Case Background
This case arose from a recruitment drive by the Border Security Force (BSF) for the post of Constable (Tradesmen) in 2016. According to the petitioners, 561 vacancies were published on the official website, inviting suitable candidates to apply, with 20.04.2016 fixed as the last date for submission of applications.
The petitioners, all aspiring Constable (Tradesmen) candidates from different districts in Bihar, applied for these posts. They were issued admit cards and participated in the recruitment process conducted by the BSF.
They claimed to have successfully cleared the written examination and the physical test and also to have appeared in the medical examination. After completing all these stages, they were waiting for publication of the final result and issue of call letters for appointment.
However, instead of a final select list, they received letters dated 04.01.2017 and 13.01.2017, issued by the Assistant Commandant, BSF North Bengal Frontier (respondent no. 4). Through these letters, the BSF informed that the entire recruitment process for the 2016 Constable (Tradesmen) posts had been cancelled due to discovery of certain illegalities/irregularities.
Feeling aggrieved, the candidates approached the Patna High Court under its civil writ jurisdiction in 2017. They sought to quash the cancellation and to compel the BSF to complete the recruitment and appoint them if successful.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The writ petition was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman of the Patna High Court. Both sides were represented: the petitioners by their counsel and the Union of India and BSF by the Central Government Counsel.
The petitioners prayed for three main reliefs. First, they asked for a writ of certiorari or any appropriate writ to quash the BSF letters dated 04.01.2017 and 13.01.2017, which communicated cancellation of the recruitment process for Constable (Tradesmen) 2016. These letters were referred to through different letter numbers addressed to various candidates.
Second, they sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to conclude the recruitment process in accordance with law for the same Constable (Tradesmen) vacancies. Third, they sought consequential or any other appropriate orders in their favour.
Counsel for the petitioners argued that they had already gone through all stages of the selection process—written, physical, and medical tests—and were awaiting final results. They challenged the sudden cancellation of the entire recruitment process on the ground of alleged illegalities, without any specific allegation against them individually.
The petitioners’ counsel also informed the Patna High Court that similar cancellations had been challenged before other High Courts across the country, because this recruitment was conducted on an all-India basis. In particular, they referred to:
R/Special Civil Application No. 1895 of 2017 before the Gujarat High Court (Pal Vikram Rameshbhai & others v. Chairman – Recruitment Board & others), and WP(C) No. 1322 of 2017 before the Gauhati High Court (Mridul Ray and Others v. The Union of India & Others).
It was submitted that in view of the decisions already rendered by these High Courts, the Patna High Court might dispose of the present case on similar lines and extend the same relief to these petitioners.
On behalf of the Union of India and BSF, a counter affidavit had been filed by the Deputy Inspector General/PSO, BSF. The BSF’s stand was clearly explained there and was relied on by their counsel during submissions.
According to the BSF, information regarding malpractice and irregularities in the recruitment process came to the notice of the Headquarters, Director General, BSF (HQ DG BSF). After this, the role of all Recruitment Agencies involved in the process was scrutinised.
Upon such scrutiny, the competent authority directed all Recruitment Agencies to terminate the entire recruitment process with immediate effect due to the detected irregularities and malpractices. They were also directed to stop any further action under that recruitment and to issue letters to candidates who had been found eligible in the Detailed Medical Examination, informing them about the cancellation.
The BSF made it clear that all candidates, including these petitioners, were duly informed by Frontier HQ BSF, North Bengal, that the entire recruitment process for 561 Constable (Tradesmen) posts was terminated due to irregularities and malpractice.
The Patna High Court examined these facts. The Court noted that the BSF, which had initiated the recruitment, itself conducted an inquiry and found malpractice or irregularities in the selection process. The decision taken by BSF was to terminate the recruitment “simpliciter”.
The Court stressed that this termination was general and not targeted at any particular candidate. There was no specific individual allegation against any of the petitioners. It was a policy-level decision to cancel the entire process, not to punish particular applicants.
On that basis, the Court stated that, since the recruitment was “terminated simplicitor”, without personal allegations, it was not inclined to interfere in writ jurisdiction. The Court declined to direct the BSF to continue or complete the tainted recruitment process.
However, the Court did not stop at a simple dismissal. It carefully considered how similar matters had been decided by other High Courts, especially the Gujarat High Court and the Gauhati High Court.
The Patna High Court referred to the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in R/Special Civil Application No. 1895 of 2017 (Pal Vikram Rameshbhai & others v. Chairman – Recruitment Board & others). Paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 of that judgment were quoted in detail.
In those paragraphs, the Gujarat High Court held that the case on facts did not require any direction to segregate tainted from non-tainted candidates. It found no ground to interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution or to direct the authorities to consider the petitioner for appointment.
At the same time, the Gujarat High Court, taking into account the young age of the candidate and the fact that the BSF inquiry and CBI investigation up to that point did not show illegality at the candidate’s examination centre, left it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the BSF. It further observed that, if any vacancies were still available, the BSF could consider the case in accordance with law and inform the petitioner of the outcome.
The Patna High Court then referred to the decision of the Gauhati High Court in WP(C) No. 1322 of 2017 (Mridul Ray and Others v. The Union of India & Others). In paragraphs 8 to 12 of that judgment, the Gauhati High Court recorded that:
The cancellation of the selection had been challenged in different High Courts as it was an all-India level process. Writ petitions were dismissed by the Calcutta High Court and the Gujarat High Court. The Gujarat High Court had noted that irregularities took place through the agency M/s C.S. Datamation, New Delhi, which conducted the written examination.
On these materials, the Gauhati High Court found no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the act of cancelling the selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.05.2016. It therefore found no merit in the writ petition. But, following the relief pattern of the Gujarat High Court, it granted liberty to the petitioners to file individual applications before the concerned respondent (respondent no. 4 there), and directed that necessary orders be passed on such applications.
After carefully reading these judgments, the Patna High Court concluded that the petitioners before it deserved equal treatment to candidates in other States who had participated in the same national recruitment.
Accordingly, while dismissing the writ petition and refusing to interfere with the BSF’s decision to terminate the recruitment, the Court granted a specific liberty. It allowed the petitioners to file individual applications before respondent no. 4, i.e., the Assistant Commandant, Ministry, Border Security Force, North Bengal, Frontier HQ BSF North Bengal.
The Court fixed a clear time limit: such individual applications must be filed within 30 days from the date of the judgment (22.07.2025). The Court also directed respondent no. 4 to pass a “reasoned and speaking order” on these applications.
This means the BSF authority must not reject or accept the applications mechanically but must record proper reasons in writing, showing application of mind.
The Court further clarified that several interlocutory applications (I.A. Nos. 1 to 8 of 2025) filed in this case had not been pressed by the petitioners and were therefore dismissed as not pressed.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision is important for all candidates who took part in the BSF Constable (Tradesmen) 2016 recruitment, especially those from Bihar. It confirms that when serious malpractice or irregularity is found in a recruitment, the authority can cancel the entire process, even if some individual candidates may be innocent.
At the same time, the Patna High Court has ensured that candidates are not left totally without a remedy. By following the approach of the Gujarat and Gauhati High Courts, it has allowed each candidate to make an individual representation to the BSF.
In practical terms, this means that while the Court will not restore the cancelled 2016 recruitment or direct appointments, candidates can still request special consideration from the BSF. The BSF is bound to examine such requests and pass a reasoned order.
This judgment also brings uniformity across States. Since the same recruitment was challenged before multiple High Courts, the Patna High Court has aligned its approach with the Gujarat and Gauhati High Courts, so that similarly placed candidates across India are treated in a similar manner.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Can the Patna High Court interfere with the BSF’s decision to cancel the entire 2016 Constable (Tradesmen) recruitment due to detected irregularities and malpractices, when the termination is general and not based on specific allegations against individual candidates?
Answer: No. The Court held that since the BSF terminated the recruitment “simpliciter” after its own inquiry into malpractice/irregularities, and without any specific allegations against particular candidates, there was no ground to interfere in writ jurisdiction. - Issue: Are affected candidates completely without remedy after such cancellation?
Answer: No. Following the approach of the Gujarat and Gauhati High Courts, the Patna High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file individual applications before the concerned BSF authority within 30 days. The authority must then pass a reasoned and speaking order on each application.
Cases Cited by the Court
- R/Special Civil Application No. 1895 of 2017, Pal Vikram Rameshbhai & 2 other(s) v. Chairman – Recruitment Board & 2 other(s), Gujarat High Court (paragraphs 26, 27 and 28 quoted).
- WP(C) No. 1322 of 2017, Mridul Ray and Others v. The Union of India & Others, Gauhati High Court (paragraphs 8 to 12 quoted).
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3997 of 2017
Case Title: Chhathu Ram and Ors v. The Union of India & Ors
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Anshuman
Citation: 2025(3) PLJR 849
Advocates:
For the petitioners: Mr. Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the respondents (Union of India/BSF): Mr. Alok Kumar, Central Government Counsel (CGC)
Nature of the Case: Writ petition (civil) challenging cancellation of a BSF recruitment process for Constable (Tradesmen) and seeking completion of recruitment.
Date of Judgment: 22.07.2025
Link to Judgment: Patna High Court Judgment in CWJC No. 3997 of 2017
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
