Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 704
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5233 OF 2025
MOHIT KUMAR …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5234 OF 2025
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
KIRAN PRAJAPATI …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA J.
1. These appeals, arising out of orders passed by the High Court of
1 2
Judicature at Allahabad on separate writ petitions with differing
outcomes but concerning the same recruitment process, raise a
common question of law.
F ACTS IN C IVIL A PPEAL 5233 OF 2025
2. Respondent no.3/Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion
3 th
Board issued a notification on 24 February 2021 for direct
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.05.15
17:30:29 IST
Reason:
1
High Court
2
WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2022 and WRIT - A No. – 18987 of 2022
3
UPPRPB
1
recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police and Platoon
4
Commander, PAC and Fire Officer, for the year 2020-2021 . The
5 th
appellant-Mohit Kumar , on 20 April 2021, applied for the post of
Sub-Inspector, Civil Police as well as for Platoon Commander and was
th
thereafter called for examination, which was held on 17 May 2022.
3. Pursuant to the examinations conducted by UPPRPB, Mohit scored
313.84 marks. A list of non-selected candidates came to be published,
which featured Mohit’s registration number at serial number 11108.
st
Aggrieved thereby, Mohit made a representation to UPPRPB on 21
6
July 2022. Receiving no response, Mohit moved a writ petition before
the High Court, praying that his representation be considered. The
th
High Court, on 4 August 2022, directed the Superintendent of Police,
UPPRPB, to consider the representation and pass a reasoned order
thereon within 4 weeks.
7 th
4. Respondent no. 4 , by its speaking order dated 15 September 2022,
rejected Mohit’s representation on the ground that he did not submit
8
OBC certificate in the format prescribed at the time of initial
recruitment release and, thus, he was considered in the general
category instead of the OBC category. The cut-off marks for the
general category were 316.11, whereas for the OBC category it was
4
Recruitment Notification
5
Mohit
6
WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2022
7
Additional Secretary, UPPRPB
8
Other Backward Class
2
305.542. The order also stated that as per Mohit’s own case, at the
time of application, he had mentioned the certificate issued by the
Central Government instead of the State Government.
9
5. Mohit yet again approached the High Court by way of a writ petition ,
challenging the order rejecting his representation. The High Court, by
nd
its judgment and order dated 22 March 2023, dismissed the writ
petition while holding that the order impugned in the petition did not
call for interference. The order of the High Court rejecting Mohit’s writ
petition has been impugned in the lead appeal.
F ACTS IN C IVIL A PPEAL 5234 OF 2025
6. UPPRPB, by the same notification as referred to in the lead appeal,
notified the recruitment for posts of sub-inspector (SI) Civil Police,
Platoon Commander and PAC and Fire Fighting Second Officer for the
10
year 2020-2021. The sole respondent-Kiran Prajapati applied for the
th
post of sub-inspector (SI) Civil Police on 8 April 2021, in the OBC
category. Similar to the lead appeal, Kiran appeared for the
examination and cleared the same by scoring 287 marks. Pertinently,
the cut-off marks for the general category and the OBC category were
296.597 and 285.92. However, after verification of documents and
noticing that the OBC certificate was not submitted in the prescribed
9
WRIT - A No. – 18987 of 2022
10
Kiran
3
format by Kiran, UPPRPB did not place her in the select list. Against
this rejection, Kiran addressed a representation to UPPRPB.
11
7. Receiving no response, Kiran filed a writ petition before the High
Court seeking a direction for acceptance of the OBC Certificate
submitted by her. A single judge of the High Court allowed the writ
th
petition vide order dated 27 March 2023 and directed UPPRPB to
accept the OBC certificate submitted by Kiran and to process her
application further. Against the order of the single judge, UPPRPB
12
preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By
th
an order dated 25 August 2023, the High Court dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the order of the single judge.
8. The appellants in the connected appeal impugn this order of the High
Court rejecting their appeal.
S UBMISSIONS FOR THE S TATE OF U TTAR P RADESH
9. Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned counsel appearing for the State and the
UPPRPB contended that the requirement prescribed by UPPRPB under
the recruitment notification/ release and the consequent rejection of
the candidature of Mohit and Kiran by UPPRPB was valid. She further
urged that:
11
Writ Petition A No. 5245 of 2023
12
Special Appeal Defective No. 562 of 2023
4
i. The recruitment conducted by UPPRPB was under the Uttar
Pradesh Sub-inspector and Inspector (Civic Police) Service
13
(Amended) Rules, 2015 . Further, the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services (Reservation for Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and
14
Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 provides for reservation for
OBCs in the state of Uttar Pradesh. A Government Order dated
th 15
17 December, 2014 issued under the 1994 Act proscribed
OBC reservation for persons having gross annual income of Rs. 8
lakh or above or possessing wealth above the exempted limit
under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
ii. The advertisement stated that 2437 posts were reserved for OBC
candidates and laid down the eligibility norm in clause 5.4(4) of
the advertisement, which reads as under:
5.4(4) If the candidates belonging to other backward class
category do not submit the certificate in the prescribed
format-I/ within prescribed period or if they submit the
certificate of Other Backward Class category valid for the
services of Government of India, they will be treated as
candidates of unreserved category.
(emphasis supplied)
iii. Both Mohit and Kiran submitted their OBC (NCL) caste certificate
in the format prescribed for appointments to the Central
13
2015 Rules
14
1994 Act
15
G.O. No.13/22/16/92/TC-iii-Ka-2/2014
5
Government, and not the one prescribed for the State
Government, as mandated by clause 5.4(4).
iv. Since Mohit and Kiran were considered in the unreserved
category and secured marks less than the required cut-off
marks, they were not selected.
v. Judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court in
16
Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P. was relied upon which held
that there is no repugnancy between the financial criteria fixed
by the Union and the State Governments for the purpose of
identification of creamy layer.
vi. The object and rationale of the criteria in clause 5.4(4) is to
ensure compliance of or ascertainment of creamy layer, which is
redefined by the State Government and the Central Government
from time to time. While the creamy layer criteria may be
congruent at a given point of time, it is always subject to
change. In view of the subjective nature, it is essential that all
the candidates submit proof that they do not fall within the
exclusionary zone set out by the State Government. In the
absence thereof, the State machinery would be burdened with
the inquiry of individual candidates who submit a caste
certificate for Central Government and would have to ascertain
16
2013 SCC OnLine All 1286
6
whether they also qualify as OBC-NCL under the rules of the
State Government.
vii. The format prescribed in ‘Format-I’ of the recruitment
notification categorically requires that the gross annual income
of the candidate’s parents for a continuous period of three years
is not above Rupees eight lakh and that he/she does not possess
wealth above the exemption limit, as prescribed in the Wealth
Tax Act 1957. This prescription finds no place in the caste
certificate prescribed for jobs under the Central Government.
viii. The Central Government refers to ‘Department of Personnel and
th
Training’s O.M. No.36012/22/93 Estt (SCT) dated 8 September,
1993 or the latest notification of Government of India modified
th
vide O.M. No.36033/3/2004 Estt(Res.) dated 9 March, 2004
and further modified vide O.M. No. 36033/3/2004-Estt.(Res)
th
dated 14 February, 2008 or the latest notification of the
Government of India, whereas, the format prescribed by the
th
State Government is as per the Government Order dated 17
December, 2014.
ix. The decisions relied upon by Mohit and Kiran are distinguishable
on facts since the candidates in those cases were already
appointed under the OBC category as Constables and sought
appointment in the same category for the posts under the
7
present recruitment notification. Thus, in those cases, the caste
category already stood verified by UPPRPB.
17
x. The decision in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan
was cited for the proposition that if the rules do not provide,
relaxation is not permitted.
xi. The impugned judgment dismissing Mohit’s writ petition rightly
considered the ratio of this Court’s decision in State of T.N. v.
18
G. Hemalathaa .
xii. Under the said notification, there remained no vacancies after
publication of the final selection result. However, after the final
result, 122 posts eventually remained unfilled either due to
cancellation of candidature or death or absence/disqualification
in medical examination or expulsion. Under the 2015 Rules, the
vacant posts were required to be carried forward to the next
selection. Consequently, under the recruitment notification, the
122 OBC posts that remained unfilled were carried forward for
the selection year of 2023-24 and the process of publishing the
notification is in progress.
17
(2011) 12 SCC 85
18
(2020) 19 SCC 430
8
S UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF M OHIT AND K IRAN
10. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, learned senior counsel appearing for Mohit,
submitted that the OBC certificate submitted by Mohit ought to have
been accepted for/on the following reasons/grounds:
i. OBC certificate for participating in recruitment processes initiated
by both the Central Government and the State Government, is
issued by the Tehsildar.
ii. Mohit comes from a poor family and his entire hard work would
be drained for want of a certificate in a particular format.
iii. Mohit having secured 313.684 marks which is in excess of the
cut-off that was prescribed for OBC candidates, i.e., 305.542
marks, merit has been overlooked much to his detriment and
prejudice.
iv. Mohit belongs to Ahir community, which is recognized as
backward class in the State of Uttar Pradesh and this is
categorically reflected from the certificate submitted by him.
v. The decision of this court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee
19
& Ors. was cited for highlighting that every infraction of rule
may not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
vi. Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public Service
20
Commission was cited for the proposition that in case of any
19
(2005) 9 SCC 779
9
doubt as to qualification of any candidate, the candidate could
have been called upon to produce the required certificate.
vii. This Court’s decisions in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi
21
Subordinate Services Selections Board and Anr. and Karn
22
Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. were
cited for reminding us that the object of providing reservations
to members of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
communities is to remove inequalities in employment and
provide a level playing field for those belonging to educationally
and socially backward classes of society; hence, it would be
unreasonable to be too technical in one’s approach and throw
asunder the object sought to be achieved by reservations.
11. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, learned counsel for Kiran, adopted the submissions
of Mr. Kaushik.
T HE I SSUE
12. The issue that arises for consideration is, whether UPPRPB was bound
to accept the OBC certificates submitted by Mohit and Kiran which,
admittedly, were not in the format prescribed in the Recruitment
Notification.
20
(2017) 11 SCC 276
21
(2016) 4 SCC 754
22
(2024) 2 SCC 588
10
13. We may initiate our discussion by first referring to this Court’s decision
in Registrar General, Calcutta High Court v. Shrinivas Prasad
23
Shah and Ors . The question that was raised is whether, the West
st
Bengal Public Service Commission was justified in considering the 1
respondent as a general candidate for recruitment in connection with a
judicial service examination, instead of his claim of being a member of
the Scheduled Tribe community. The advertisement stipulated that in
order to obtain the benefit of reservation, the requisite certificate had
to be issued by the competent authority as specified in the stated
enactment and SCs/STs Welfare Department Order No. 261-
th
TW/EC/MR-103/94 dated 6 April, 1995. Instead of producing a
st
certificate issued by the competent authority, the 1 respondent
produced a certificate issued by the Director of the Backward Classes
Welfare Department certifying him as a member of the Scheduled
Tribe community; hence, such certificate was ignored and he was
st
considered to be a general candidate. The 1 respondent was
fortunate enough to succeed in the two tiers before the High Court at
Calcutta, which directed the PSC to consider him as a ST candidate,
fortune deserted him before this Court. It was held thus:
“ 15. We find no error in the decision taken by the Commission in not
entertaining the respondent’s application as a ST candidate since no
certificate was produced from the competent authority, as provided
under the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Identification) Act, 1994. The information to the candidates
23
(2013) 12 SCC 364
11
specifically stated that the candidates claiming to be SC/ST/BC must
have a certificate from a competent authority specified in the West
Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act,
1994. No such certificate was produced from that competent authority
by the respondent. Consequently, in the absence of the requisite
certificate, the Commission was justified in treating him as a general
category candidate. The first time the respondent produced the
certificate from the competent authority was only when he appeared in
the examination held on 30-7-2010, by that time he had obtained a
certificate from the competent authority on 22-9-2009. Admittedly, at
the time when the 2007 examination was held no such certificate was
produced from the competent authority along with the application.
Consequently, the respondent was treated as a general category
candidate and hence he could not get appointment as judicial officer in
the examination held in the year 2007.
16. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the specific
legislation passed by the West Bengal State Legislative Assembly i.e.
the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Identification) Act, 1994, and the specific stipulation in the
notification issued to the candidates, Guideline 10 of para 13 of
Madhuri Patil v. Commissioner, Tribal Development [(1994) 6 SCC
241] is inapplicable, particularly to the facts of this case. The Act does
not recognise the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal as a
competent authority to issue the certificate. Therefore, the
Commission was justified in not placing reliance on the certificate
issued by the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal. ... ”.
(italics in original)
14. What follows from the above decision is that irrespective of whether an
aspirant for public employment belongs to a particular community like
SC/ST/OBC, the status claimed by him for being accorded the benefit
of reservation is per se not decisive. Such status has to be certified by
the competent authority upon following due process and identification
that the aspirant is what he claims to be. In Shrinivas Prasad Shah
(supra), the requirement of production of a certificate from the
competent authority was held to be mandatory in view of a statutory
mandate. Although there is no such statutory mandate in the facts of
12
the present case, the requirement in question is no less mandatory
and must be scrupulously followed. Once a process of recruitment is
set in motion, all aspirants are entitled in law to equal treatment.
There cannot be different yardsticks for different sets of aspirants.
Non-compliance with the terms of the advertisement/notification is
bound to trigger adverse consequences of rejection of the aspirant’s
claimed status by the selecting body/appointing authority, should he
choose not to adhere to the same. Having regard thereto, the selecting
body/appointing authority would be justified in not entertaining the
application of an aspirant as a member of the community for whom
reservations are permissible.
15. The proposition of law as settled by the above decision does not
appear to have been doubted in any subsequent decision and we do
hereby endorse the same.
16. Let us now examine whether in the light of the settled law in this
behalf, Mohit and Kiran deserve any relief.
17. Clause 5.4(4) of the recruitment notification has been noticed above.
It clearly warns what the consequence would be should an aspirant fail
to submit the requisite certificate in Format–I. Admittedly, the
certificates submitted by Mohit and Kiran do not align with Format-I.
Viewed thus, we need not even carry the discussion forward to
ascertain whether Mohit and Kiran have been unfairly treated.
13
However, since it has been assiduously argued by Mr. Kaushik that
Mohit after all belongs to the OBC category, and Mr. Kumar Gaurav
appearing for Kiran has supported him, we consider it proper to deal
with such argument too.
18. Here, the Government of Uttar Pradesh is the appointing authority.
The appointments would follow, once UPPRPB makes the necessary
recommendations. The entire process of recruitment is regulated by
statutory rules. Is it open to an aspirant or group of aspirants, who do
not comply with the terms of the recruitment notification, to raise
questions once the result(s) of selection is/are not palatable to
him/them?
19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an advertisement issued in
connection with a selection process are normally not open to challenge
unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach of Article 16
of the Constitution or, for that matter, Article 14. Once an
advertisement is issued inviting applications for public employment, it
is the responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the
terms and understand what its requirements are. If any aspirant finds
any of the terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in
the advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort
ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding the
requirements accurately. If no such scope is available, nothing
14
prevents the aspirant from seeking clarity by making a representation.
Should such clarity be not provided, the aspirant may participate in
the process without prejudice to his rights and may question the term
even after he is not selected. However, if the aspirant does not make
any such effort and takes a calculated chance of selection based on his
own understanding of the disputed term in the advertisement and
later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open to him
to challenge the selection on the ground that the disputed term is
capable of being understood differently. In such cases, the courts
should be loath to entertain such plea of ambiguity while preferring to
accept the recruiting authority’s understanding of the said term. This is
for the simple reason that the recruiting authority is the best judge of
what its requirements are and it is such understanding of the
recruiting authority that would matter most in cases brought up before
the courts; hence, after commencement of the process wherein
aspirants have participated without raising any demur as to what a
particular terms means, even if any of the terms be ambiguous, the
courts should lean in favour of the recruiting authority.
20. We are conscious of what this Court observed in paragraphs 15 to 19
24
of its decision in Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar under the heading
‘Preliminary Issues’. If the procedure followed by the selecting
24
(2019) 20 SCC 17
15
body/appointing authority is such that the same is in breach of
constitutional safeguards, an aspirant’s challenge to the procedure
may not be nipped in the bud only on the ground that he has
participated in the process. We also read the decision as recognizing
that it may not always be possible for an aspirant to foresee any
illegality in the procedure followed, till such time the select list is
published. In all such cases where the illegality could not have been
foreseen, a challenge to the procedure cannot be spurned on the
specious ground that the aspirant having participated in the process,
he has forfeited his right.
21. Be that as it may, clause 5.4(4) with which we are concerned is far
from ambiguous. It is absolutely clear what UPPRPB required and what
would be the consequence of non-adherence. In the wake of such
requirement, no aspirant could possibly have any iota of doubt as to
the format in which the certificate was to be issued. Even if Mohit and
Kiran had doubts as to whether the certificates that they had would
suffice, nothing prevented them from seeking such clarification and, at
the same time, approach the concerned tehsildars to issue certificates
in the requisite format. It has not been shown that obtaining a second
certificate in the format required by the State Government was barred
by any law. Having regard thereto, both Mohit and Kiran cannot take
shelter under the plea that insistence on the part of UPPRPB of
16
certificates issued in the requisite format is a mere formality which
could have been dispensed with since they had certificates issued in
the other format.
22. Finally, the reason why UPPRPB has insisted for the certificate in the
requisite format as explained by Ms. Goel [recorded in paragraph 9
(vi) to (viii) above] commends our acceptance.
23. We are conscious that aspirants similarly placed like Mohit and Kiran
have been granted relief by the High Court earlier and coordinate
Benches of this Court have not interfered with such decisions.
However, in all such cases, the special leave petitions were dismissed
at the admission stage and, therefore, do not operate as binding
precedents.
24. For the reasons aforesaid, Mohit and Kiran are not entitled to any
relief.
25. Consequently, the lead appeal is dismissed while the connected appeal
is allowed.
………..…………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
….……..………………J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 15 , 2025.
17
18
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5233 OF 2025
MOHIT KUMAR …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5234 OF 2025
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
KIRAN PRAJAPATI …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
DIPANKAR DATTA J.
1. These appeals, arising out of orders passed by the High Court of
1 2
Judicature at Allahabad on separate writ petitions with differing
outcomes but concerning the same recruitment process, raise a
common question of law.
F ACTS IN C IVIL A PPEAL 5233 OF 2025
2. Respondent no.3/Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion
3 th
Board issued a notification on 24 February 2021 for direct
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
Date: 2025.05.15
17:30:29 IST
Reason:
1
High Court
2
WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2022 and WRIT - A No. – 18987 of 2022
3
UPPRPB
1
recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police and Platoon
4
Commander, PAC and Fire Officer, for the year 2020-2021 . The
5 th
appellant-Mohit Kumar , on 20 April 2021, applied for the post of
Sub-Inspector, Civil Police as well as for Platoon Commander and was
th
thereafter called for examination, which was held on 17 May 2022.
3. Pursuant to the examinations conducted by UPPRPB, Mohit scored
313.84 marks. A list of non-selected candidates came to be published,
which featured Mohit’s registration number at serial number 11108.
st
Aggrieved thereby, Mohit made a representation to UPPRPB on 21
6
July 2022. Receiving no response, Mohit moved a writ petition before
the High Court, praying that his representation be considered. The
th
High Court, on 4 August 2022, directed the Superintendent of Police,
UPPRPB, to consider the representation and pass a reasoned order
thereon within 4 weeks.
7 th
4. Respondent no. 4 , by its speaking order dated 15 September 2022,
rejected Mohit’s representation on the ground that he did not submit
8
OBC certificate in the format prescribed at the time of initial
recruitment release and, thus, he was considered in the general
category instead of the OBC category. The cut-off marks for the
general category were 316.11, whereas for the OBC category it was
4
Recruitment Notification
5
Mohit
6
WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2022
7
Additional Secretary, UPPRPB
8
Other Backward Class
2
305.542. The order also stated that as per Mohit’s own case, at the
time of application, he had mentioned the certificate issued by the
Central Government instead of the State Government.
9
5. Mohit yet again approached the High Court by way of a writ petition ,
challenging the order rejecting his representation. The High Court, by
nd
its judgment and order dated 22 March 2023, dismissed the writ
petition while holding that the order impugned in the petition did not
call for interference. The order of the High Court rejecting Mohit’s writ
petition has been impugned in the lead appeal.
F ACTS IN C IVIL A PPEAL 5234 OF 2025
6. UPPRPB, by the same notification as referred to in the lead appeal,
notified the recruitment for posts of sub-inspector (SI) Civil Police,
Platoon Commander and PAC and Fire Fighting Second Officer for the
10
year 2020-2021. The sole respondent-Kiran Prajapati applied for the
th
post of sub-inspector (SI) Civil Police on 8 April 2021, in the OBC
category. Similar to the lead appeal, Kiran appeared for the
examination and cleared the same by scoring 287 marks. Pertinently,
the cut-off marks for the general category and the OBC category were
296.597 and 285.92. However, after verification of documents and
noticing that the OBC certificate was not submitted in the prescribed
9
WRIT - A No. – 18987 of 2022
10
Kiran
3
format by Kiran, UPPRPB did not place her in the select list. Against
this rejection, Kiran addressed a representation to UPPRPB.
11
7. Receiving no response, Kiran filed a writ petition before the High
Court seeking a direction for acceptance of the OBC Certificate
submitted by her. A single judge of the High Court allowed the writ
th
petition vide order dated 27 March 2023 and directed UPPRPB to
accept the OBC certificate submitted by Kiran and to process her
application further. Against the order of the single judge, UPPRPB
12
preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. By
th
an order dated 25 August 2023, the High Court dismissed the appeal
and confirmed the order of the single judge.
8. The appellants in the connected appeal impugn this order of the High
Court rejecting their appeal.
S UBMISSIONS FOR THE S TATE OF U TTAR P RADESH
9. Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned counsel appearing for the State and the
UPPRPB contended that the requirement prescribed by UPPRPB under
the recruitment notification/ release and the consequent rejection of
the candidature of Mohit and Kiran by UPPRPB was valid. She further
urged that:
11
Writ Petition A No. 5245 of 2023
12
Special Appeal Defective No. 562 of 2023
4
i. The recruitment conducted by UPPRPB was under the Uttar
Pradesh Sub-inspector and Inspector (Civic Police) Service
13
(Amended) Rules, 2015 . Further, the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services (Reservation for Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and
14
Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 provides for reservation for
OBCs in the state of Uttar Pradesh. A Government Order dated
th 15
17 December, 2014 issued under the 1994 Act proscribed
OBC reservation for persons having gross annual income of Rs. 8
lakh or above or possessing wealth above the exempted limit
under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
ii. The advertisement stated that 2437 posts were reserved for OBC
candidates and laid down the eligibility norm in clause 5.4(4) of
the advertisement, which reads as under:
5.4(4) If the candidates belonging to other backward class
category do not submit the certificate in the prescribed
format-I/ within prescribed period or if they submit the
certificate of Other Backward Class category valid for the
services of Government of India, they will be treated as
candidates of unreserved category.
(emphasis supplied)
iii. Both Mohit and Kiran submitted their OBC (NCL) caste certificate
in the format prescribed for appointments to the Central
13
2015 Rules
14
1994 Act
15
G.O. No.13/22/16/92/TC-iii-Ka-2/2014
5
Government, and not the one prescribed for the State
Government, as mandated by clause 5.4(4).
iv. Since Mohit and Kiran were considered in the unreserved
category and secured marks less than the required cut-off
marks, they were not selected.
v. Judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court in
16
Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P. was relied upon which held
that there is no repugnancy between the financial criteria fixed
by the Union and the State Governments for the purpose of
identification of creamy layer.
vi. The object and rationale of the criteria in clause 5.4(4) is to
ensure compliance of or ascertainment of creamy layer, which is
redefined by the State Government and the Central Government
from time to time. While the creamy layer criteria may be
congruent at a given point of time, it is always subject to
change. In view of the subjective nature, it is essential that all
the candidates submit proof that they do not fall within the
exclusionary zone set out by the State Government. In the
absence thereof, the State machinery would be burdened with
the inquiry of individual candidates who submit a caste
certificate for Central Government and would have to ascertain
16
2013 SCC OnLine All 1286
6
whether they also qualify as OBC-NCL under the rules of the
State Government.
vii. The format prescribed in ‘Format-I’ of the recruitment
notification categorically requires that the gross annual income
of the candidate’s parents for a continuous period of three years
is not above Rupees eight lakh and that he/she does not possess
wealth above the exemption limit, as prescribed in the Wealth
Tax Act 1957. This prescription finds no place in the caste
certificate prescribed for jobs under the Central Government.
viii. The Central Government refers to ‘Department of Personnel and
th
Training’s O.M. No.36012/22/93 Estt (SCT) dated 8 September,
1993 or the latest notification of Government of India modified
th
vide O.M. No.36033/3/2004 Estt(Res.) dated 9 March, 2004
and further modified vide O.M. No. 36033/3/2004-Estt.(Res)
th
dated 14 February, 2008 or the latest notification of the
Government of India, whereas, the format prescribed by the
th
State Government is as per the Government Order dated 17
December, 2014.
ix. The decisions relied upon by Mohit and Kiran are distinguishable
on facts since the candidates in those cases were already
appointed under the OBC category as Constables and sought
appointment in the same category for the posts under the
7
present recruitment notification. Thus, in those cases, the caste
category already stood verified by UPPRPB.
17
x. The decision in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan
was cited for the proposition that if the rules do not provide,
relaxation is not permitted.
xi. The impugned judgment dismissing Mohit’s writ petition rightly
considered the ratio of this Court’s decision in State of T.N. v.
18
G. Hemalathaa .
xii. Under the said notification, there remained no vacancies after
publication of the final selection result. However, after the final
result, 122 posts eventually remained unfilled either due to
cancellation of candidature or death or absence/disqualification
in medical examination or expulsion. Under the 2015 Rules, the
vacant posts were required to be carried forward to the next
selection. Consequently, under the recruitment notification, the
122 OBC posts that remained unfilled were carried forward for
the selection year of 2023-24 and the process of publishing the
notification is in progress.
17
(2011) 12 SCC 85
18
(2020) 19 SCC 430
8
S UBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF M OHIT AND K IRAN
10. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, learned senior counsel appearing for Mohit,
submitted that the OBC certificate submitted by Mohit ought to have
been accepted for/on the following reasons/grounds:
i. OBC certificate for participating in recruitment processes initiated
by both the Central Government and the State Government, is
issued by the Tehsildar.
ii. Mohit comes from a poor family and his entire hard work would
be drained for want of a certificate in a particular format.
iii. Mohit having secured 313.684 marks which is in excess of the
cut-off that was prescribed for OBC candidates, i.e., 305.542
marks, merit has been overlooked much to his detriment and
prejudice.
iv. Mohit belongs to Ahir community, which is recognized as
backward class in the State of Uttar Pradesh and this is
categorically reflected from the certificate submitted by him.
v. The decision of this court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee
19
& Ors. was cited for highlighting that every infraction of rule
may not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
vi. Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public Service
20
Commission was cited for the proposition that in case of any
19
(2005) 9 SCC 779
9
doubt as to qualification of any candidate, the candidate could
have been called upon to produce the required certificate.
vii. This Court’s decisions in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi
21
Subordinate Services Selections Board and Anr. and Karn
22
Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. were
cited for reminding us that the object of providing reservations
to members of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe
communities is to remove inequalities in employment and
provide a level playing field for those belonging to educationally
and socially backward classes of society; hence, it would be
unreasonable to be too technical in one’s approach and throw
asunder the object sought to be achieved by reservations.
11. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, learned counsel for Kiran, adopted the submissions
of Mr. Kaushik.
T HE I SSUE
12. The issue that arises for consideration is, whether UPPRPB was bound
to accept the OBC certificates submitted by Mohit and Kiran which,
admittedly, were not in the format prescribed in the Recruitment
Notification.
20
(2017) 11 SCC 276
21
(2016) 4 SCC 754
22
(2024) 2 SCC 588
10
13. We may initiate our discussion by first referring to this Court’s decision
in Registrar General, Calcutta High Court v. Shrinivas Prasad
23
Shah and Ors . The question that was raised is whether, the West
st
Bengal Public Service Commission was justified in considering the 1
respondent as a general candidate for recruitment in connection with a
judicial service examination, instead of his claim of being a member of
the Scheduled Tribe community. The advertisement stipulated that in
order to obtain the benefit of reservation, the requisite certificate had
to be issued by the competent authority as specified in the stated
enactment and SCs/STs Welfare Department Order No. 261-
th
TW/EC/MR-103/94 dated 6 April, 1995. Instead of producing a
st
certificate issued by the competent authority, the 1 respondent
produced a certificate issued by the Director of the Backward Classes
Welfare Department certifying him as a member of the Scheduled
Tribe community; hence, such certificate was ignored and he was
st
considered to be a general candidate. The 1 respondent was
fortunate enough to succeed in the two tiers before the High Court at
Calcutta, which directed the PSC to consider him as a ST candidate,
fortune deserted him before this Court. It was held thus:
“ 15. We find no error in the decision taken by the Commission in not
entertaining the respondent’s application as a ST candidate since no
certificate was produced from the competent authority, as provided
under the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Identification) Act, 1994. The information to the candidates
23
(2013) 12 SCC 364
11
specifically stated that the candidates claiming to be SC/ST/BC must
have a certificate from a competent authority specified in the West
Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act,
1994. No such certificate was produced from that competent authority
by the respondent. Consequently, in the absence of the requisite
certificate, the Commission was justified in treating him as a general
category candidate. The first time the respondent produced the
certificate from the competent authority was only when he appeared in
the examination held on 30-7-2010, by that time he had obtained a
certificate from the competent authority on 22-9-2009. Admittedly, at
the time when the 2007 examination was held no such certificate was
produced from the competent authority along with the application.
Consequently, the respondent was treated as a general category
candidate and hence he could not get appointment as judicial officer in
the examination held in the year 2007.
16. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the specific
legislation passed by the West Bengal State Legislative Assembly i.e.
the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Identification) Act, 1994, and the specific stipulation in the
notification issued to the candidates, Guideline 10 of para 13 of
Madhuri Patil v. Commissioner, Tribal Development [(1994) 6 SCC
241] is inapplicable, particularly to the facts of this case. The Act does
not recognise the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal as a
competent authority to issue the certificate. Therefore, the
Commission was justified in not placing reliance on the certificate
issued by the Director, Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal. ... ”.
(italics in original)
14. What follows from the above decision is that irrespective of whether an
aspirant for public employment belongs to a particular community like
SC/ST/OBC, the status claimed by him for being accorded the benefit
of reservation is per se not decisive. Such status has to be certified by
the competent authority upon following due process and identification
that the aspirant is what he claims to be. In Shrinivas Prasad Shah
(supra), the requirement of production of a certificate from the
competent authority was held to be mandatory in view of a statutory
mandate. Although there is no such statutory mandate in the facts of
12
the present case, the requirement in question is no less mandatory
and must be scrupulously followed. Once a process of recruitment is
set in motion, all aspirants are entitled in law to equal treatment.
There cannot be different yardsticks for different sets of aspirants.
Non-compliance with the terms of the advertisement/notification is
bound to trigger adverse consequences of rejection of the aspirant’s
claimed status by the selecting body/appointing authority, should he
choose not to adhere to the same. Having regard thereto, the selecting
body/appointing authority would be justified in not entertaining the
application of an aspirant as a member of the community for whom
reservations are permissible.
15. The proposition of law as settled by the above decision does not
appear to have been doubted in any subsequent decision and we do
hereby endorse the same.
16. Let us now examine whether in the light of the settled law in this
behalf, Mohit and Kiran deserve any relief.
17. Clause 5.4(4) of the recruitment notification has been noticed above.
It clearly warns what the consequence would be should an aspirant fail
to submit the requisite certificate in Format–I. Admittedly, the
certificates submitted by Mohit and Kiran do not align with Format-I.
Viewed thus, we need not even carry the discussion forward to
ascertain whether Mohit and Kiran have been unfairly treated.
13
However, since it has been assiduously argued by Mr. Kaushik that
Mohit after all belongs to the OBC category, and Mr. Kumar Gaurav
appearing for Kiran has supported him, we consider it proper to deal
with such argument too.
18. Here, the Government of Uttar Pradesh is the appointing authority.
The appointments would follow, once UPPRPB makes the necessary
recommendations. The entire process of recruitment is regulated by
statutory rules. Is it open to an aspirant or group of aspirants, who do
not comply with the terms of the recruitment notification, to raise
questions once the result(s) of selection is/are not palatable to
him/them?
19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an advertisement issued in
connection with a selection process are normally not open to challenge
unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach of Article 16
of the Constitution or, for that matter, Article 14. Once an
advertisement is issued inviting applications for public employment, it
is the responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the
terms and understand what its requirements are. If any aspirant finds
any of the terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry inbuilt in
the advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort
ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding the
requirements accurately. If no such scope is available, nothing
14
prevents the aspirant from seeking clarity by making a representation.
Should such clarity be not provided, the aspirant may participate in
the process without prejudice to his rights and may question the term
even after he is not selected. However, if the aspirant does not make
any such effort and takes a calculated chance of selection based on his
own understanding of the disputed term in the advertisement and
later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open to him
to challenge the selection on the ground that the disputed term is
capable of being understood differently. In such cases, the courts
should be loath to entertain such plea of ambiguity while preferring to
accept the recruiting authority’s understanding of the said term. This is
for the simple reason that the recruiting authority is the best judge of
what its requirements are and it is such understanding of the
recruiting authority that would matter most in cases brought up before
the courts; hence, after commencement of the process wherein
aspirants have participated without raising any demur as to what a
particular terms means, even if any of the terms be ambiguous, the
courts should lean in favour of the recruiting authority.
20. We are conscious of what this Court observed in paragraphs 15 to 19
24
of its decision in Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar under the heading
‘Preliminary Issues’. If the procedure followed by the selecting
24
(2019) 20 SCC 17
15
body/appointing authority is such that the same is in breach of
constitutional safeguards, an aspirant’s challenge to the procedure
may not be nipped in the bud only on the ground that he has
participated in the process. We also read the decision as recognizing
that it may not always be possible for an aspirant to foresee any
illegality in the procedure followed, till such time the select list is
published. In all such cases where the illegality could not have been
foreseen, a challenge to the procedure cannot be spurned on the
specious ground that the aspirant having participated in the process,
he has forfeited his right.
21. Be that as it may, clause 5.4(4) with which we are concerned is far
from ambiguous. It is absolutely clear what UPPRPB required and what
would be the consequence of non-adherence. In the wake of such
requirement, no aspirant could possibly have any iota of doubt as to
the format in which the certificate was to be issued. Even if Mohit and
Kiran had doubts as to whether the certificates that they had would
suffice, nothing prevented them from seeking such clarification and, at
the same time, approach the concerned tehsildars to issue certificates
in the requisite format. It has not been shown that obtaining a second
certificate in the format required by the State Government was barred
by any law. Having regard thereto, both Mohit and Kiran cannot take
shelter under the plea that insistence on the part of UPPRPB of
16
certificates issued in the requisite format is a mere formality which
could have been dispensed with since they had certificates issued in
the other format.
22. Finally, the reason why UPPRPB has insisted for the certificate in the
requisite format as explained by Ms. Goel [recorded in paragraph 9
(vi) to (viii) above] commends our acceptance.
23. We are conscious that aspirants similarly placed like Mohit and Kiran
have been granted relief by the High Court earlier and coordinate
Benches of this Court have not interfered with such decisions.
However, in all such cases, the special leave petitions were dismissed
at the admission stage and, therefore, do not operate as binding
precedents.
24. For the reasons aforesaid, Mohit and Kiran are not entitled to any
relief.
25. Consequently, the lead appeal is dismissed while the connected appeal
is allowed.
………..…………………J.
(DIPANKAR DATTA)
….……..………………J.
(MANMOHAN)
NEW DELHI;
MAY 15 , 2025.
17
18