David Kumar vs Office Of The Principal District And Sessions Judge (Hqs) & Ors.

$~60
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 27.04.2026
+ LPA 319/2026, CM Nos.27861/2026 & 27862/2026
DAVID KUMAR .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Yogendra Kumar Verma, Mr.
Anmol Pandey and Mr. Jayesh Kain,
Advocates.
versus
OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (HQS) & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel DSJ with Mrs. Tania
Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh,
Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr. Mohnish
Sehrawat, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment
and order dated 11.03.2026 (“ Impugned Judgment ”) passed in W.P.(C)
3065/2026 (“ Writ Petition ”), whereby the Writ Petition filed by the
Appellant was dismissed on the ground that the Appellant did not possess a
valid Other Backward Class (“ OBC ”) (Non-Creamy Layer) Certificate as on
the prescribed cut-off date.
2. The case of the Appellant is that he belongs to the ‘ Jogi ’ community,
which is recognized as an OBC by the Government of NCT of Delhi. The
Appellant has been in possession of an OBC Certificate since 24.06.2010
Signature Not Verified
LPA 319/2026 Page 1 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:26:27

and has continued to fall within the Non-Creamy Layer category as his
family income was below the prescribed threshold.
3. The Appellant has submitted that, pursuant to Advertisement No.
01/2024 dated 12.02.2024 (“ Advertisement ”), issued by the Respondents
for recruitment to the post of Personal Assistant in the District Courts of
Delhi, he applied under the OBC category. The Appellant successfully
cleared all stages of the selection process, including the written
examinations, skill test, and interview, and was thereafter issued an offer of
appointment dated 17.04.2025.
4. It has further been submitted on behalf of the Appellant that, at the
stage of document verification, he furnished a Non-Creamy Layer
Certificate dated 09.05.2025, issued by the competent authority for the
relevant financial year. However, the Respondents rejected the same on the
ground that the Certificate had been issued after the cut-off date of
08.02.2024 and, consequently, cancelled the Appellant’s candidature vide
order dated 26.12.2025. The representation preferred by the Appellant was
also rejected on 17.02.2026.
5. Accordingly, the Appellant instituted the Writ Petition challenging the
cancellation of his candidature and the rejection of his representation by the
Respondents.
6. The Writ Petition came to be dismissed vide the Impugned Judgment,
wherein it was held that the requirement of submitting an OBC Non-Creamy
Layer Certificate before the cut-off date was mandatory and that non-
compliance therewith rendered the Appellant ineligible.
7. The Appellant has assailed the Impugned Judgment on the ground that
the same is contrary to the settled principles of law, inasmuch as it fails to
Signature Not Verified
LPA 319/2026 Page 2 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:26:27

appreciate that the Appellant’s OBC Non-Creamy Layer status constituted a
matter of substantive eligibility, which existed as on the cut-off date, and
that the certificate was merely evidentiary in nature. It was further submitted
that the distinction between ‘eligibility’ and ‘proof of eligibility’ has been
erroneously overlooked.
8. It was further submitted on behalf of the learned Counsel for the
Appellant that it is a settled position in law that procedural requirements
cannot defeat substantive rights. In this regard, reliance was placed upon the
decisions of the Supreme Court in Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew ,
(1980) 2 SCC 152, and Dolly Chandra v. Chairman, JEE , (2005) 9 SCC
779, to contend that delayed submission of proof cannot negate eligibility
that otherwise existed. It was further submitted that OBC Certificates issued
after the cut-off date are liable to be considered where the candidate
belonged to the OBC category on the relevant date.
9. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the
action of the Respondents was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India, 1950 (“ Constitution ”), inasmuch as it created an
artificial classification between similarly situated candidates solely on the
basis of the date of issuance of the Certificate, which bore no nexus to the
object sought to be achieved.
10. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the
rejection of the Appellant’s candidature, despite his merit and undisputed
eligibility, defeated the very object of the reservation contemplated under
Article 16(4) of the Constitution, which is intended to secure substantive
equality. It was contended that the rigid application of the cut-off condition,
Signature Not Verified
LPA 319/2026 Page 3 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:26:27

in the absence of any fraud, misrepresentation, or prejudice to third parties,
was disproportionate and unjust.
11. It was further submitted on behalf of the Appellant that, having
successfully cleared the entire selection process and having been issued an
offer of appointment, the Appellant had a legitimate expectation of
appointment. It was contended that the denial of appointment on a purely
technical ground resulted in manifest injustice.
12. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the present
Appeal raises substantial questions of law concerning the interplay between
procedural requirements and substantive eligibility, the scope of judicial
review in matters of administrative fairness, and the correct interpretation of
reservation-related conditions in recruitment processes.
13. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Non-
Creamy Layer Certificate operated retrospectively and that the doctrine of
relation back was applicable, as the Certificate was issued for a particular
financial year certifying the income status pertaining to that concluded
period and, therefore, related back to the relevant financial year. It was
contended that the date of issuance of the Certificate did not alter the
underlying financial position.
14. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied upon the decision in
Ram Kumar Gijroya v. DSSSB , (2016) 4 SCC 754, to contend that the
Supreme Court has held that OBC certificates issued after the cut-off date
are liable to be considered if the candidate belonged to the OBC category on
the relevant date.
15. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that
the Impugned Judgment accorded undue primacy to the terms of the
Signature Not Verified
LPA 319/2026 Page 4 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:26:27

Advertisement by treating them as inflexible and absolute. It was submitted
that administrative instructions are subordinate to constitutional principles
and cannot override fundamental rights or equitable considerations.
16. It was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that no prejudice would
be caused to the selection process or to third parties if relief were granted to
him, as he would neither displace any selected candidate nor disturb the
merit list. It was further submitted that the Appellant’s claim was founded
solely upon his rightful eligibility and possession, as held in Dolly Chandra
(supra).
17. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that, in terms of
Clause 7 of the Advertisement, all candidates were required to be in
possession of the necessary certificates in support of their claim at the time
of filing the online application, the cut-off date wherefore was 08.02.2024. It
was further submitted that candidates seeking the benefit of the OBC
category were required to furnish a Non-Creamy Layer Certificate if their
caste certificates had been issued in the preceding financial years, and such
Non-Creamy Layer Certificate ought to have been issued by the competent
authority prior to the prescribed cut-off date. Reliance was also placed on
the Appellant’s reply dated 05.07.2025, wherein he admitted that he had
applied for the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate only in the first week of May
2025, much after the expiry of the cut-off date of 08.02.2024. Accordingly,
it was submitted that the Appellant had never fulfilled the essential
eligibility condition for availing the benefit under the OBC (Non-Creamy
Layer) category in terms of the Advertisement.
18. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Parties.
Signature Not Verified
LPA 319/2026 Page 5 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:26:27

19. The learned Single Judge in the Impugned Judgment has relied upon
Clause 7 of the Advertisement which reads as under:
“ 7. RESERVATION BENEFITS:
(i) Reservation benefits will be available to the
SC/ST/OBC/EWS/PwBD/ESM & other special category candidates
in accordance with the extant Instructions / Orders / Circulars
issued from time to time by the Govt. of India and Delhi District
Courts Establishment Rules, 2012. The candidate has to select the
particular category when applying online for the Post. They should
be in possession of necessary certificate in support of their claim at
the time of filling of the online application. No request for change
of Category will be entertained at any later stage.
(ii) The Board will make shortlisting of candidates in pursuance to
the vacancies reported for various posts by District & Sessions
Courts and Family Courts. The Board does not have any role in
deciding the number of vacancies in any of the court.
Implementation of reservation policy, maintaining reservation
roster and earmarking of vacancies amongst different categories
fall under the domain of the District & Sessions Courts and
Family Courts.
(iii) The cut off date will be the closing date of application i.e.
08/02/2024 for ascertaining the eligibility of the Candidates for
extension of any benefits wherever applicable.
(iv) OBC reservation benefit shall be given to only those candidates
who are in possession of OBC Certificate issued by the Competent
Authority of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi for the caste recognized as
OBC by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Candidates belonging to
OBC category would be required to submit the non- creamy layer
(NCL) certificate issued from the Competent Authority of the Govt.
of NCT of Delhi in case his/her Caste Certificate was issued in the
previous financial year(s). The NCL certificate should have been
issued before cut off date by the Competent Authority of Govt. of
NCT of Delhi, which has issued the OBC Caste Certificate. OBC
(Outside) candidates will be treated as Unreserved candidate and
they must apply under UR category. ”
Signature Not Verified
LPA 319/2026 Page 6 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:26:27

20. As is evident from the aforesaid Clause, it is categorically stipulated
that a candidate is required to select the relevant category while applying
online for the post, and that no request for change of category shall be
entertained at any subsequent stage. The Advertisement further provides that
the cut-off date for determining the eligibility of a candidate for extension of
any applicable benefit shall be 08.02.2024. It is also specifically stipulated
therein that candidates belonging to the OBC category are required to submit
a Non-Creamy Layer Certificate issued by the competent authority of the
Government of NCT of Delhi where the caste certificate had been issued in
the preceding financial year(s). The Advertisement further makes it explicit
that such Non-Creamy Layer Certificate must have been issued by the
competent authority prior to the cut-off date.
21. In view of the aforesaid stipulation, the Appellant was, at all material
times, aware of the requirement of obtaining the Non-Creamy Layer
Certificate prior to the cut-off date, the same having been expressly set out
in the Advertisement. Therefore, the fact that the Appellant applied for the
Non-Creamy Layer Certificate only in the first week of May 2025, long after
the expiry of the cut-off date, demonstrates that, despite being aware of the
mandatory eligibility requirement, he failed to fulfil the criteria necessary to
avail the benefit of the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category.
22. The learned Single Judge has clearly observed that the condition
stipulated in the Advertisement was express and unambiguous. It has further
been noted that the Appellant admitted that he sought issuance of the
Certificate only in the first week of May 2025. The learned Single Judge
rightly held that the present case is not one where the Appellant had applied
Signature Not Verified
LPA 319/2026 Page 7 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:26:27

within the prescribed time and the issuance of the Certificate was delayed
for administrative reasons attributable to the issuing authority.
23. The Impugned Judgment has also distinguished the decision in Ram
Kumar Gijroya (supra) on the ground that the ratio thereof is of no
assistance to the Appellant, since the Appellant had not even applied for the
Non-Creamy Layer Certificate as on the cut-off date. Further, in view of the
decision in Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court , 2025 INSC 463, wherein
the Supreme Court authoritatively held that OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)
certification is dependent upon social and economic status and is therefore
liable to annual or periodical verification, the learned Single Judge held that,
since such status is not static and the validity of the Certificate at the
relevant time assumes significance, the reliance placed by the Appellant on
Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) could not be accepted.
24. The learned Single Judge has rejected the submission advanced on
behalf of the Appellant that, in the absence of fraud, concealment, or
misrepresentation, his candidature ought to have been considered, on the
ground that the absence of fraud does not confer eligibility where the
Advertisement required a condition to be satisfied by a specified date and
the Appellant had failed to satisfy the same.
25. In view of the aforesaid findings by the learned Single Judge, we are
of the considered opinion that the cut-off date of 08.02.2024 was sacrosanct
and that sufficient notice had been afforded to the Appellant to furnish the
requisite documentation in support of his application. Inasmuch as the
Appellant has himself admitted that he applied for the Non-Creamy Layer
Certificate only in the first week of May 2025, a circumstance that has
Signature Not Verified
LPA 319/2026 Page 8 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:26:27

weighed substantially with the learned Single Judge while dismissing the
Writ Petition.
26. We concur with the finding that the Appellant was not entitled to any
relaxation of the cut-off date by permitting an extended period for
submission of the Non-Creamy Layer Certificate, particularly when the
application for the said Certificate itself was made after the cut-off date.
Consequently, the cancellation of the Appellant’s candidature was justified
and in accordance with the Advertisement.
27. It is settled law that transparency must be maintained in matters of
public recruitment, and it is for this reason that the advertisement governing
the recruitment process sets out the applicable terms and conditions. The
scope of judicial interference in the interpretation and implementation of
such recruitment conditions is extremely limited. So long as the terms are
clear and unambiguous, the Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot
modify the same or carve out exceptions for individual candidates. In the
present case, the Appellant was fully aware of the terms of the
Advertisement and nevertheless failed to comply therewith.
28. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the Impugned Judgment. In view
thereof, the present Appeal is dismissed. All pending Applications shall also
stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
APRIL 27, 2026
ap
Signature Not Verified
LPA 319/2026 Page 9 of 9
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:11.05.2026
19:26:27