In Brief
The Supreme Court addressed recruitment to Central Armed Police Forces where the Staff Selection Commission had earmarked vacancies by service, state, and border district category. The Court held that candidates domiciled in one border district subcategory cannot claim consideration for vacancies earmarked for another border district subcategory, despite both being border districts. It also held that when candidates explicitly indicate preference for a single service and are instructed that the choice is final, they cannot later demand consideration for other services in which they did not meet the cut-off mark, merely because candidates preferring multiple services obtained those positions. The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's orders granting relief.">
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.