Calcutta High Court Quashes Cancellation Of BSF Aspirant's Domicile Certificate, Says No Hearing Was Granted Before Cancellation

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Aniruddha Roy has set aside an order passed by the State Authority cancelling the Domicile Certificate of the petitioner, on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner before taking such a decision, which entailed civil and adverse consequences. Since the decision to cancel the certificate was procedurally flawed, the cancellation of the BSF's offer of appointment based on such cancellation of the Domicile Certificate was also quashed.

The Petitioner was an aspirant for the post of Constable (GD) in BSF-2022 and participated in the selection process based on a Domicile Certificate which was issued by the State Authority. He was provisionally appointed on August 28th 2023. However, his appointment was later cancelled on the ground that the Petitioner had passed matriculation from Bihar, not from the State as claimed in the Certificate. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking setting aside of the cancellation order and restraining its enforcement.

The Petitioner submitted that the properties were purchased in or around 2002 and since then more than fifteen years before the petitioner applied in the selection process, the parents of the petitioner are residing and domiciled in West Bengal.

It was further submitted that cancellation of the Domicile Certificate by the State authority on November 17, 2023 was never communicated to the petitioner and the petitioner was not aware of that at the relevant point of time, as such the petitioner was not in a position to challenge the said cancellation of the Domicile Certificate by the State authority.

Per contra, the Respondent submitted that after becoming aware of the Domicile Certificate's cancellation, the petition sought the related information under RTI Act. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that he was not aware of the cancellation. Since the certificate was validly cancelled, any action taken based on it must also be annulled.

The court noted that none of the affidavits or reports filed by the State indicate that an opportunity of being heard was given to the Petitioner before cancelling his Domicile Certificate. Since such cancellation entails civil and adverse consequences, the Petitioner was entitled to be heard.

It held that the principle of moulding reliefs empowers the constitutional courts to tailor the reliefs to specific facts and equities of a case when original reliefs claimed in the petition become inapplicable due to later developments.

It concluded that in the present case, since an offer of appointment was issued before the cancellation of the Domicile Certificate and the Certificate was admittedly cancelled without affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, equity and justice demands restoration of the Appointment of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the cancellation of the Domicile Certificate and subsequent communication as well as the cancellation of offer of appointment by BSF based on such certificate's cancellation are set aside and quashed.

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

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

Judgment Date: 04/08/2025

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

For respondent nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Soumak Bera, Advocate Mr. Ayanabha Raha, Advocate

For State respondent : Mr. Ashim Kumar Ganguly, Ld. AGP Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Advocate Ms. Raima Ganguly, Advocate Mr. Tarak Karan, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order