Two GPSC Aspirants Lose SEBC Candidature As Gujarat HC Upholds Rejection Over NCL Certificates Expired Before Verification

The petitioners applied for posts under the SEBC category and held Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) Certificates when they submitted their applications.

At the document-verification stage, GPSC required certificates issued within specified periods ending on 18 August 2025 and 26 September 2025, respectively. The petitioners did not possess certificates issued within those periods; their earlier certificates had expired, and they obtained fresh certificates after the document-upload deadlines.

GPSC rejected their SEBC-category candidature. They challenged those decisions, arguing that their subsequent certificates covered the relevant financial year and confirmed that their NCL status had not changed.

The Court applied the recruitment advertisement’s requirement that candidates claiming the NCL benefit upload a certificate issued within the stipulated period; it treated the advertisement’s conditions as binding and uniformly applicable.

It relied on the Coordinate Bench’s decision in Special Civil Application No. 9082 of 2026, upheld in Letters Patent Appeal No. 829 of 2026, for the principle that where the governing recruitment terms require the relevant certificate by the document-upload deadline, a certificate issued later cannot relate back to confer eligibility.

The Court distinguished Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE & Ors., (2005) 9 SCC 779, and Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., (2016) 4 SCC 754, on the facts.

The advertisement required candidates claiming the NCL benefit to upload a certificate within the period later notified by GPSC. The petitioners’ certificates had expired before document verification, and their replacement certificates were obtained after the respective deadlines.

The Court held that the fact that those later certificates covered the relevant financial year, or that the petitioners’ NCL status had not changed, did not satisfy the requirement to hold a valid certificate by the prescribed date. Applying the reasoning in SCA No. 9082 of 2026, the Court concluded that the subsequent certificates could not relate back to establish eligibility. It also found the authorities relied on by the petitioners distinguishable.

Both writ petitions were dismissed without costs. The stay application in SCA No. 6882 of 2026 was disposed of as not surviving.