OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) eligibility must strictly correspond to the financial year stipulated in the recruitment notification.

The applicant, Siddharth Yadav, applied for the post of Patwari (Post Code - 23) under the OBC category pursuant to a vacancy notification issued by the DDA

On 20.03.2026, the respondents published a merit-wise provisional select list wherein the applicant’s candidature was cancelled/rejected

the applicant challenged this rejection, contending that his OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate dated 19.04.2025 was valid as it was issued within the "crucial date" period of 01.04.2025 to 05.11.2025 specified in the advertisement

The applicant sought a declaration that the certificate was valid and a direction to restore his candidature

1. Whether the applicant’s OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate dated 19.04.2025 complied with the eligibility requirements regarding the relevant financial year stipulated in the vacancy notification

2. Whether the rejection of the applicant’s candidature was arbitrary, illegal, or in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

The core legal determination relied upon the recruitment rules and specific conditions stipulated in the vacancy notification, particularly Clauses 2.1.2 to 2.1.6

These clauses mandate that eligibility for OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) status must be determined with reference to the income/status of the financial year preceding the year of application (in this case, the financial year 2024–2025)

The Tribunal analyzed the certificate provided by the applicant, noting it was issued on 19.04.2025. Upon a "bare perusal," the court determined that the certificate pertained to the financial year 2025–2026

However, according to Clauses 2.1.2 to 2.1.6 of the advertisement, the applicant was required to establish his NCL status based on the financial year 2024–2025

The court noted that the applicant’s counsel failed to provide a satisfactory explanation regarding which financial year the certificate covered

Since the certificate did not align with the mandatory financial year requirement set out in the recruitment notification, and because the applicant had not challenged the validity of the notification's terms, the Tribunal found the respondents’ rejection to be consistent with the advertised criteria

The Original Application was dismissed, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs was issued