Candidate Cannot Be Disqualified for Using Reissued OBC Certificate If Original Was Issued Before Cut-Off Date

The applicant applied for the post of TGT (Natural Science) (Female) under the OBC category pursuant to Advertisement No. 2/2010

The applicant possessed a valid OBC certificate (No. 9530063257) at the time of application but misplaced it along with other documents, leading her to lodge an NCR on March 14, 2012

She applied for and received a fresh OBC certificate on June 1, 2012

Upon qualifying for the post, the respondents cancelled her candidature because she could not produce the original OBC certificate issued before the cut-off date, even though Respondent No. 4 (Deputy Commissioner) confirmed the existence and issuance of the original certificate

The respondents contended that certificates issued after the cut-off date are invalid based on judicial precedent

1. Whether the cancellation of candidature is sustainable when the original category certificate was issued before the cut-off date but was lost, and a subsequent certificate was produced after the cut-off date

2. Whether the principles established in Divya v. Union of India regarding the cut-off date for OBC/EWS certificates apply to cases where a valid certificate existed prior to the deadline but was merely lost

The court examined the principles regarding the validity of reservation certificates and the importance of cut-off dates as established in Divya v. Union of India

equitable principle that bona fide administrative or clerical loss of a document should not override the substantive status of a candidate

in the absence of malpractice, fraud, or misrepresentation, a candidate’s eligibility—verified by competent authorities—cannot be denied solely due to the physical absence of an original document that had been validly issued prior to the cut-off date

The Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim was bona fide because the existence of the original certificate (No. 9530063257) was verified and confirmed by Respondent No. 4

The Tribunal distinguished this case from Divya v. Union of India, noting that the applicant was not seeking the benefit of a new status acquired after the cut-off date; rather, she had always belonged to the OBC category and held a valid certificate before the deadline

The Tribunal reasoned that since the category remained unchanged and there was no evidence of fraud or malafide intent, the technicality of a subsequent certificate date should not result in the denial of employment

The respondents had the means to verify the photocopy against their own records but failed to do so, preferring a rigid interpretation that the Tribunal deemed unsustainable in these specific circumstances

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application and quashed the impugned order cancelling the applicant's candidature. The respondents were directed to issue an offer of appointment to the applicant within two months, subject to the verification of Certificate No. 9530063257, with all consequential benefits as per law