Calcutta High Court: The petitioner challenged the cancellation of his provisional appointment to the post of Constable in the Border Security Force (‘BSF’), which was withdrawn following the cancellation of his domicile certificate by the State Authority. A Single Judge Bench of Aniruddha Roy, J., quashed both the cancellation of the domicile certificate and the appointment offer, holding that the absence of a hearing before cancelling the domicile certificate violated principles of natural justice and equity. The Court ordered the restoration of the petitioner’s appointment offer.
Background:
The petitioner applied for recruitment to the BSF Constable (GD) post in 2022 on the basis of domicile certificate issued by the State authority on 02-06-2022. Based on this, he was provisionally appointed on 28-08-2023. However, on 05-12-2023, the BSF authority cancelled his appointment after receiving a communication from the State authority dated 17-11-2023 stating that his domicile certificate had been revoked.
The petitioner contended that his parents had been residing and domiciled in West Bengal since 2002, supported by property documents, birth-related records, and educational certificates from the local school at West Bengal. He asserted that the domicile certificate was cancelled without any communication or opportunity of hearing, and that he was not aware of its cancellation by the State authority until the appointment was cancelled.
The State supported its decision, citing a police enquiry that failed to trace the petitioner at his address, absence of birth certificate from any Government authority, his Bihar Board Matriculation and other enquiry reports justified cancellation of the certificate. It was further alleged that the second report filed by the State authority indicated that, during the fact-finding enquiry at the relevant point of time, it was discovered that the petitioner did not fulfil the required criterion for being domiciled in West Bengal.
The BSF authority submitted that, since the domicile certificate issued by the State had been validly cancelled, any action taken on the basis of that certificate should also be cancelled. Accordingly, the BSF authority cancelled the offer of appointment issued in favour of the petitioner.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that none of the affidavits/reports filed on behalf of the State authorities showed that the cancellation of the domicile certificate of the petitioner was done upon granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The Court emphasised that the cancellation of the certificate would have been civil and evil consequences, as such a right of hearing was mandatorily required to be provided to the petitioner, which admittedly had not been provided.
The Court noted that on 28-08-2023, when the letter for offer of appointment was issued in favour of the petitioner, the domicile certificate was valid and in existence. The Court further pointed out that the letter of offer of appointment was issued, though may be provisional and subject to further enquiries, but the cancellation of the said offer of appointment should have also been done judiciously. The Court observed that no opportunity of hearing had been granted to the petitioner before cancelling the domicile certificate, and that the breach and violation of the principle of natural justice went to and struck at the root of jurisdiction.
The Court highlighted that the power of moulding of relief allowed a writ Court to go beyond the strict wording of the initial prayers made before it and crafted a remedy that best served the interests of justice, fairness and specific facts of the case. The Court noted that it was evident from the record that the domicile certificate had been cancelled by the State authority in clear breach and violation of the principle of natural justice. The Court further remarked that equity demanded restoration of the offer of appointment dated 28-08-2023 in favour of the petitioner, since, after all, the right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution had been guaranteed in favour of the petitioner, read with Article 21.
The Court, while setting aside and quashing the cancellation of the domicile certificate and offer of appointment, directed the BSF authority to proceed strictly in accordance with law from the stage of the offer. The Court further clarified that the order will not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner if found otherwise disqualified under law at any subsequent stage.
[Ravi Kumar Ray v. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine Cal 6528, decided on 04-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Shambhu Nath Ray, Advocate, Sharmistha Roychowdhury, Advocate, Munmun Das, Advocate
For the Respondents: Soumak Bera, Advocate, Ayanabha Raha, Advocate, Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Ld. AGP, Dipanjan Datta, Advocate, Raima Ganguly, Advocate, Tarak Karan, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
