial prayer is not fully suitable or has become inappropriate due to subsequent events."

In this context, the Court concluded: "Equity demands restoration of the said offer of appointment dated August 28, 2023 in favour of the petitioner."

Further, it was held: "The right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India has been guaranteed in favour of the petitioner read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

In light of its findings, the Court issued the following directions:

"The cancellation of the Domicile Certificate by the respondent no. 6 along with said communication dated November 17, 2023 communicating the cancellation of the Domicile Certificate to the BSF authority, so far as the petitioner is concerned stands set aside and quashed."

Accordingly, it directed: "The letter of cancellation of the offer of appointment dated December 5, 2023... also stands set aside and quashed."

Further steps were mandated as follows: "The BSF authority shall take all further steps, strictly in accordance with law, from the stage of the said offer of appointment dated August 28, 2023."

Also Read: Calcutta High Court Upholds Tax Addition In Bogus Capital Loss Case | Says Banking And Stock Channels Can’t Shield Sham Transactions

However, the Court added a caveat: "This order shall also not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner, in the event, the petitioner is found otherwise disqualified, in accordance with law, for being considered for the post at any stage subsequent to the said offer of appointment."

Finally, the Court instructed: "The BSF authority i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 4 are directed to take all necessary and consequential steps in terms of the said offer of appointment dated August 28, 2023... expeditiously but in accordance with law."

The writ petition was allowed without any order as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Shambhu Nath Ray, Advocate; Ms. Sharmistha Roychowdhury, Advocate; Ms. Munmun Das, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Soumak Bera, Advocate; Mr. Ayanabha Raha, Advocate, Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Learned Additional Government Pleader; Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Advocate; Ms. Raima Ganguly, Advocate; Mr. Tarak Karan, Advocate

Case Title: Ravi Kumar Ray v. Union of India & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: CHC-AS:1466

Case Number: W.P.A. 12860 of 2024

Bench: Justice Aniruddha Roy