As per case facts, the Staff Selection Commission advertised Constable (GD) posts in 2021. While SSF vacancies were all-India, CAPF vacancies were state/UT-wise. Candidates could apply from their origin or ... migration state, but claiming reservation required submitting domicile information for the chosen state. Petitioners, originally from Rajasthan, applied from other states under reserved categories but were rejected during document verification for failing to produce Domicile/Caste Certificates from those states. The question arose whether candidates applying from a 'State of migration' without providing supporting Domicile/Caste Certificates from that state, despite being originally from another state (Rajasthan), could be rejected. Finally, the Court held that the rejection was valid. It emphasized that candidates must exercise due diligence in providing domicile information, and any variation or lack of supporting documents for the claimed 'State of migration' would lead to cancellation. The court also rejected the argument of negative equality, stating that any illegality committed for others does not create a right for the petitioners, but directed the respondents to investigate allegations of other candidates joining without proper documents.