Failure to produce a valid Non-Creamy Layer certificate by the deadline defeats EBC reservation eligibility.

The petitioner applied for the 64th Combined Competitive Examination as an Extremely Backward Class (EBC) candidate.

After passing the preliminary and main examinations, she attended the interview on 10 January 2021.

The Commission published the final result on 6 June 2021, showing her at rank 332 and allotting her the post of Section Officer, Bihar Legislative Assembly.

The Commission later cancelled her recommendation because it found that she had not produced a valid EBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) Certificate at interview.

The petitioner said she had submitted an NCL certificate issued in 2006 and later supplied a new certificate on 22–23 July 2021.

She challenged the cancellation and sought appointment.

Whether the Commission was justified in cancelling the petitioner’s recommendation for failure to produce a valid NCL Certificate by the prescribed date, after publishing the result and allotting her a post.

Whether the Commission’s earlier verification and recommendation, despite the certificate deficiency, gave the petitioner a right to appointment.

Public recruitment must comply with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the advertised selection procedure; conditions cannot be relaxed unless a power to do so is reserved and properly publicised (*Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan*, (2011) 12 SCC 85, paras. 29–30).

Where the applicable rules and advertisement do not specify a different eligibility date, eligibility is ordinarily assessed by the application cut-off date (*Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab*, (2000) 5 SCC 262, as discussed in *Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court*, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 405, para. 27).

The Court also relied on *Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar*, 1998 (3) PLJR 34 (FB), which requires compliance with document-submission deadlines while recognising limited writ relief in cases of extreme hardship where the candidate acted diligently.

An NCL claim requires a valid certificate because creamy-layer status may change over time; an earlier recommendation does not, by itself, confer an indefeasible right to appointment contrary to the recruitment conditions.

The advertisement required reservation certificates by the interview, and the Commission’s interview notice required an NCL Certificate issued within the preceding year.

The petitioner’s 2006 certificate did not meet that requirement; the certificate she submitted in July 2021 came after the interview and after publication of the result.

The Court therefore treated her as having failed to establish EBC reservation eligibility within the prescribed time.

Although the Commission had initially recommended her, that administrative error could not create a right to appointment where the eligibility condition was unmet; accepting a late certificate for her alone would also conflict with the requirement of equal and consistent treatment in public recruitment.

The prior result and recommendation did not entitle her to appointment.

The writ petition was dismissed.