The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.28465, 28467, 28470 & 28472 of 2025 Chetan Rajora …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dash, Advocate Union of India & Ors. -versus- …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Sr. Panel Counsel Mr.K. Panda, CGC Mr.D. Gochhayat, CGC Mr.S. Samantray, CGC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 01.12.2025 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Since the issue involved in the present batch of Writ Petitions is identical, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. It is the case of the Petitioners that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 24.11.2023 under Annexure-1 to fill up the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Petitioners made // 2 // their respective applications and faced the selection process. 4.1. It is further contended that in terms of the provision contained in Para- 3.3 of the advertisement, Petitioners along with their applications also submitted domicile certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Kalahandi
Decision
so obtained by them and enclosed to the Writ Petition. 4.2. It is contended that by accepting such domicile certificate issued in favour of the Petitioners, Petitioners were not only allowed to participate in the selection process, but also they were issued with offer of appointment vide order dtd.23.12.2024. Not only Petitioners were also allowed to join, but also undergo the training pursuant to the offer letter dtd.23.12.2024. However, while so continuing, Petitioners were not allowed to continue with the training, because of the impugned order passed on 04.08.2025, so communicated vide letter dtd.17.11.2025 under Annexure-6. 4.3. It is contended that subsequent to issuance of the offer letter dtd. 23.12.2024, in terms of the provisions contained under Para-3.3. of the advertisement, when clarification was sought for from the concerned Tahasildar, with regard to genuineness of the domicile certificates so produced by each of the Petitioners, concerned RI submitted a report that Petitioners are Page 2 of 7 // 3 // not resident of Bhawanipatna. Basing on such RI report, the offer of appointment so issued in favour of the Petitioners in the present batch of cases was cancelled vide the impugned communication dtd.17.11.2025, basing on the order passed on 04.08.2025 by Opposite Party No.4. It is contended that, since Petitioners were issued with the domicile certificate by the concerned Tahasildar, unless and until the same is set aside in accordance with law, basing on a subsequent report submitted by the concerned RI, such offer of appointment could not have been cancelled vide the impugned order. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that the order cancelling the appointment of the Petitioners vide order dtd.4.8.2025 requires interference of this Court and Petitioners be allowed to continue in their service, where they had joined. 5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with respective CGCs on the other hand contended that, pursuant to the advertisement issued under Annexure-1, Petitioners were allowed to participate in the selection process and offer of appointment was also issued to each of the Petitioners which is not disputed. However, after issuance of such offer of appointment, in terms of the provisions contained under Para-3.3. of the advertisement, when the domicile certificates submitted by the Petitioners were sent for verification to the Page 3 of 7 // 4 // concerned Tahasil, the Tahasildar when reported that Petitioners are not permanent residents residing at Bhawanipatna, such offer of appointment was cancelled vide the impugned order dtd.17.08.2025 under Annexure-6-Series, so communicated on 17.11.2025. 5.1. It is contended that since after being asked to verify the genuineness of the domicile certificate, the report came from the Tahasildar, Kalahandi-Opposite Party No.5 that the said certificates are not genuine one and Petitioners are not ordinarily residing at Bhawanipatna, the offer of appointment was cancelled vide the impugned order dtd.17.08.2025. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order of cancellation. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that pursuant to the advertisement issued on 24.11.2023 for recruitment to the post of Constable (G.D) in Central Armed Police Forces, Petitioners not only participated in the selection process, but also came out successful and were issued with the offer of appointment vide order dtd.23.12.2024. However, after being offered with such offer of appointment, in terms of para 3.3 of the advertisement the domicile certificate Page 4 of 7 // 5 // submitted by the Petitioners and issued by the Office of Tahasildar, Kalahandi-Opposite Party No.5, were sent for verification. It is not disputed that basing on the report submitted by the Tahasildar that Petitioners are not residing at Bhawanipatna, the impugned order has been passed cancelling the offer of appointment on 06.08.2025. 6.1. This Court finds that Petitioners were allowed to participate in the selection process basing on the documents submitted along with their application, which also includes the domicile certificate issued by the Tahasildar, Kalahandi. By accepting the documents so provided, Petitioners were allowed to participate in the selection process and on coming out successful they were issued with the offer of appointment vide order dtd.23.12.2024. 6.2. Though this Court is of the view that power of verification of such documents lies with the appointing authority in terms of the provisions contained under Para-3.3. of the advertisement, but it is the view of this Court that prior to submission of a report that Petitioners are not residing at Bhawanipatna, basing on the report of the concerned R.I, Opposite Party No.5 should have given an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Page 5 of 7 // 6 // 6.3. It is also the view of this Court that unless and until the domicile certified issued by the Tahasildar, Kalahandi-Opposite Party No.5 is cancelled in accordance with law, basing on the report submitted by the self- same Tahasildar benefit of the offer of appointment could not have been cancelled. Since in the present case basing on the report submitted by Opposite Party No.5, subsequent to the issuance of the Domicile Certificate in favour of the Petitioners, the offer of appointment has been cancelled, it is the view of this Court that the said action of the Opposite Party No.4 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.4. However, considering the power vested with the authority in terms of the Para-3.3. of the advertisement, Opposite Party No.5 is directed to cause a fresh verification with regard to the domicile certificates produced by the Petitioners from his office and after due verification and by following due procedure of law, further action can be taken. 6.5. Opposite Party No.5 is directed to do the needful within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order and by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. Cancellation of the offer of appointment so issued vide order dtd.04.08.2025 under Annexure-6, shall be subject to final outcome of the decision to be taken by Opposite Party No.5 as directed. Page 6 of 7 // 7 // 6.6. If the domicile certificate so issued in favour of the Petitioners are upheld, offer of appointment issued in favour of the Petitioners, will be automatically revived. Petitioners however are directed to appear before Opposite Party No.5 on or before on 12.12.2025. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State is also directed to provide a copy of this order before Opposite Party No.5 for compliance. 7. All the Writ Petitions stand disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected Writ Petitions. Free copy of this order be handed over to Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned AGA for compliance. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 09-Dec-2025 16:51:48 Page 7 of 7