Non-creamy layer certificates must accompany applications when expressly required by the recruitment advertisement.

The appellants applied for appointment to the post of Chaukidar pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2017, claiming reservation under the Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category.

Their names were not included in the EBC merit list. They contended that they had submitted the requisite caste and non-creamy-layer certificates with their applications and challenged the rejection of their objections by the competent committee and the consequential order of the District Magistrate.

The State submitted that appellant no. 1 had not enclosed a non-creamy-layer certificate with his application, while the certificate submitted by appellant no. 2 had been issued after the last date for submission of applications, namely 20 November 2017.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding, inter alia, that the issue regarding enclosure of the certificate by appellant no. 1 involved a disputed question of fact not suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction.

Whether the advertisement required candidates claiming EBC reservation to submit a valid non-creamy-layer certificate along with the application by the last date of submission, i.e., 20 November 2017?

Whether appellant no. 1 could claim EBC consideration despite the alleged non-enclosure of the non-creamy-layer certificate with the original application?

Whether the non-creamy-layer certificate issued to appellant no. 2 on 24 May 2018 could be relied upon for an application whose last date was 20 November 2017?

Whether the decision of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition required interference in Letters Patent Appeal?

The Court applied the conditions contained in Advertisement No. 01/2017, particularly the clauses requiring reserved-category applicants from the Backward Class and Extremely Backward Class categories to submit a caste certificate issued by the competent authority containing an endorsement that the candidate did not belong to the creamy layer.

The Court also applied the settled principle that disputed questions of fact, such as whether a document was enclosed with the original application, ordinarily cannot be conclusively adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

The Court considered Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754, concerning the timing of submission of a non-creamy-layer certificate, but held that the precedent was distinguishable on the facts of the present case.

The Court interpreted the advertisement as requiring EBC applicants to furnish the requisite non-creamy-layer documentation in accordance with the prescribed conditions and by the application cut-off date.

In appellant no. 1’s case, the authorities had recorded that the certificate was not enclosed with the original application; the learned Single Judge therefore correctly treated the matter as a disputed factual issue unsuitable for determination in writ proceedings.

In appellant no. 2’s case, the certificate was issued only on 24 May 2018, several months after the prescribed last date of 20 November 2017. Consequently, it could not establish eligibility for EBC consideration in the relevant recruitment process, and the authorities were justified in not considering him under that category.

The reliance on Ram Kumar Gijroya did not assist the appellants because the Court found that decision factually distinguishable.

It upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, accepting the authorities’ treatment of appellant no. 1’s certificate-related claim as a disputed factual matter and rejecting appellant no. 2’s claim because his non-creamy-layer certificate was issued after the cut-off date.

The Letters Patent Appeal was accordingly dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.