THE JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE-2026 vs VIDYA SANKAR

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 1 2026:KER:67525


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TH
MONDAY, THE 7 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 16TH BHADRA, 1948
WA NO. 1701 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2026 IN WP(C) NO.26238 OF 2026
OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
RD
APPELLANT/3 RESPONDENT:

THE JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE-2026
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH (IISER) BERHAMPUR
AT/PO: LAUDIGAM, KONISI, POLICE STATION, GOLANTHARA,
GANJAM DISTRICT, ODISHA, PIN - 760003


BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VISHNU (V-736)
SHRI.SHIREESH GUPTA


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

1 VIDYA SANKAR
AGED 19 YEARS
D/O. SRISANKAR S, 2A PLATINUM LOTUS, KOMATH LANE,
PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682025

2 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY
OF EDUCATION, KARTHAVYA BHAVAN, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT,
NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001

3 THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDIA, (INDIAN
INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH IISER
SECTION) ROOM NO. 21072, KARTHAVYA BHAVAN 2, CENTRAL

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 2 2026:KER:67525


SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, PIN - 110001


BY ADV SHRI.SUVIN R. MENON, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL

SRI. D. KISHORE, FOR R1

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.1702/2026, THE COURT ON 07.09.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 3 2026:KER:67525



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TH
MONDAY, THE 7 DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 / 16TH BHADRA, 1948
WA NO. 1702 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.08.2026 IN WP(C) NO.27028 OF 2026
OF THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ND
APPELLANT/2 RESPONDENT:

JOINT ADMISSION COMMITTEE (JAC) 2026 BERHAMPUR
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON, INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH (IISER) BERHAMPUR,
AT/PO: LAUDIGAM, KONISI, GANJAM DISTRICT,
ODISHA –, PIN - 760003


BY ADVS.
SRI.S.VISHNU (V-736)
SHRI.SHIREESH GUPTA


RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3:

1 RIYA ZAINAB T
AGED 19 YEARS
D/O MR. ABDUL RASAK.T, RESIDING AT CHOONDAL HOUSE,
VILLADAM, AMAVARMAPURAM P.O.,
THRISSUR DIST -, PIN - 680631

2 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION,
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SHASTRI BHAWAN, NEW
DELHI –, PIN - 110001

3 INDIAN INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH
(IISER), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 4 2026:KER:67525


REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, MARUTHAMALA P.O.,
VITHURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695551


BY ADV SHRI.SUVIN R. MENON, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL

SRI. P.K. MOHAMED JAMEEL FOR R1

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.09.2026,
ALONG WITH WA.1701/2026, THE COURT ON 07.09.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 5 2026:KER:67525


“C.R”
JUDGMENT

Anil K. Narendran, J.
These writ appeals filed by the Joint Admission Committee,
Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Berhampur,
Odisha, arise out of the common judgment dated 13.08.2026 of a
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026
and 27028 of 2026. W.A.No.1701 of 2026 arises out of the
judgment in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and W.A.No.1702 of 2026
arises out of the judgment in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026.
st
2. W.A.No.1701 of 2026:- The 1 respondent in this writ
appeal, who applied for the IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) - 2026, in
furtherance of Ext.P1 information brochure published by the Joint
Admission Committee – 2026, the appellant herein, for admission
to 5-year BS-MS (Dual Degree), 4-year BS and B.Tech Degree
Programs - 2026 in Indian Institute of Science Education and
Research (IISER) established by the Government of India at
Berhampur, Bhopal, Kolkata, Mohali, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram
and Tirupati, filed W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026, invoking the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 6 2026:KER:67525


Constitution of India, aggrieved by the non-consideration of Ext.P2
non-creamy layer certificate dated 09.02.2026, which was
uploaded along with her application for getting admission to 5-
year BS-MS (Dual Degree) Program - 2026, on the ground that
the said certificate uploaded by her was not issued in the financial
year 2026-27. In the writ petition, the petitioner sought for a writ
of certiorari to quash Ext.P9 e-mail communication dated
rd
29.07.2026 issued by the 3 respondent (appellant herein),
whereby the petitioner was informed that her candidature for
selection under OBC-NCL category has been rejected, since she
failed to submit a valid category certificate as per Ext.P1
information brochure, before the last date of 21.06.2026 specified
therein, which was issued in March, 2026. The reliefs sought for
in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 read thus;
“(a) Call for the records leading to the passing of Ext.P9 and
quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction.
(b) To declare that the candidature of the petitioner for
selection to 5-year BS-MS (Dual Degree) Course in
furtherance to Ext.P1 is to be considered by reckoning
Ext.P2 non-creamy layer certificate dated 09.02.2026 or
Ext.P5 non-creamy layer certificate dated 08.07.2026 and

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 7 2026:KER:67525


that her selection should be based on the category Rank
No.955 allotted to her as per Ext.P4 rank list.
(c) Issue a writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ,
direction or order directing respondents 2 and 3 to consider
the candidature of the petitioner for selection to 5-year BS-
MS (Dual Degree) Course in furtherance to Ext.P1 by
reckoning Ext.P2 non-creamy layer certificate dated
09.02.2026 or Ext.P5 non-creamy layer certificate dated
08.07.2026 and to reckon her category rank No.955 allotted
as per Ext.P4 rank list and to further allot seat to her on the
basis of such category rank.
(d) To declare that Note to clause 6 of Ext.P1 information
brochure to the extent it insists that OBC-NCL certificate
should be issued by the Government of India valid for the
financial year 2026-27 and issued on or after 01.04.2026,
is illegal and is liable to be struck down.
(e) To declare that the condition in Ext.P1 information
brochure conferring jurisdiction with respect to any dispute
relating to Ext.P1 with the competent courts at Berhampur,
Odisha, is illegal and opposed to Article 226(2) of the
Constitution of India.”
2.1. In W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026, the information brochure
for IISER Aptitude Test - 2026 is marked as Ext.P1. The document
marked as Ext.P2 is a copy of the non-creamy layer certificate
dated 09.02.2026 issued by the Tahsildar, Kanayannur Taluk,
wherein it is certified that the petitioner does not belong to the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 8 2026:KER:67525


creamy layer mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule to the
Government of India, the Department of Personnel and Training
O.M.No.36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 08.09.1993. Ext.P3 is a
copy of the hall ticket issued to the petitioner, with application
No.26IAT050945 and Roll No.IAT00315050945, of IISER Aptitude
Test - 2026 scheduled on 07.06.2026. As per Ext.P4 IAT 2026
rank details, the petitioner secured overall rank - 4281 and
category rank - 955. In Ext.P4, it is specified that the category
rank is provisional and subject to change based on verification of
the documents in the document upload window.
2.2 In paragraph 6 of the statement of facts, the petitioner
has stated that she submitted Ext.P2 non-creamy layer certificate
without knowing that the non-creamy layer certificate, which is
valid for the financial year 2026-27 and issued on or after
01.04.2026, alone would be considered, as stipulated in clause 6
of Ext.P1 information brochure. Immediately upon coming to
know about the said rule, the petitioner obtained Ext.P5 non-
creamy layer certificate dated 08.07.2026 issued by the Tahsildar,
Kanayannur Taluk, which is valid for the financial year 2026-27
and issued on or after 01.04.2026. Since the petitioner was

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 9 2026:KER:67525


unable to upload Ext.P5 non-creamy layer certificate, her father
sent Ext.P6 e-mail on 26.07.2026 to the Joint Admission
Committee, enclosing therewith a copy of Ext.P5 non-creamy
layer certificate.
2.3. In response to Ext.P6 e-mail, the petitioner’s father
received Ext.P7 e-mail dated 26.07.2026, wherein it is stated
that, as per the admission policy, candidates are considered under
their declared reserved category only if a valid category certificate
was uploaded on the application portal by the prescribed deadline.
The petitioner’s father sent Ext.P8 e-mail on 28.07.2026, stating
that the petitioner inadvertently missed to upload the latest OBC-
NCL certificate and therefore, the latest OBC-NCL may be
considered for the admission process. In response to Ext.P8 e-
mail, the petitioner’s father received Ext.P9 e-mail dated
29.07.2026, which is addressed to the petitioner, whereby she
was informed that her application for consideration under OBC-
NCL category has been rejected and her application has been
considered under unreserved (UR)/general category, since she
failed to submit (through the application portal) a valid category
certificate as per the instructions given in the information

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 10 2026:KER:67525


brochure, for consideration under OBC-NCL category, before the
last date of 21.06.2026 specified in the information brochure
issued in March, 2026.
rd
2.4. In W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026, the 3 respondent Joint
Admission Committee - 2026, the appellant herein, filed a counter
affidavit dated 06.08.2026, opposing the reliefs sought for,
producing therewith a copy of IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) - 2026
information brochure along with syllabi for IAT - 2026 and
Annexure thereto, which contains the formats of certificates and
forms, as Ext.R3(a). A copy of the said information brochure,
without syllabi for IAT - 2026 and the Annexure thereto, has been
marked as Ext.P1 in the writ petition. The document marked as
Ext.R3(b) is a copy of an office memorandum issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Establishment
Reservation-I Section, F.No.36036/2/2013-Estt.(Res-I) dated
31.03.2016, on the subject ‘validity period of OBC certificate in
respect of creamy layer status of the candidates'. In the counter
affidavit, it is stated that the information brochure clearly states
that all disputes are subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 11 2026:KER:67525


st
Odisha. In the counter affidavit, it is contended that the 1
respondent Union of India, represented by the Secretary to
nd
Government, Ministry of Education and the 2 respondent
Secretary, the Department of Higher Education, have been
wrongly impleaded in the writ petition only to create territorial
jurisdiction before this Court, though no reliefs have been sought
against the said respondents, who have no role whatsoever in the
writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable
before this Court.
2.5. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that, as per
Ext.R3(b) office memorandum dated 31.03.2016, OBC-NCL
st
certificate is valid only till 31 March following the date of issue
of the certificate. Ext.P2 OBC-NCL certificate submitted by the
petitioner along with her application, which was dated
09.02.2026, expired on 31.03.2026, and could not be considered
after the date of expiry. Therefore, Ext.P2 OBC-NCL certificate
submitted by the petitioner was not in terms of the conditions
specified in Ext.R3(a) information brochure. The candidates were
clearly informed of the terms and conditions applicable to OBC-
NCL certificates at various places in Ext.R3(a) information

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 12 2026:KER:67525


brochure, the details of which are furnished in paragraph 8 of the
counter affidavit. Therefore, the petitioner had complete
knowledge of the requirements of OBC-NCL certificate from the
information brochure. The petitioner failed to submit a valid OBC-
NCL certificate before the cut-off date of 21.06.2026, in violation
of the terms and conditions in the information brochure.
Consequently, her application for consideration under OBC-NCL
category has been rightly rejected.
2.6. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that any concession
from this Court would create chaos in the admission process by
the Joint Admission Committee. The Committee has received
approximately 1.3 lakh applications. In approximately 500 cases,
the candidates were unable to submit a valid OBC-NCL certificate
for one reason or the other. The scrutiny of the documents is
already over, and offer letters have been issued to the successful
candidates, who have also acted on them. Any reversal of the
process would create many problems not only to the Joint
Admission Committee but also to the successful candidates. Any
concession by this Court in the present case would be
counterproductive to the interests of the candidates who have

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 13 2026:KER:67525


carefully gone through the information brochure and complied
with the terms and conditions contained therein. In paragraphs
rd
11 to 31 of the counter affidavit, the 3 respondent Joint
Admission Committee has dealt with the averments in the
statement of facts and grounds of W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026.
st
3. W.A.No.1702 of 2026:- The 1 respondent in this writ
appeal, who applied for IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) - 2026, in
furtherance of the information brochure published by the Joint
Admission Committee – 2026, the appellant herein, for admission
to 5-year BS-MS (Dual Degree), 4-year BS and B.Tech Degree
Programs – 2026 in the IISERs, filed W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026,
aggrieved by non-consideration of Ext.P1 non-creamy layer
certificate, which was uploaded along with her application for
getting admission to five-year BS-MS (Dual Degree) Program -
2026, on the ground that the certificate uploaded by her was not
issued in the financial year 2026-27. In the writ petition, the
petitioner sought for a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P10 e-mail
nd
communication dated 29.07.2026 issued by the 2 respondent
(appellant herein), whereby the petitioner was informed that her
candidature for selection under OBC-NCL category has been

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 14 2026:KER:67525


rejected, since she failed to submit a valid category certificate as
per the information brochure, before the last date of 21.06.2026
specified therein, which was issued in March, 2026. The reliefs
sought for in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026 read thus;
“(1) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ
nd
or order quashing Ext.P10 decision of the 2 respondent
dated 29.07.2026 to treat the petitioner under the
unreserved (UR) category instead of OBC-NCL category;
(2) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to be considered
under OBC-NCL category for admission to Indian Institute
of Science Education and Research (IISER);
nd rd
(3) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2 and 3
respondents to accept the updated OBC-NCL certificate
dated 22.06.2026 and consider the petitioner (IAT Appln.
No.26IAT084750) under OBC-NCL category for the next
allotment process and subsequent counselling rounds for
admission to IISERs.”
3.1. In W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026, the document marked as
Ext.P1 is a copy of non-creamy layer certificate dated 13.01.2026
issued by the Tahsildar, Kozhikode Taluk, wherein it is certified
that the petitioner does not belong to the creamy layer mentioned
in Column 3 of the Schedule to the Government of India, the
Department of Personnel and Training O.M.No.36012/22/93-Estt.
(SCT) dated 08.09.1993. The document marked as Ext.P2 is a

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 15 2026:KER:67525


printout of the application made by the petitioner for IISER
Aptitude Test - 2026. Ext.P3 is a copy of the hall ticket issued to
the petitioner with application No.26IAT084750 and roll No.
IAT08836084750 of IISER Aptitude Test - 2026 scheduled on
07.06.2026. On 17.06.2026, the petitioner received Ext.P4 e-
mail, whereby she was required to go to IISER admission portal
and update documents as required. The e-mail states that the
document upload window will be closed on 21.06.2026 at 11.55
p.m. Since the petitioner did not receive an updated OBC-NCL
certificate, though she applied on 18.06.2026, she again uploaded
Ext.P1 OBC-NCL certificate. Though the petitioner received Ext.P5
updated OBC-NCL certificate on 22.06.2026, she could not upload
the same, since the deadline was over on 21.06.2026. She sent
Ext.P6 e-mail to the Joint Admission Committee on 29.06.2026,
enclosing therewith a copy of Ext.P5 certificate. Thereafter, on
03.07.2026, she made Ext.P7 submission on the web portal. As
per Ext.P8 IAT 2026 rank details, the petitioner secured overall
rank - 7117 and category rank - 1701. In Ext.P8, it is specified
that the category rank is provisional and subject to change based
on the verification of the documents in the document upload

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 16 2026:KER:67525


window. Since the allotment process was started on 24.07.2026,
the petitioner sent Ext.P9 e-mail on 28.07.2026, with a request
to confirm whether she is being considered under OBC-NCL
category. On 29.07.2026, the petitioner received Ext.P10 e-mail,
whereby she was informed that her application for consideration
under OBC-NCL category has been rejected and her application
has been considered under unreserved (UR)/general category,
since she failed to submit (through the application portal) a valid
category certificate as per the instructions given in the
information brochure, entitling consideration under OBC-NCL
category, before the last date of 21.06.2026 specified in the
information brochure issued in March, 2026. Ext.P11 is a copy of
closing ranks in the first round of counselling, and Ext.P12 is the
relevant extract of IISER Aptitude Test - 2026 information
brochure.
nd
3.2. In W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026, the 2 respondent Joint
Admission Committee - 2026, the appellant herein, filed a counter
affidavit dated 07.08.2026, opposing the reliefs sought for,
producing therewith a copy of IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) - 2026
information brochure along with syllabi for IAT - 2026 and

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 17 2026:KER:67525


Annexure to the information brochure which contains the formats
of certificates and forms, as Ext.R2(a). Ext.R2(b) is a copy of a
declaration given by the petitioner on 18.06.2026, in lieu of OBC-
NCL certificate. Ext.R2(c) is a copy of an office memorandum
issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training,
Establishment Reservation-I Section F.No.36036/2/2013-Estt.
(Res-I) dated 31.03.2016 on the subject ‘validity period of OBC
certificate in respect of creamy layer status of the candidates’.
3.3. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that the information
brochure clearly states that all disputes are subject to the
st
jurisdiction of the courts at Odisha. The 1 respondent Union of
India, represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of
rd
Education and the 3 respondent Indian Institute of Science
Education and Research, Thiruvananthapuram, represented by its
Secretary, have been wrongly impleaded in the writ petition only
to create territorial jurisdiction before this Court, though no reliefs
have been sought against the said respondents, who have no role
whatsoever in the writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition is not
maintainable before this Court.

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 18 2026:KER:67525


3.4. In the counter affidavit, it is pointed out that, as per
Ext.R2(c) office memorandum dated 31.03.2016, OBC-NCL
st
certificate is valid only till 31 March following the date of issue
of the certificate. Ext.P1 OBC-NCL certificate submitted by the
petitioner along with her application, which was dated
13.01.2026, expired on 31.03.2026, and could not be considered
after the date of expiry. Therefore, Ext.P1 OBC-NCL certificate
submitted by the petitioner was not in terms of the conditions
specified in Ext.R2(a) information brochure. The candidates were
clearly informed of the terms and conditions applicable to OBC-
NCL certificates at various places in Ext.R2(a) information
brochure, the details of which are furnished in paragraph 10 of
the counter affidavit. Therefore, the petitioner had complete
knowledge of the requirements of OBC-NCL certificate from the
information brochure. The petitioner failed to submit a valid OBC-
NCL certificate before the cut-off date of 21.06.2026, in violation
of the terms and conditions in the information brochure.
Consequently, her application for consideration under OBC-NCL
category has been rightly rejected. In the writ petition, the
petitioner intentionally concealed Ext.R2(b) undertaking given by

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 19 2026:KER:67525


her on 18.06.2026. This clearly shows that the petitioner has not
approached this Court with clean hands. The petitioner is bound
by the undertaking given in Ext.R2(b).
3.5. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that any concession
from this Court would create chaos in the admission process by
the Joint Admission Committee. The Committee has received
approximately 1.3 lakh applications. In approximately 500 cases,
the candidates were unable to submit a valid OBC-NCL certificate
for one reason or the other. The scrutiny of the documents is
already over, and offer letters have been issued to the successful
candidates, who have also acted on them. Any reversal of the
process would create many problems not only to the Joint
Admission Committee but also to the successful candidates. Any
concession by this Court in the present case would be
counterproductive to the interests of the candidates who have
carefully gone through the information brochure and complied
with the terms and conditions contained therein. In paragraphs
nd
13 to 36 of the counter affidavit, the 2 respondent Joint
Admission Committee has dealt with the averments in the
statement of facts and grounds of W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026.

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 20 2026:KER:67525


4. After considering the rival contentions, the learned
Single Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2026,
allowed W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of 2026 to the
extent indicated in that judgment. The learned Single Judge held
that since the petitioners submitted their applications from Kerala,
the rejection of their applications was received in Kerala and the
documents claiming the benefit of OBC-NCL category were also
submitted from Kerala, certainly a fraction of the cause of action
has arisen in Kerala, entitling this Court to consider those writ
petitions. Paragraphs 6 to 10 of the judgment dated 13.08.2026
of the learned Single Judge read thus;
‘6. The main question that arises for consideration is
whether the Note and other stipulations in the Information
Brochure for the IISER Aptitude Test which requires the OBC
Non-Creamy Layer Certificate to be issued on or after
01.04.2026 is legally justified and whether certificate
produced by the petitioners can be reckoned for treating
them under the category of OBC-NCL. The question of
jurisdiction of this Court has also been raised.
7. As far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the
petitioners had applied for admission to the course from
Kerala and were informed of rejection of their NCL
certificate, by communication addressed to them in Kerala.

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 21 2026:KER:67525


The commencement of their right arose in Kerala while
enforcement of that not only when it was rejected but also
when it was communicated in Kerala. Though there is a
distinction between a right of action and a cause of action,
with the former arising as soon as there is an invasion of
right, and the latter being the right to enforce the said right,
the term cause of action cannot be interpreted narrowly. A
person residing anywhere in the country being aggrieved by
an order of an authority, including a State, may have a right
of action in law, while the jurisdiction of a High Court under
Article 226 can be invoked even when the cause of action
arises partly within the territorial jurisdiction. It is
elementary that ‘cause of action’ is a bundle of facts or a set
of facts giving rise to the right to sue.
8. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision in
Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India [(2004)
6 SCC 254] , wherein it was observed as follows:
“Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2)
of Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of
action accrues within the jurisdiction of the court,
the court will have jurisdiction in the matter.”
9. In the instant writ petitions, since the applications were
submitted from Kerala and the rejection was received by the
petitioners in Kerala and the documents claiming the benefit
of OBC-NCL category were also submitted from Kerala,
certainly a fraction of the cause of action has arisen in Kerala
entitling this Court to consider these writ petitions.
10. There is yet another contention raised on jurisdiction, as

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 22 2026:KER:67525


the Information Brochure contains a printed clause that only
courts in Odisha will have jurisdiction. However, the
jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution cannot be limited by a stipulation in an
Information Brochure conferring a forum for disputes. The
writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be excluded even
by a statute and hence the right of judicial review under
Article 226 cannot in all circumstances be curtailed by a
clause in the Information Booklet. The decision of the
Supreme Court in Maharashtra Chess Association v.
Union of India [(2020) 13 SCC 285] is relevant in this
context. In view of the above, this Court has the jurisdiction
to consider this writ petition.’
5. Adverting to the merits of the contentions raised in the
writ petitions, after referring to clauses 6 and 13 of IISER Aptitude
Test - 2026 information brochure, and taking note of the law laid
down by the Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Joint
Entrance Examination (JEE) [(2005) 9 SCC 779] and Ram
Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board [(2016) 4 SCC 754] , the learned Single Judge held that
the initial certificates submitted by both the petitioners revealed
that those certificates were stated to be valid for a period of one
year from the date of issue, and obviously the validity period
mentioned in those certificates covered the date fixed in the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 23 2026:KER:67525


information brochure as well as the cut-off date, i.e., 21.06.2026.
On being informed of the stipulation to produce a certificate issued
on or after 01.04.2026, the petitioners submitted such certificates
as well, though beyond the cut-off date. Therefore, the
petitioners’ claim to be included in OBC-NCL category remained
valid at the time of submitting the applications and during the
admission process. In such circumstances, rigid adherence to the
stipulation of a certificate to be submitted on or before
21.06.2026, in the case of the petitioners, is arbitrary and
unreasonable. Thus, the petitioners ought to be considered to fall
within the OBC-NCL category, based on the certificates produced
as Exts.P2 and P5 in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and Exts.P1 and
P5 in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026. Consequently, the learned Single
Judge quashed Ext.P9 communication in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026
and Ext.P10 communication in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026 of the
Joint Admission Committee and the respondents therein were
directed to consider the petitioners as falling in the OBC-NCL
category, based on the certificates already produced by them.
Paragraphs 11 to 19 and also the last paragraphs of the impugned
judgment dated 13.08.2026 of the learned Single Judge read

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 24 2026:KER:67525


thus;
‘11. Adverting to the merits of the contentions raised, it
needs to be noticed that note to clause 6 of the Information
Brochure refers to the OBC-NCL certificate in bold letters, as
follows:
“Note that the EWS/OBC-NCL certificate should be
issued by the Government of India, valid for the
financial year 2026-27 and issued on or after April
01 2026.”
12. There is a further stipulation in clause 13 regarding
documents required for the application and in respect of
candidates seeking admission under the OBC-NCL category,
the following has also been stipulated:
“*As per the latest guidelines of the Government of
India, the OBC-NCL certificate should have been
issued on or after April 01, 2026.
*If any OBC-NCL candidates fail to submit the OBC-
NCL certificate (issued on or after April 01, 2026) at
the time of online application, the candidate must
upload a signed declaration form - “declaration by
the candidate in lieu of OBC-NCL certificate” (see
annexure). The candidate has to upload the
certificate (issued on or after April 01, 2026) on or
before June 21, 2026, failing which the candidate
will not be considered for admission under the OBC-
NCL category. Such candidates will be considered for
admission only under the unreserved category.”
13. A reading of the above two clauses in the Information
Brochure issued by the respondent reveals that the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 25 2026:KER:67525


requirement of a certificate issued on or after April 01, 2026
has been specifically detailed not only in bold letters in the
note, but again in the clause relating to documents required
for the application. The above stipulations have been
followed by numerous students who all would have
submitted their applications. Similarly, there would be
several other applicants who would not have been able to
submit their applications as stipulated and would have been
refused to be considered by the respondents, under the
reserved category of OBC-NCL. Nevertheless, the
petitioners assert that they had subsequently submitted
certificates issued after 01.04.2026 certifying them as
falling within the OBC-NCL category. However, those
certificates were issued and submitted after 21.06.2026 -
the cut-off date for production of those certificates.
14. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the decision
in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Joint Entrance
Examination (JEE) [(2005) 9 SCC 779] , wherein the
Supreme Court had observed as follows:
“The general rule is that while applying for any
course of study or a post, a person must possess the
eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such
purpose either in the admission brochure or in
application form, as the case may be, unless there
is an express provision to the contrary. There can be
no relaxation in this regard, i.e., in the matter of
holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the
date fixed. This has to be established by producing
the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets.

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 26 2026:KER:67525


Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of
reservation or weightage, etc., necessary certificates
have to be produced. These are documents in the
nature of proof of holding of particular qualification
or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for
benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of
a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter
of submission of proof and it will not be proper to
apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain
of procedure. Every infraction of rule relating to
submission of proof need not necessarily result in
rejection of candidature.”
15. The above principle of law laid down by the Supreme
Court indicates that in the matter of submission of proof of
eligibility based on qualification, there can be no relaxation
while in the matter of claim of reservation, there can be
some relaxation, depending on the facts of each case, as it
is a matter of submission of proof and hence falls in the
domain of procedure.
16. In the instant writ petitions, both petitioners had, along
with their application, submitted documents showing that
they belonged to the OBC-NCL category, but those
certificates, as mentioned earlier, were issued prior to the
date fixed in the Information Brochure, i.e., 01.04.2026. By
the stipulation in the information brochure, they should
have submitted certificates issued on or after 01.04.2026.
Later both petitioners had submitted such certificates as
well. However those certificates were issued and submitted
beyond the cut off date of 21.06.2026.

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 27 2026:KER:67525


17. Apart from the above, the decision in Ram Kumar
Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
[(2016) 4 SCC 754] is also a useful reference, as the
Supreme Court had laid down the principle that certificates
for claiming reservation can be submitted even after the last
date for filing applications but before publication of
provisional results. Of course, the facts are different but the
principle can be adopted to the instant facts as at the time
of publishing the results, petitioners were categorized as
falling in the OBC-NCL category and therefore all that
remains is a cross verification as to whether they continue
to remain in the OBC-NCL category, as stipulated in the
information brochure on the date of admission.
18. It is evident from the rank certificates issued, that both
petitioners have been considered and included in the OBC-
NCL category. The inclusion is of course, subject to
verification of documents. Certainly, it is a matter that falls
in the domain of procedure as to whether the claim of
eligibility and the categorisation of the petitioners by IISER
itself, as falling in the OBC-NCL category, is justified or not.
The rigid stipulation of production of the NCL certificate on
or before 21.06.2026 is, according to me, in the
circumstances, required to be relaxed, as observed in Dolly
Chhanda [(2005) 9 SCC 779] .
19. Further, the initial certificates submitted by both the
petitioners reveal that those certificates were stated as valid
for a period of one year from the date of issue. Obviously,
the validity period mentioned in those certificates covered

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 28 2026:KER:67525


the date fixed in the information brochure as well as the cut-
off date - 21.06.2026. Subsequently, on being informed of
the stipulation of producing a certificate issued on or after
01.04.2026, petitioners have submitted such certificates as
well, though beyond the cut-off date. Thus, the claim of the
petitioners to be included in the category of OBC-NCL
continues to remain valid at the time of submitting the
applications as well as at the time of admission process. In
such circumstances, this Court is of the view that a rigid
adherence to the stipulation of a certificate to be submitted
on or before 21.06.2026, in the case of the petitioners, is
arbitrary and unreasonable. Thus, the petitioners ought to
be considered as falling in the category of OBC-NCL, based
on certificates produced as Ext.P2 and Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)
No.26238 of 2026 and Ext.P1 and Ext.P5 in W.P.(C)
No.27028 of 2026.
Hence, Ext.P10 communication in W.P.(C) No.27028 of 2026
and Ext.P9 communication in W.P.(C) No.26238 of 2026 are
quashed and there will be a direction to the respondents to
consider the petitioners as falling in the category of OBC-
NCL, based on the certificates already produced by them.
The writ petitions are allowed to the above extent.’
6. On 03.09.2026, we heard arguments of Adv. Shireesh
rd
Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellant-3 respondent in
W.A.No.1701 of 2026 and the learned counsel for the appellant-
nd
2 respondent in W.A.No.1702 of 2026, Adv. D. Kishore, the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 29 2026:KER:67525


st
learned counsel for the 1 respondent-petitioner in W.A.No.1701
of 2026, Adv. Suvin R. Menon, the learned Senior Panel Counsel
for respondents 2 and 3 in that writ appeal, Adv. P.K. Mohamed
st
Jameel, the learned counsel for the 1 respondent-petitioner in
W.A.No.1702 of 2026, Adv. Suvin R. Menon, the learned Senior
nd
Panel Counsel for the 2 respondent and Adv. Helen P.A., the
learned Standing Counsel for the Indian Institute of Science
rd
Education and Research (IISER), Thiruvananthapuram, for the 3
respondent in that writ appeal. The learned Senior Panel Counsel
for the Union of India and the learned Standing Counsel for the
Indian Institute of Science of Education and Research pointed out
that the Union of India and IISER, Thiruvananthapuram, are only
formal parties.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant-Joint Admission
Committee argued that the judgment dated 13.08.2026 of the
learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of
2026 is opposed to law and facts of the case. In the impugned
judgment, the learned Single Judge did not interfere with the
requirements in the information brochure for IISER Aptitude Test
- 2026 that the OBC-NCL certificate issued should be valid for the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 30 2026:KER:67525


financial year 2026-27, and issued on or after 01.04.2026; and
that the candidate has to upload such certificate on or before
21.06.2026. Without interfering with the above requirements in
the information brochure, the learned Single Judge directed the
appellant Joint Admission Committee to consider the petitioners
in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of 2026 as falling under
OBC-NCL category, based on Exts.P2 and P5 certificates in
W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and Exts.P1 and P5 certificates in
W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026. The direction issued by the learned
Single Judge, without interfering with the above requirements in
the information brochure, is per se arbitrary and illegal.
7.1. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
learned Single Judge failed to consider the decision of a Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Yoshika Verma
v. Union of India [2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3760] - judgment
dated 17.05.2022 in CWP No.3435 of 2022 - rendered after taking
note of the decision of the Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda [(2005)
9 SCC 779] . SLP(C)No.11464 of 2022 filed before the Apex Court
against the said judgment ended in dismissal by the order dated
22.07.2022. The learned Single Judge completely ignored the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 31 2026:KER:67525


specific contention raised in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit
in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and paragraph 10 of the counter
affidavit in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026 that the candidates were
clearly informed of the terms and conditions applicable to OBC-
NCL certificates at various places in Ext.R3(a)/R2(a) information
brochure.
7.2. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that,
in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026, the petitioner intentionally concealed
Ext.R2(b) undertaking given by her on 18.06.2026, in lieu of OBC-
NCL certificate, issued on or after 01.04.2026, as per the
requirements of clause 13 of the information brochure, who had
also undertaken to upload OBC-NCL certificate on or before
21.06.2026, failing which she will not be considered for admission
under OBC-NCL category. This clearly shows that the petitioner in
that writ petition has approached this Court with unclean hands,
suppressing material facts. The learned Single Judge completely
ignored the specific contention raised in paragraph 7 of the
counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026 regarding
suppression of material facts. The learned counsel pointed out
further that the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026, who failed

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 32 2026:KER:67525


to upload OBC-NCL certificate issued on or after 01.04.2026, as
per the requirements of clause 13 of the information brochure,
has not even chosen to give any such undertaking. The
submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the
petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of 2026, who
failed to submit a valid OBC-NCL certificate before the cut-off date
of 21.06.2026, in violation of the terms and conditions in the
information brochure, are not legally entitled to have their
applications considered under OBC-NCL category. As provided in
clause 13 of the information brochure, they will be considered for
admission only under the unreserved (UR)/general category.
7.3. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the
learned Single Judge failed to note that any concession from the
Court would create chaos in the admission process. The Joint
Admission Committee received approximately 1.3 lakh
applications. In approximately 1000 cases, candidates could not
submit a valid OBC-NCL certificate for one reason or another. After
scrutinising the documents, the Committee issued offer letters to
the successful candidates, who have also acted on them.
Reversing the process would create many problems not only for

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 33 2026:KER:67525


the Committee but also for the successful candidates. The
Committee is working against an extremely tight admission
schedule. The classes have to start by the first week of October,
2026, to complete the syllabus. The schedule leaves a very
narrow window to complete the admission process. Therefore, the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be
sustained in law. The learned counsel also argued that, as
contended in the counter affidavits filed in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of
2026 and 27028 of 2026, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction
to entertain the writ petitions. The learned counsel pointed out a
subsequent judgment of the learned Single Judge in Devanjana
S. Narayanan v. Indian Institute of Science Education and
Research [2026:KER:66043] , whereby the prayer sought in
W.P.(C)No.27313 of 2026 for directing the respondents therein to
grant admission to the petitioner therein under OBC-NCL category
was declined; however, it was ordered that, if in the event of any
seat falling vacant at the end of the process of allotment,
necessarily the respondents shall consider the petitioner under
OBC-NCL category, based on the certificate dated 06.08.2026
already submitted.

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 34 2026:KER:67525


st
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1
respondent in the respective writ appeals contended that the
impugned judgment dated 13.08.2026 of the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of 2026 is one
rendered after taking note of the legal and factual contentions
raised by both sides. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge
in the impugned judgment, which is neither perverse nor patently
illegal, warrants no interference in this writ appeal. On a proper
appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the
light of the law on the point, the learned Single Judge arrived at
a finding that the claim of the petitioner in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of
2026 and 27028 of 2026 for inclusion in OBC-NCL category
continued to remain valid at the time of submission of the
applications as well as at the time of the admission process.
Hence, a rigid adherence to the stipulation that a certificate be
submitted on or before 21.06.2026, in their case, is arbitrary and
unreasonable. Ext.P2 certificate dated 09.02.2026 in W.P.(C)No.
26238 of 2026 and Ext.P1 certificate dated 13.01.2026 in
W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026, i.e., the OBC-NCL certificates originally
uploaded, are valid for a period of one year from the date of

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 35 2026:KER:67525


issuance. As in the case of those OBC-NCL certificates, in Ext.P5
certificate dated 08.07.2026 in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and
Ext.P5 certificate dated 22.06.2026 in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026,
it is certified that the petitioner in the respective writ petitions
does not belong to the creamy layer mentioned in Column 3 of
the Schedule to the Government of India, the Department of
Personnel and Training O.M.No.36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated
08.09.1993. Therefore, the learned Single Judge rightly
concluded that the petitioner in both the writ petitions ought to
be considered as falling in the OBC-NCL category based on
Exts.P2 and P5 certificates in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and
Exts.P1 and P5 certificates in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026.
st
8.1. The learned counsel for the 1 respondent in
W.A.No.1701 of 2026 referred to the provisions contained in
Article 46 of the Constitution of India, which provides for the
promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections. The
submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Joint
Admission Committee is working against an extremely tight
admission schedule since the classes have to be started by the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 36 2026:KER:67525


first week of October, 2026, for the purpose of completing the
syllabus, is not a valid ground to deny admission to meritorious
candidates, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in S.
Krishna Sradha v. State of A.P. [(2020) 17 SCC 465] . The
st
learned counsel for the 1 respondent in the respective writ
appeals contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment, on the territorial jurisdiction of this Court
to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, is one made after referring to the law on the point, which
is perfectly legal. Therefore, no interference is warranted on the
impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge in this writ
appeal.
9. The appellant Joint Admission Committee-2026
conducted IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) - 2026 on 07.06.2026, for
admission to 5-year BS-MS (Dual Degree), 4-year BS and B.Tech
Degree Programs - 2026 in IISERs established by the Government
of India at Berhampur, Bhopal, Kolkata, Mohali, Pune,
Thiruvananthapuram and Tirupati in furtherance of Ext.P1
information brochure in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026. The
information brochure along with syllabi for IAT - 2026 and

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 37 2026:KER:67525


Annexure to the information brochure which contains formats of
certificates and forms is marked as Ext.R3(a) along with the
counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and as Ext.R2(a)
along with the counter affidavit in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026.
10. Clause 4 of Ext.R3(a) information brochure for IISER
Aptitude Test (IAT) – 2026, hereinafter referred to as ‘information
brochure’, deals with the procedure of admission. As per clause 4,
IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) - 2026 is the only channel of admission.
Candidates must strictly follow the instructions given in the
information brochure and on the IAT website
(www.iiseradmission.in). Applications not complying with the
instructions shall be summarily disqualified.
11. Clause 6 of the information brochure deals with
reservation of seats. As per clause 6, reservation policies as
mandated by the Government of India will apply. The criteria for
OBC-NCL will be as per the Government of India notification.
Candidates belonging to the creamy layer of OBC are not entitled
to reservation. Such candidates are treated as belonging to the
General (GEN), i.e., unreserved category, and they will be eligible
only for the open seats - the seats for which all candidates are

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 38 2026:KER:67525


eligible. EWS/OBC-NCL certificate should be issued by the
Government of India, valid for the financial year 2026-27, and
issued on or after 01.04.2026.
12. Clause 13 of the information brochure deals with
documents required for application. As per clause 13, scanned
copies of the documents/certificates listed below clause 13 are to
be uploaded at the time of online application for IAT - 2026. The
formats of some certificates, as prescribed by the Government of
India, are given in the Annexures. As per clause 13, for candidates
seeking admission under the OBC-NCL category, the OBC-NCL
certificate should have been issued on or after 01.04.2026, as per
the latest guidelines of the Government of India. If any OBC-NCL
candidate fails to submit the OBC-NCL certificate (issued on or
after 01.04.2026) at the time of online application, the candidate
must upload a signed declaration form in lieu of the OBC-NCL
certificate. The candidate has to upload a certificate issued on or
after 01.04.2026, on or before 21.06.2026. Failing which, the
candidate will not be considered for admission under the OBC-
NCL category and will be considered for admission only under the
unreserved category. The relevant provisions of clause 13, which

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 39 2026:KER:67525


deal with candidates seeking admission under the OBC-NCL
category, read thus;
“13. Documents required for the application:-
xxx xxx xxx xxx
For candidates seeking admission under the OBC-NCL
category
• If the candidate wishes to be considered for the seats
reserved for the OBC-NCL category, the candidate MUST
select OBC-NCL as their category in the online application
portal and NOT OBC or any other category.
• As per the latest guidelines of the Government of India,
the OBC-NCL certificate should have been issued on or after
April 01, 2026.
• If any OBC-NCL candidate fails to submit the OBC-NCL
certificate (issued on or after April 01, 2026) at the time of
online application, the candidate must upload a signed
declaration form - “DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE IN
LIEU OF OBC-NCL CERTIFICATE” (see Annexure). The
candidate has to upload a certificate (issued on or after April
01, 2026) on or before June 21, 2026, failing which the
candidate will not be considered for admission under the
OBC-NCL category. Such candidates will be considered for
admission only under the unreserved category.”
(underline supplied)
13. In the Annexure to the information brochure, ‘FORM-
OBC-NCL’ is the format of the OBC-NCL certificate, which is
extracted hereunder;

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 40 2026:KER:67525


OBC-NCL Certificate Format
FORM OF CERTIFICATE TO BE PRODUCED BY OTHER
BACKWARD CLASSES (NCL) APPLYING FOR ADMISSION TO
CENTRAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS (CEIs), UNDER
THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

This is to certify that Shri/Smt./Kumari …………
Son/Daughter of Shri/Smt. …………… of Village/Town ……………
District/Division ………………. in the State/Union
Territory …………. belongs to the community that is
recognised as a backward class under the Government of
India, Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment’s …………………..
……………………………………………….
Shri/Smt./Kumari ……….. and/or ……….. his/her family
ordinarily reside(s) in ……….. the District/Division of …………
the State/Union Territory. This is also to certify that he/she
does NOT belong to the persons/sections (Creamy Layer)
mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule to the Government
of India, Department of Personnel & Training
O.M.No.36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 08.09.1993, which
is modified vide O.M.No.36033/3/2004 Estt.(Res.)dated
09.03.2004, further modified vide O.M.No.36033/3/2004-
Estt.(Res.) dated 14.10.2008, again further modified vide
O.M.No.36036/2/2013-Estt.(Res) dated 30.05.2014, and
again further modified vide O.M.No.36033/1/2013-Estt
(Res) dated 13.09.2017.
14. The format of declaration by the candidate in lieu of
OBC-NCL certificate in the Annexure to the information brochure

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 41 2026:KER:67525


is extracted hereunder;
DECLARATION BY THE CANDIDATE IN LIEU OF OBC-NCL
CERTIFICATE
xxx xxx
xxx xxx
I understand that as per the new guidelines from the
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, GoI,
I am required to submit an OBC-NCL certificate issued on or
after April 01, 2026. Since I have not been able to collect
the said certificate on time, I may kindly be allowed to write
IAT 2026 provisionally. I hereby declare that I will upload a
fresh certificate (issued on or after April 01, 2026) on or
before June 21, 2026 or as notified on the website
(www.iiseradmission.in). I understand that if I do not upload
the same by the given date and time, I will not be
considered for admission under this category. I also
understand that, if qualified, my category will be adjusted
accordingly in the Common Rank List . (underline supplied)
15. Clause 16 of the information brochure deals with
important dates. In clause 16, 21.06.2026 is specified as the last
date for uploading selective information/document in the
application form. Clause 26 deals with important conditions. As
per clause 26, the candidate will be solely and entirely responsible
for the authenticity of the information and documents submitted
by the individual. At any time during or after the process of

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 42 2026:KER:67525


admission, if it is found that a candidate is ineligible for admission
as per the prescribed rules, the candidate’s admission or
candidature will be cancelled immediately. Upon submission of the
application, the candidates are deemed to have agreed and
accepted all the terms and conditions stipulated in the brochure.
The candidate shall not be entitled to seek exemption/variation/
alteration of any condition.
16. As per clause 26 of the information brochure,
candidates are required to carefully read and understand the
contents of this brochure. In case of any doubt, the applicants
may seek clarification before the submission of their application
in advance. Requests for clarification will not be entertained after
the deadlines for application submission and document upload.
Candidates are required to carefully scrutinise and verify every
document being submitted with the application as also the
application itself. The candidate is entirely and solely responsible
for the correctness of these documents/application, for any
mistakes in these documents/application and for any missing/
wrong documents. The candidate is also required to ensure that
all the required documents are submitted on or before the cut-off

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 43 2026:KER:67525


date(s). At any time during or after the process of admission, if it
is found that a candidate is ineligible for admission as per the
prescribed rules, the candidate’s admission or candidature will be
cancelled immediately.
17. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed in
W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and paragraph 10 of the counter
affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026, the appellant Joint
Admission Committee specifically pointed out, with specific
reference to various clauses in the information brochure, that the
candidates were clearly informed of the terms and conditions
applicable to OBC-NCL certificates. The details furnished in
paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.26238 of
2026 read thus;
“(a) At internal page 5 of the information brochure, the
candidates were clearly informed that the criteria for the
OBC-NCL will be as per the notification of the Government
of India.
(b) At internal page 6 of the information brochure, the
candidates were clearly informed that the OBC-NCL
certificate should be issued by the Government of India,
valid for the financial year 2026-27, and issued on or after
April 1, 2026.
(c) At internal page 11 of the information brochure, it has

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 44 2026:KER:67525


been clearly specified that as per the latest guidelines of the
Government of India, the OBC-NCL certificate should have
been issued on or after April 1, 2026.
(d) At internal page 14 of the information brochure, in the
list of important dates, the last date for document upload
has been clearly specified as June 21, 2026.
(e) At internal page 21 of the information brochure, under
the heading important conditions, it has been clearly
specified that upon submission of the application, the
candidates are deemed to have agreed and accepted all
terms and conditions stipulated in the brochure. The
candidate shall not be entitled to seek any exemption/
variation/alteration of any condition.
(f) At internal page 21 of the information brochure, it has
been clearly specified that candidates are required to
carefully read and understand the contents of the brochure.
(g) At internal page 21 of the information brochure, it has
been clearly specified that candidates are required to
carefully scrutinise and verify every document being
submitted with the application as also the application itself.
The candidate is entirely and solely responsible for the
correctness of the documents/application, for any mistakes
in the documents/application and for any missing/wrong
documents/application. The candidate is also required to
ensure that all required documents are submitted on or
before the cut-off date.” (underline supplied)
However, the learned Single Judge has not dealt with the specific
contentions raised in this regard in paragraph 8/10 of the counter

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 45 2026:KER:67525


affidavits filed by the Joint Admission Committee, while rendering
the impugned judgment.
18. Office Memorandum F.No.36036/2/2013-Estt.(Res-I)
dated 31.03.2016 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of
Personnel and Training, Establishment Reservation-I Section, on
the subject ‘validity period of OBC certificate in respect of creamy
layer status of the candidates', is marked as Ext.R3(b) along with
the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and as
Ext.R2(c) along with the counter affidavit filed in W.P.(C)No.27028
of 2026. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant
Joint Admission Committee is that every candidate seeking
reservation in admission as an OBC candidate is required to
submit a certificate confirming his/her status as OBC and also
Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) status issued by the authority
mentioned in the DOPT Office Memorandum No.36012/22/93-
Estt.(SCT) dated 15.11.1993. NCL would be applicable to OBC
candidates who are covered under the income/wealth test
criterion. The income limit is determined by the income earned in
the three previous financial years preceding the year of

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 46 2026:KER:67525


admission. The validity of NCL issued during any month of a
financial year, covering three preceding financial years, would be
from April to March of that financial year. On the above aspect,
st
the argument of the learned counsel for the 1 respondent-
petitioner in the writ appeals is that, as in the case of OBC-NCL
certificates originally uploaded at the time of submission of online
application, in Ext.P5 certificate dated 08.07.2026 in W.P.(C)No.
26238 of 2026 and Ext.P5 certificate dated 22.06.2026 in
W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026, it is certified that the petitioners do not
belong to the creamy layer mentioned in Column 3 of the Schedule
to the Government of India, the Department of Personnel and
Training O.M.No.36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 08.09.1993.
19. As per clause 6 of the information brochure, the criteria
for OBC-NCL will be as per the Government of India notification.
OBC-NCL certificate should be issued by the Government of India,
valid for the financial year 2026-27, and issued on or after
01.04.2026. As per clause 13, for candidates seeking admission
under the OBC-NCL category, the OBC-NCL certificate should have
been issued on or after 01.04.2026, as per the latest guidelines
of the Government of India. If any OBC-NCL candidate fails to

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 47 2026:KER:67525


submit the OBC-NCL certificate (issued on or after 01.04.2026) at
the time of online application, the candidate must upload a signed
declaration form in lieu of the OBC-NCL certificate. The candidate
has to upload a certificate issued on or after 01.04.2026, on or
before 21.06.2026. Failing which, the candidate will not be
considered for admission under the OBC-NCL category and will be
considered for admission only under the unreserved category. In
paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment, the learned
Single Judge has referred to clauses 6 and 13 of the information
brochure.
20. In paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment, the
learned Single Judge observed that a reading of clauses 6 and 13
in the information brochure reveals that the requirement of a
certificate issued on or after 01.04.2026 has been specifically
detailed not only in bold letters in the note to clause 6, but again
in clause 13 relating to documents required for the application.
The above stipulations have been followed by numerous students,
all of whom would have submitted their applications. Similarly,
several other applicants would not have been able to submit their
applications as stipulated and would have been refused

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 48 2026:KER:67525


consideration under the reserved category OBC-NCL. Though the
petitioners in both writ petitions assert that they had
subsequently submitted certificates issued after 01.04.2026,
certifying them as falling within the category OBC-NCL, those
certificates were issued and submitted after 21.06.2026, the cut-
off date for production of certificates.
21. In Dolly Chhanda [(2005) 9 SCC 779] , the decision
st
relied on by the learned counsel for the 1 respondent-petitioner
in both the writ appeals, a Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court
was dealing with a case relating to admission to MBBS course,
based on the rank secured in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)
– 2003, under reserved category, being a daughter of an ex-
service man. In the said decision, the Apex Court observed that,
the general rule is that while applying for any course of study or
a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the
last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure
or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an
express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in
this regard, i.e., in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility
qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 49 2026:KER:67525


producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets.
Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or
weightage, etc., necessary certificates have to be produced. These
are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular
qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to
benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there
can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof, and
it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to
the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to
submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of
candidature.
22. In Dolly Chhanda [(2005) 9 SCC 779] , the
appellant before the Apex Court, who passed 10+2 (Science)
examination conducted by the Council of Higher Secondary
Education, Orissa, in first class, who was desirous of joining
medical course, appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination (JEE)
- 2003 under the reservation provided in clause 2.1.4. of the
information brochure, being the daughter of an ex-serviceman.
Though she was ranked 20 in the reserved category in the medical
stream and called for counselling on 07.07.2003, during the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 50 2026:KER:67525


course of scrutiny of documents, it was found that in the
certificate dated 29.06.2003 given to her father by the Zilla Sainik
Board, in column 3 which pertained to ‘disabled/killed in war/
hostilities’ the words ‘not eligible’ were written. Since the said
certificate did not satisfy the requirement of the reserved
category, her candidature was rejected. The appellant's father
then requested the Zilla Sainik Board, Sambalpur, to rectify the
mistake, which issued a fresh certificate on 16.07.2003 which
mentioned ‘permanently disabled’ in column 3. Though the
appellant produced the correct certificate, no action was taken.
The case of the appellant was that it was the Zilla Sainik Board
which had committed the mistake in not issuing a correct
certificate and the said mistake having been rectified in the
second certificate issued on 16.07.2003, hence she was entitled
to admission in a medical college, as candidates who secured
lower ranks had already been admitted.
23. In Dolly Chhanda [(2005) 9 SCC 779] , the Three-
Judge Bench has referred to the decision of a Two-Judge Bench in
Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew [(1980) 2 SCC 752] ,
where the controversy related to admission to a postgraduate

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 51 2026:KER:67525


course in medicine. The relevant rule provided for the addition of
10% marks if a candidate possessed a diploma in the relevant
subject or subspecialty and this benefit could be given only if the
candidate's success in the diploma course was brought to the
knowledge of the Selection Committee before completion of
selection in an authentic or acceptable manner. The prospectus
provided that the attested copies of statement of marks and other
documents should be attached with every application. Three such
candidates were given admission, who had not attached the
certificate of having passed the diploma along with their
applications. Their admission to postgraduate courses was set
aside by the High Court on the ground that their applications,
wherein they claimed the benefit of diploma, were liable to be
rejected, as the requisite certificates had not been attached. The
Two-Judge Bench reversed the judgment of the High Court and
held that the admission to the candidates had rightly been given,
as they had in fact passed the diploma before the date fixed.
24. In Dolly Chhanda [(2005) 9 SCC 779] , on the facts
of the case at hand, the Three-Judge Bench noted that the
appellant undoubtedly belonged to reserved category, being the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 52 2026:KER:67525


daughter of an ex-service man. She comes from a very humble
background, and her father was only a Naik in the armed forces,
who may not have noticed the mistakes which had been
committed by the Zilla Sainik Board while issuing the first
certificate dated 29.06.2003. But it does not mean that the
appellant should be denied admission, when she produced a
correct certificate at the stage of second counselling. Those who
secured rank lower than the appellant have already been
admitted. Therefore, the Three-Judge Bench held that the view
taken by the authorities in denying admission to the appellant is
wholly unjust and illegal. Since the academic year for JEE – 2003
was already over, the Apex Court directed the respondents to give
admission to the appellant for MBBS course in any of the State
Medical Colleges during the academic year 2004, if found
necessary, after creating one extra seat.
25. In the impugned judgment, after referring to the law
laid down by the Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda [(2005) 9 SCC
779] , the learned Single Judge observed that the law laid down
by the Apex Court indicates that in the matter of submission of
proof of eligibility based on qualification, there can be no

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 53 2026:KER:67525


relaxation, while in the matter of claim of reservation, there can
be some relaxation, depending on the facts of each case, as it is
a matter of submission of proof, and hence falls in the domain of
procedure. On the facts of the case at hand, the learned Single
Judge observed that both petitioners had, along with their
application, submitted documents showing that they belonged to
the OBC-NCL category, but those certificates were issued prior to
the date fixed in the information brochure, i.e., 01.04.2026. As
per the stipulation in the information brochure, they should have
submitted certificates issued on or after 01.04.2026. Later, both
petitioners also submitted such certificates. However, those
certificates were issued and submitted beyond the cut-off date of
21.06.2026.
26. In the impugned judgment, after referring to the
decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya [(2016) 4
SCC 754] , the learned Single Judge observed that, at the time of
publishing the results, the petitioners were categorised as falling
in the OBC-NCL category. Therefore, all that remains is a cross-
verification of whether they continue to remain in the OBC-NCL
category, as stipulated in the information brochure, on the date

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 54 2026:KER:67525


of admission. It is evident from the rank certificates that both
petitioners have been considered and included in the OBC-NCL
category. The inclusion is, of course, subject to document
verification. Certainly, it is a matter that falls in the domain of
procedure as to whether the claim of eligibility and the
categorisation of the petitioners by IISER itself, as falling in the
OBC-NCL category, is justified or not. Therefore, according to the
learned Single Judge, the rigid stipulation of production of the NCL
certificate on or before 21.06.2026, in the circumstances, requires
relaxation, as observed by the Apex Court in Dolly Chhanda
[(2005) 9 SCC 779] .
27. In Ram Kumar Gijroya [(2016) 4 SCC 754] , a Two-
Judge Bench of the Apex Court was dealing with a case in which
the appellant submitted an application for selection to the post of
Staff Nurse in the Department of Health and Family Welfare,
Government of NCT of Delhi, pursuant to a notification dated
30.08.2007 published by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board. The last date of submission of application was 21.01.2008.
Having appeared in the examination, the appellant was shortlisted
for selection. However, his name did not appear in the final list of

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 55 2026:KER:67525


selected candidates, for the reason that he had failed to submit
the OBC certificate issued by the appropriate authority along with
the application form, before the last date of submission of
application. The appellant applied for OBC certificate only ten days
prior to the cut-off date. The contention on behalf of Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board was that the High Court was
justified in not allowing the appellant to submit the OBC certificate
after the cut-off date fixed in the advertisement, as he had failed
to submit the required certificate for availing the benefit of
reservation, within the stipulated time, and thus, he had waived
his right for being considered under the reserved category.
28. In Ram Kumar Gijroya [(2016) 4 SCC 754] , after
considering the rival contentions, the Two-Judge Bench found that
the Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the
decision rendered in Pushpa v. Government of NCT of Delhi
[2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , wherein the learned Single Judge
of the High Court had rightly held that petitioners therein were
entitled to submit OBC certificate before the provisional selection
list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC
category. The Two-Judge Bench noticed that the learned Single

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 56 2026:KER:67525


Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic
manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to
the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by
a Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
[(1992) Supp (3) SCC 217] as well as Valsamma Paul
v. Cochin University [(1996) 3 SCC 545] .
29. As already noticed hereinbefore, in Dolly Chhanda
[(2005) 9 SCC 779] , the Three-Judge Bench was dealing with a
case in which the claim of the appellant for reservation, as
provided under clause 2.1.4. of the information brochure of JEE –
2003, was under the reserved category, being the daughter of an
ex-service man. In the certificate dated 29.06.2003 originally
issued by the Zilla Sainik Board, by mistake, the words ‘not
eligible’ were written in column 3 which pertained to ‘disabled/
killed in war/hostilities’. The said mistake was corrected and a
corrected certificate dated 16.07.2003 was obtained. Similarly, in
Charles K. Skaria [(1980) 2 SCC 752] , the Two-Judge Bench
was dealing with a case in which the relevant rule for admission
to postgraduate course in medicine provided for the addition of
10% marks if the candidate possessed a diploma in the relevant

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 57 2026:KER:67525


subject or subspecialty and the success in the diploma course was
brought to the knowledge of the selection committee before
completion of selection in an authentic and acceptable manner. In
the said case, the admission given to three candidates was set
aside by the High Court, since they have not attached the
certificate of passing the diploma along with their applications. In
Ram Kumar Gijroya [(2016) 4 SCC 754] , the Two-Judge
Bench was dealing with a case in which the claim made by the
appellant for selection to the post of Staff Nurse in the
Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of NCT of
Delhi, was rejected for the reason that he had failed to submit the
OBC certificate issued by the appropriate authority along with the
application form, before the last date of submission of application.
The Two-Judge Bench noted that as held by a learned Single Judge
of the High Court in Pushpa [2009 SCC OnLine Del 281] , to
claim the benefit of reservation of OBC category, candidates are
entitled to submit OBC certificate before the provisional selection
list was published.
30. In Yoshika Verma [2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3760] ,
a decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant, a

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 58 2026:KER:67525


Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana was
dealing with a case in which the petitioner, who appeared in the
JEE (Main) BE/B.Tech examination for the academic year 2021-
22, was denied admission in B.Tech Mechanical Engineering
programme at the Indian Institute of Technology, Indore, on the
ground that, in contravention of clause 15 of the information
brochure for the entrance examination, she got herself registered
for admission on the strength of an OBC-NCL certificate dated
14.06.2016, instead of an OBC-NCL certificate obtained on or
after 01.04.2021, and did not take any steps till the cut-off date
of 27.10.2021, for producing a fresh OBC-NCL certificate. Clause
15 of the information brochure, which is extracted in paragraph
10 of the decision of the Division Bench, is pari materia to clause
13 of the information brochure for IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) –
2026. Clause 15 provided that, for seeking admission in the OBC-
NCL category, the OBC-NCL certificate should have been issued
on or after 01.04.2021 in consonance with the latest guidelines of
the Government of India. If any OBC-NCL candidate fails to submit
the OBC-NCL certificate (issued on or after 01.04.2021) at the
time of online registration, the candidate has to upload a

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 59 2026:KER:67525


declaration (declaration in lieu of OBC-NCL certificate) to that
effect.
31. In Yoshika Verma [2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3760] ,
the Division Bench noticed that, as per the information brochure,
the candidate seeking admission in the OBC-NCL category is
required to submit an OBC-NCL certificate issued by the
competent authority on or after 01.04.2021. The details in respect
of the category, etc., given by the candidates in the registration
form cannot be changed in view of the provisions in Rule XIV(30)
of the Business Rules notified by the Joint Seat Allocation
Authority. The candidates were required to answer queries
regarding online verification of documents no later than
31.10.2021, failing which the provisional seat allocation would be
cancelled. The candidate whose OBC-NCL certificate is found to
be incorrect would be considered as a general category candidate,
by changing his/her category, and his/her admission shall be
considered in that category.
32. In Yoshika Verma [2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3760] ,
the Division Bench observed that emphasis on obtaining a fresh
OBC-NCL certificate cannot be downplayed. Such a certificate is

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 60 2026:KER:67525


required to ensure that a person does not belong to the creamy
layer. The authorities have to periodically verify this, as the status
of a candidate regarding his/her inclusion or exclusion from the
creamy layer is subject to change. In such circumstances, the
authorities have prescribed and required the candidate to produce
an OBC-NCL certificate issued on or after 01.04.2021, which is in
sync with the guidelines issued by the Government of India for
obtaining an OBC-NCL certificate.
33. In Yoshika Verma [2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3760] ,
the Division Bench observed that the respondents are required to
apply the rules uniformly to all candidates. The respondents have
rightly stated in the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's
representation dated 20.01.2022 that there were 26 other OBC-
NCL candidates whose certificates were not found to be in order
and had been denied admission, and in such circumstances, no
exception or concession could be made for the petitioner, in
ignorance of the claim of the other candidates. The rules and
instructions governing admission have to be applied strictly and
uniformly to all candidates, and they cannot be diluted by the
courts or permitted to be treated as mere technicalities.

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 61 2026:KER:67525


34. In Yoshika Verma [2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3760] ,
the Division Bench observed that the courts or the authorities
must ensure that admissions in violation of the rules or
instructions governing admission are not ordered or made on the
grounds of equity or sympathy. All candidates have to be provided
equal treatment and a level playing field by uniformly and strictly
implementing the stipulations prescribed by the rules or
instructions so as to maintain the sanctity and purity of the
admission process and, therefore, those violating the rules or
instructions cannot be permitted to obtain admissions on the
grounds of misplaced sympathy or equity, thereby rendering the
rules otiose or meaningless.
35. In Yoshika Verma [2022 SCC OnLine P&H 3760] ,
the Division Bench considered the decisions of the Apex Court in
Dolly Chhanda [(2005) 9 SCC 779] and Union Public Service
Commission v. Gyan Prakash Srivastava [(2012) 1 SCC
537] . From the facts of the aforesaid decisions relied upon by
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as that of the case at
hand, the Division Bench noticed that the requirements contained
in Rule XIV(30) of the Business Rules notified by the Joint Seat

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 62 2026:KER:67525


Allocation Authority and Rule 15 of the information brochure
governing admission to B.Tech course in the Indian Institute of
Technology were not present in those cases. Unlike the above
cases, the case at hand is not one where the petitioner has been
unjustifiably denied admission on the ground of violation of any
rule by the respondents or on the basis of any unreasonable
technicality, which is clearly evident from the fact that the
petitioner, in spite of being aware of the requirement to produce
the certificate issued on or after 01.04.2021 at the time of online
registration, produced the old certificate, which was issued way
back on 14.06.2016 and, therefore, she was at fault and not the
respondents. In the above circumstances, the Division Bench
dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner challenged the
judgment of the Division Bench before the Apex Court in
SLP(C)No.11464 of 2022, which ended in dismissal by the order
dated 22.07.2022.
36. We notice that the factual matrix in the case at hand
is entirely different from that in the cases dealt with by the Apex
Court in Charles K. Skaria [(1980) 2 SCC 752] , Dolly
Chhanda [(2005) 9 SCC 779] and Ram Kumar Gijroya

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 63 2026:KER:67525


[(2016) 4 SCC 754] . In the case at hand, as provided in clause
6 of the information brochure for IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) –
2026, to claim reservation in admission as an OBC-NCL candidate,
the candidate has to produce the OBC-NCL certificate valid for the
financial year 2026-27, and issued on or after 01.04.2026. As per
clause 13, such an OBC-NCL certificate should have been issued
as per the latest guidelines of the Government of India. In view
of the provisions under clauses 6 and 13 of the information
brochure, to claim reservation in admission as an OBC candidate,
the candidate has to upload the OBC-NCL certificate obtained as
per the latest guidelines of the Government of India, issued on or
after 01.04.2026, i.e., an OBC-NCL certificate issued during any
month of the financial year 2026-27, covering three preceding
financial years, viz. 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26. Therefore,
the NCL status of an OBC candidate to claim reservation in
admission is determined with reference to the income criterion in
the previous three financial years preceding the year of
admission. If the OBC-NCL certificate uploaded by a candidate
along with the application or that uploaded by a candidate (who
gave a declaration in lieu of OBC-NCL certificate), before the cut-

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 64 2026:KER:67525


off date of 21.06.2026, is not valid for the financial year 2026-27,
i.e., covering three preceding financial years, such a candidate will
be considered for admission only under the unreserved category,
in view of the specific provisions contained in clause 13 of the
information brochure for IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) – 2026.
37. In the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge
observed that the initial certificates submitted by both the
petitioners revealed that those certificates were stated as valid for
a period of one year from the date of issue. Obviously, the validity
period mentioned in those certificates covered the date fixed in
the information brochure as well as the cut-off date, i.e.,
21.06.2026. Subsequently, upon being informed of the stipulation
to produce certificates issued on or after 01.04.2026, the
petitioners have also submitted such certificates, though beyond
the cut-off date. Thus, the petitioners’ claim to be included in the
OBC-NCL category remained valid at the time of submitting their
applications and during the admission process.
38 . As contended by the learned counsel for the appellant
Joint Admission Committee, every candidate seeking reservation
in admission as an OBC candidate is required to submit a

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 65 2026:KER:67525


certificate confirming his/her status as OBC and also NCL status
issued by the competent authority. NCL applies to OBC candidates
covered under the income/wealth test criterion. The income limit
is determined by the income earned in the three previous financial
years preceding the year of admission. The validity of NCL issued
during any month of a financial year, covering three preceding
financial years, would be from April to March of that financial year.
39. As per clause 6 of the information brochure for IISER
Aptitude Test (IAT) - 2026, the OBC-NCL certificate should be valid
for the financial year 2026-27, and issued on or after 01.04.2026.
As per clause 13, the OBC-NCL certificate should have been issued
on or after 01.04.2026, as per the latest guidelines of the
Government of India. A reading of the provisions under clauses 6
and 13 of the information brochure would make it explicitly clear
that, at the time of submission of the online application, to claim
reservation in admission as an OBC candidate, the candidate has
to upload the OBC-NCL certificate obtained as per the latest
guidelines of the Government of India, issued on or after
01.04.2026, i.e., an OBC-NCL certificate issued during any month
of the financial year 2026-27, covering three preceding financial

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 66 2026:KER:67525


years, viz. 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26. In the instant case,
admittedly, Ext.P2 OBC-NCL certificate dated 09.02.2026
uploaded by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and Ext.P1
OBC-NCL certificate dated 13.01.2026 uploaded by the petitioner
in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026 were issued during the financial year
2025-26, covering three preceding financial years, viz. 2022-23,
2023-24 and 2024-25, which do not meet the requirements of
clauses 6 and 13 of the information brochure, to claim reservation
in admission as an OBC candidate.
40. We notice that, as contended by the learned counsel
for the appellant Joint Admission Committee, the petitioner in
W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026, intentionally concealed Ext.R2(b)
undertaking given by her on 18.06.2026, in lieu of OBC-NCL
certificate, issued on or after 01.04.2026, as per the requirements
of clause 13 of the information brochure, who had also undertaken
to upload OBC-NCL certificate on or before 21.06.2026, failing
which she will not be considered for admission under OBC-NCL
category. This clearly shows that the petitioner in that writ petition
has approached this Court with unclean hands, suppressing
material facts. We also notice that the petitioner in

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 67 2026:KER:67525


W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026, who failed to upload OBC-NCL
certificate issued on or after 01.04.2026, as per the requirements
of clause 13 of the information brochure, has not even chosen to
give any such undertaking.
41. As per clause 13 of the information brochure, if any
OBC-NCL candidate fails to submit the OBC-NCL certificate (issued
on or after 01.04.2026) at the time of online application, the
candidate has to upload a signed declaration form in lieu of the
OBC-NCL certificate. The candidate has to upload a certificate
issued on or after 01.04.2026, on or before 21.06.2026. Failing
which, the candidate will not be considered for admission under
the OBC-NCL category and will be considered for admission only
under the unreserved category.
42. The petitioner in W.P.(C)No. 26238 of 2026 obtained
Ext.P5 OBC-NCL certificate dated 08.07.2026 and the petitioner
in W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026 obtained Ext.P5 OBC-NCL certificate
dated 22.06.2026, both issued during the financial year 2026-27,
covering three preceding financial years, viz. 2023-24, 2024-25
and 2025-26, only after the cut-off date of 21.06.2026. The
validity of Ext.P2 OBC-NCL certificate dated 09.02.2026 issued to

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 68 2026:KER:67525


the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 and Ext.P1 OBC-NCL
certificate dated 13.01.2026 issued to the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.
27028 of 2026, expired on March 31, 2026, since both certificates
were issued during the financial year 2025-26. Therefore, the
finding of the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment that
the petitioners’ claim to be included in the OBC-NCL category
remained valid at the time of submitting their applications and
during the admission process cannot be sustained in law, which is
liable to be set aside, and we do so. In view of the provisions
under clause 13 of the information brochure, the petitioners in
W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of 2026, who failed to
upload OBC-NCL certificates issued on or after 01.04.2026, on or
before 21.06.2026, will not be considered for admission under the
OBC-NCL category and will be considered for admission only
under the unreserved category.
43. In W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026, one of the reliefs sought
for by the petitioner is a declaration that Note to clause 6 of Ext.P1
[Ext.R3(a)/R2(a)] information brochure to the extent it insists
that OBC-NCL certificate should be issued by the Government of
India valid for the financial year 2026-27 and issued on or after

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 69 2026:KER:67525


01.04.2026, is illegal and is liable to be struck down. The
information brochure for IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) – 2026 was
published in March, 2026. As already noticed hereinbefore, in
various clauses of the information brochure, the candidates were
clearly informed about the terms and conditions applicable to
st
OBC-NCL certificates. The 1 respondent in W.A.No.1701 of 2026
filed W.P.(C)No.26238 of 2026 before this Court only on
30.07.2026, raising a belated challenge against the Note to clause
6 of the information brochure.
44. In view of the provisions under clauses 6 and 13 of the
information brochure, to claim reservation in admission as an OBC
candidate, the candidate has to upload the OBC-NCL certificate
obtained as per the latest guidelines of the Government of India,
issued on or after 01.04.2026, i.e., an OBC-NCL certificate issued
during any month of the financial year 2026-27, covering three
preceding financial years, viz. 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26.
Therefore, the NCL status of an OBC candidate to claim
reservation in admission is determined with reference to the
income criterion in the previous three financial years preceding
the year of admission. The claim for reservation in admission as

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 70 2026:KER:67525


an OBC candidate has to be supported by OBC-NCL certificate
issued as per the latest guidelines of the Government of India. In
such circumstances, the condition stipulated in the Note to clause
6 of the information brochure for IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) - 2026
that OBC-NCL certificate issued to the candidate claiming
reservation in admission should be valid for the financial year
2026-27 and issued on or after 01.04.2026, cannot be said to be
arbitrary or illegal.
45. After the publication of the results of IISER Aptitude
Test (IAT) – 2026, the online counselling process for admission
commenced, and the document marked as Ext.P11 in
W.P.(C)No.27028 of 2026 shows the closing ranks in the first
round of counselling. The Joint Admission Committee received
approximately 1.3 lakh applications. The submission of the
learned counsel for the appellants is that in approximately 1000
cases, candidates could not submit a valid OBC-NCL certificate for
one reason or another. After scrutinising the documents, the
Committee issued offer letters to the successful candidates, who
have also acted on them. Reversing the process would create
many problems not only for the Committee but also for the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 71 2026:KER:67525


successful candidates. The Committee is working against an
extremely tight admission schedule. The classes have to start by
the first week of October, 2026, to complete the syllabus. Any
concession from the court would create chaos in the admission
process.
st
46. The learned counsel for the 1 respondent-petitioner
in W.A.No.1701 of 2026 contended that the submission of the
learned counsel for the appellant that the Joint Admission
Committee is working against an extremely tight admission
schedule since the classes have to be started by the first week of
October, 2026, for the purpose of completing the syllabus, is not
a valid ground to deny admission to meritorious candidates, in
view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in S. Krishna Sradha
[(2020) 17 SCC 465] . The learned counsel has also referred to
Article 46 of the Constitution of India.
47. Article 46 of the Constitution of India provides for the
promotion of educational and economic interests of Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other weaker sections. Article 46
provides that the State shall promote with special care the
educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 72 2026:KER:67525


people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and
all forms of exploitation.
48. In S. Krishna Sradha [(2020) 17 SCC 465] , a
Three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court observed that denial of
admission in a medical course to a meritorious candidate, for no
fault of his/her and though he/she has approached the court in
time and despite the same not granting any just and equitable
relief, would be denial of justice. In exceptional and rarest of rare
cases and in a case where all the conditions stipulated in
paragraph 33.3 in State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Jasmine Kaur
[(2014) 10 SCC 521] are satisfied, the Court can grant
exceptional relief to the candidate by granting admission even
after the cut-off date is over. The condition stipulated in paragraph
33.3 of the decision in Jasmine Kaur [(2014) 10 SCC 521]
reads thus;
“33.3. If a candidate is not selected during a particular
academic year due to the fault of the institutions/authorities
and in this process if the seats are filled up and the scope
for granting admission is lost due to eclipse of time
schedule, then under such circumstances, the candidate

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 73 2026:KER:67525


should not be victimised for no fault of his/her and the court
may consider grant of appropriate compensation to offset
the loss caused, if any.” (underline supplied)
49. In the instant case, admittedly, Ext.P2 OBC-NCL
certificate dated 09.02.2026 uploaded by the petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.26238 of 2026 and Ext.P1 OBC-NCL certificate dated
13.01.2026 uploaded by the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.27028 of
2026 were issued during the financial year 2025-26, covering
three preceding financial years, viz. 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-
25, which do not meet the requirements of clauses 6 and 13 of
the information brochure for IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) - 2026, to
claim reservation in admission as an OBC candidate, which
requires a candidate to claim reservation in admission as an OBC
candidate, to upload the OBC-NCL certificate obtained as per the
latest guidelines of the Government of India, issued on or after
01.04.2026, i.e., an OBC-NCL certificate issued during any month
of the financial year 2026-27, covering three preceding financial
years, viz. 2023-24, 2024-25 and 2025-26. The petitioners in
W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of 2026, who failed to
upload OBC-NCL certificates issued on or after 01.04.2026, on or
before 21.06.2026, will not be considered for admission under the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 74 2026:KER:67525


OBC-NCL category and will be considered for admission only
under the unreserved category. Such a stand taken by the
appellant Joint Admission Committee does not violate Article 46
of the Constitution of India. Since the non-selection of the
petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of 2026 for
admission under OBC-NCL category is due to their failure to
upload OBC-NCL certificates issued on or after 01.04.2026, on or
before 21.06.2026, the principles laid down by the Apex Court in
S. Krishna Sradha [(2020) 17 SCC 465] , for granting
admission even after the cut-off date is over, have no application
to the factual matrix of the case at hand.
50. On the question of territorial jurisdiction, in the
impugned judgment dated 13.08.2026, the learned Single Judge
held that since the petitioners submitted their applications from
Kerala, the rejection of their applications was received in Kerala
and the documents claiming the benefit of OBC-NCL category
were also submitted from Kerala, certainly a fraction of the cause
of action has arisen in Kerala, entitling this Court to consider those
writ petitions.
51. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that, as

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 75 2026:KER:67525


contended in the counter affidavits filed in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of
2026 and 27028 of 2026, this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petitions. On the other hand, the learned
st
counsel for the 1 respondent in the respective writ appeals
contended that the finding of the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment, on the territorial jurisdiction of this Court to
entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, is one made after referring to the law on the point, which
is perfectly legal.
52. On the question of territorial jurisdiction of this Court
to entertain the writ petitions, we notice that, as borne out from
Ext.R3(a)/R2(a) information brochure for IISER Aptitude Test-
2026, the Aptitude Test is conducted for admission to 5-year BS-
MS (Dual Degree), 4-year BS and B.Tech Degree programmes for
the academic year 2026, in the IISERs established by the
Government of India at Berhampur, Bhopal, Kolkata, Mohali,
Pune, Thiruvananthapuram and Tirupati, which includes 5-year
BS-MS (Dual Degree) programme for science offered at IISER,
Thiruvananthapuram, in the State of Kerala. We also notice the
absence of any specific grounds in both the writ appeals on the

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 76 2026:KER:67525


question of territorial jurisdiction, though it is stated as ‘point to
be urged’ in the synopsis. Therefore, we find no reason to
interfere with the finding of the learned Single Judge in the
impugned judgment on the question of territorial jurisdiction.
53. For the reasons stated hereinbefore, we find that the
petitioners in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of 2026 are
not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for in those writ petitions.
On account of their failure to upload OBC-NCL certificates issued
on or after 01.04.2026, on or before 21.06.2026, as per the
requirements of clauses 6 and 13 of the information brochure for
IISER Aptitude Test (IAT) – 2026, they are not entitled to be
considered for admission under the OBC-NCL category and will be
considered for admission only under the unreserved category.
Therefore, we find no reason to sustain the findings of the learned
Single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2026 in
W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of 2026 on the above
aspect.
54. In the result, these writ appeals are allowed by setting
aside the judgment dated 13.08.2026 of the learned Single Judge
in W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of 2026 and 27028 of 2026; however,

CNR : KLHC010651722026
W.A.Nos.1701 and 1702 of 2026 77 2026:KER:67525


without interfering with the finding in the impugned judgment on
territorial jurisdiction.
Consequently, the writ petitions, i.e., W.P.(C)Nos.26238 of
2026 and 27028 of 2026, will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE

MIN