Candidate Selecting "General" Category in Application Cannot Subsequently Claim Reservation Benefits or Result Revision.

The Petitioner, a teacher in a Zilla Parishad school, applied for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) on October 5, 2025, specifically selecting the "General" category as he did not possess a physical caste certificate at the time.

He appeared for the exam on November 23, 2025, and obtained an SEBC (Socially and Educationally Backward Class) certificate on November 27, 2025.

Although his scores (88/150 and 85/150) met the reservation cutoff of 83, they fell short of the general cutoff of 90.

Consequently, he was declared ineligible in the final results on February 3, 2026.

This disqualification rendered him ineligible for promotion to the post of Kendra Pramukh despite ranking high in the departmental examination.

The Petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to be treated as an SEBC candidate and have his TET results revised.

1. Whether a candidate who voluntarily applied under the "General" category can later seek reservation benefits by producing a caste certificate obtained after the examination.

2. Whether the Petitioner's failure to disclose his original application category in the initial petition constitutes a suppression of material facts.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the discretionary nature of writ jurisdiction and the requirement for petitioners to approach the court with "clean hands".

The court distinguished the precedent of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (2016), which held that a candidate who applied under a reserved category but submitted the certificate late should not be denied benefits.

The court also referenced the underlying objectives of reservation for marginalized classes as established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University.

The court reasoned that the Petitioner’s claim failed because he did not apply as an SEBC candidate; rather, he categorically chose the "General" status in his application form.

The court observed that allowing a candidate to switch categories post-examination would undermine the integrity of the selection process and "open floodgates" for similar claims.

Furthermore, the court found the Petitioner guilty of material suppression, as he only disclosed the specific details of his "General" category application in a supplemental affidavit after being directed by the court.

The court distinguished Ram Kumar Gijroya on the facts, noting that in that case, the applicant had applied under the reserved category from the outset, whereas the current Petitioner was attempting an "afterthought" shift in status after failing to meet general standards.

The Court dismissed the Writ Petition, holding that the action of the Respondents in declaring the Petitioner ineligible was neither arbitrary nor infirm. No costs were ordered.