OBC-NCL certificates are evidence of pre-existing status and may be submitted after the cut-off date.

The Tripura University (Respondent No. 1) issued an advertisement on 19.07.2023 for the post of Associate Professor in Pharmacy, reserved for the OBC-NCL category.

Clause 3 of the advertisement set 24.08.2023 as the eligibility cut-off date, and Clause 13 required valid/updated certificates in the Government of India (GoI) format.

Respondent No. 7 was selected on 20.11.2023 and produced an updated OBC-NCL certificate dated 12.12.2023, while his initial application included an older 2015 certificate and a 2023 income certificate.

The Appellant challenged the selection, contending that the updated certificate was produced after the cut-off date.

A Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the failure of a candidate to produce an updated OBC-NCL certificate by the prescribed cut-off date is fatal to their selection in a Central University.

2. Whether the Office Memorandums issued by the DoPT (GoI) regarding provisional appointments for reserved categories override the specific cut-off conditions mentioned in an employment advertisement.

The Court primarily applied the Office Memorandums dated 08.10.2015 and 29.03.2023 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India.

These directives stipulate that candidates belonging to SC, ST, and OBC categories who are unable to produce a prescribed certificate at the time of application may be appointed provisionally based on prima facie proof, subject to furnishing the certificate within a reasonable time.

The Court distinguished the precedents of Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court (2025) and Divya v. Union of India (2024), noting they respectively pertained to state-specific judicial service rules and the EWS category, to which the DoPT OMs do not apply in the same manner.

The Court reasoned that as Tripura University is a Central University, it is bound by the DoPT directives.

It held that an OBC-NCL certificate is "mere evidence of a fact which already exists," distinguishing it from technical or academic qualifications which involve the "acquisition" of a status.

Since Respondent No. 7 had uploaded a 2015 OBC certificate and a June 2023 income certificate, he provided sufficient prima facie proof of his category status at the time of application.

Applying the 2015 and 2023 OMs, the Court found that the University acted legally by allowing him to submit the updated certificate post-interview.

The Court rejected the rigid application of the cut-off date, stating that the objective of the selection is to hire the most meritorious candidate and that technical delays in certificate production should not nullify fundamental rights.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the judgment of the Single Judge, and declared Respondent No. 7’s appointment valid with no costs awarded.