Delayed issuance of a renewed OBC certificate cannot defeat reservation eligibility when renewal was timely sought.

The applicant challenged the corrigendum dated 23.07.2025 by which his candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (Trauma & Emergency, Anaesthesiology) under the OBC category at AIIMS, Rishikesh, was cancelled.

He had an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate dated 06.11.2023 and applied for its renewal on 31.05.2025, before the interview/document verification held on 13.06.2025.

The renewed certificate was issued on 24.06.2025.

The applicant contended that he had disclosed his OBC status, informed the Selection Committee about the pending renewal, and that the delay in issuance was attributable to the competent authority.

He was initially declared selected in the Faculty Result (Phase-I) dated 09.07.2025, but his candidature was subsequently cancelled on the ground that the prescribed OBC certificate had not been produced at document verification.

The Tribunal had earlier restrained the respondents from filling the concerned vacancy during the pendency of the proceedings.

1. Whether the applicant could be denied consideration under the OBC category merely because the renewed OBC certificate was issued after the interview/document-verification date, when he had applied for renewal before that date and his underlying OBC status was not disputed?

2. Whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the applicant’s candidature solely on the ground that the renewed OBC certificate was unavailable at the stage of document verification?

3. Whether the applicant was entitled to appointment and consequential benefits subject to his otherwise satisfying the applicable eligibility and merit requirements?

The proceedings were instituted under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The Tribunal applied the principle that a candidate should not ordinarily be deprived of reservation benefits merely because a category certificate was produced after the prescribed stage, where the candidate had otherwise established the relevant status and the delay was attributable to the competent authority rather than the candidate.

This principle was derived from Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., AIR 2016 SC 1098, concerning delayed production of an OBC certificate.

The Tribunal also relied on Ravi Kumar v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, W.P.(C) No. 15514/2023, decided on 02.02.2024, and Sunanda v. DSSSB & Ors., O.A. No. 967/2021, decided on 24.09.2024, which applied the same principle where the candidate had taken timely steps to obtain the requisite certificate and its issuance was delayed for reasons beyond the candidate’s control.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had consistently claimed OBC status, possessed an earlier OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate, and had applied for renewal before the date of interview/document verification.

The subsequent certificate dated 24.06.2025 was issued before the applicant’s selection was cancelled and there was no material showing that his OBC status had arisen only after the selection process or that it had ceased at any relevant time.

Since the only deficiency identified by the respondents was the non-availability of the renewed certificate at document verification, and the delay was attributable to the issuing authority, the Tribunal held that the applicant could not be penalised for circumstances beyond his control.

Applying the principles in Ram Kumar Gijroya, Ravi Kumar and Sunanda, it concluded that cancellation solely on this ground was unsustainable.

The corrigendum dated 23.07.2025 cancelling/rejecting the applicant’s candidature was quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to offer the applicant appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Trauma & Emergency, Anaesthesiology) under the OBC category, subject to his being otherwise eligible and having secured the requisite merit under the applicable rules.

The exercise was directed to be completed preferably within two months from receipt of the order, and consequential benefits were granted on a notional basis in accordance with the applicable rules.

Pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of and there was no order as to costs.