Facts
- Facts as per the Civil Appeal no. 5233 of 2025 filed by Mohit Kumar is as follows, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (Respondent no.3) issued a notification on February 24, 2021 regarding direct recruitment on the posting of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police and Platoon Commander, PAC and Fire Officer, for the year of 2020-21. Mohit kumar, the appellant applied for the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police and also for Platoon Commander on April 20, 2021 and the examination was conducted on May 17, 2022.
- From the examinations conducted by UPPRPB, Mohit scored 313.84 marks but, still his serial number 11108 was present among the list of non-selected candidates, that’s he is aggrieved. He made a representation to UPPRPB. As there were no response received, Mohit filed a writ petition before the High Court of Allahabad. Court directed the Superintendent of Police, UPPRPB to consider Mohit’s representation and to give a reasoned order on it within 4 weeks.
- In the order issued by UPPRPB, it stated that the caste certificate submitted by Mohit was mentioned by Central Government and not by the State Government. This was against the format prescribed in the recruitment notification and because of this he was not considered for OBC reservation, but was considered as general category while considering the marks. The cut-off marks for OBC category was 305.542 and for general category, it was 316.11.
- Mohit again approached the High Court with a new writ petition against the order by UPPRPB. High Court dismissed the writ petion by judgement and order on March 22 2023.
- Facts as per Civil Appeal no.5234 of 2025, filed by Kiran Prajapati is as same as Mohit’s. Kiran applied for the post of Sub- inspector in OBC category, but it didn’t meet the requirements of notification.
- Thus both the appellants went for a connected appeal against the rejection of appeal by the High Court.
Issues
- Whether UPPRPB was bound to accept the OBC certificates submitted by Mohit and Kiran?
- Are Mohit and Kiran treated unequally?
- Is it open to an aspirant or group of aspirants, who do not comply with the terms of the recruitment notification, to raise questions once the result(s) of selection is/ are not palatable to him/them?
- Whether in the light of settled laws, Mohit and Kiran deserve any relief?
Contentions
State Of Uttar Pradesh
Ms. Ruchira Goel appeared for the State and the UPPRPB.
- Argued that, the requirements as per the notification and the rejection of Mohit and Kiran by UPPRPB are valid
- The recruitment UPPRPB was under Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector Service Rules, 2015. Also Uttar Pradesh Public Services Act, 1994, provides reservation for the OBC category.
- And it is also stated that the eligibility criteria for OBC category, who have a reserved 2437 posts is that, if they fail to submit the certificate in prescribed format, within prescribed time period or OBC caste certificate prescribed for Central Government posting, then they will be treated as candidates of unreserved category.
Mohit and Kiran submitted the OBC certificate in the format required for appointments to the Central Government, not for the State Government. Thus Mohit and Kiran were considered unreserved.
- She quoted the judgement of High Court in Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P (2013 SCC Online AII 1286) held that no repugnancy exist in between the financial criteria by Central and State government for the identification of creamy layer. So it is the burden of State government to check the certificate submitted by the individual students to ensure that the certificate is obtained under the rules state provided for the certificate.
Also she quoted the judgements in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifuduallah Khan (2011 12 SCC 85), in which court stated that, “if the rules do not provide, relaxation is not permitted.” And State of T. N v. G. Hemalatha, which used to justify that dismissing of Mohit’s writ petition was right.
Mohit and Kiran
Mr. Rahul Kaushik, learned senior counsel appeared for Mohit and Mr. Kumar Gaurav, the counsel for Kiran adopted the same submissions of Mr. Kaushik.
Submitted the reasons to accept the certificate submitted by Mohit. It shows that the certificate, even if it is for the State Government purpose or Central Government purpose, both are issued by Tehsildar. Mohit who comes from a poor family, which belongs to Ahir community, which a recognised backward class of Uttar Pradesh State, have secured excess of cut-off mark prescribed for the OBC reservation. Also his hard work is being in question, on basis of just a certificate.
He highlighted the decision in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee & Ors (2005 9 SCC 779) by Supreme Court,” Every infraction of rule may not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.” In Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public Service Commision (2017 11 SCC 276) it is stated that if there is any doubts regarding the qualification of candidate, the candidate should be called upon to produce the required certificate.
The reservations provided to the Scheduled Tribe / Scheduled Caste communities is to provide equal opportunities to the socially and economically backward classes of the society. Thus over technicality considerations could be avoided as cited in Ram Kumar Gijoya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selections Board and Anr. (2016 4 SCC 754) and Karn Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.( 2014 2 SCC 588).
Verdict
The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the State and UPPRPB. UPPRPB is not found bound to accept the certificates of Mohit and Kiran as it donot comply with the requirements of notification. Eventhough, Mohit and Kiran are not treated unequally and Article 14 and Article 16 are not violated here or if any ambiguity existed, it was not clarified from part of Mohit and Kiran, it stated that, Mohit and Kiran are not entitled to any relief. Thus, the lead appeal is dismissed and the connected appeal is allowed.
Rationale behind the verdict
Supreme Court first referred the case Registrar General, Calcutta High Court v. Shrinivas Prasad Shah and Ors. (2013 12 SCC 364). In this case it was regarding the submission of Scheduled Tribe Community certificate as per the notification given by the West Bengal Public Service Commission for the purpose of Judicial Service Examination. According to the order the candidates has to submit the certificate issued by the competent authority to obtain the benefit of reservation. And the same decision was taken in the case Shrinivas Prasad Shah. It also shows that all aspirants has to be treated equally and no separate yardsticks can be separate candidates. And this is a precedent set for all subsequent decision. From this itself, Supreme Court cleared that, UPPRPB is not bound to accept the certificates submitted by Mohit and Kiran.
From the notification by UPPRPB itself, it is clear that the requirements and the consequences of violating the regulations. Thus, Mohit and Kiran cannot claim any benefits and are not unequally treated.
An advertisement or notification regarding the selection process can only be challenged if it shows any violation of Article 16 or Article 14 of Indian Constitution. And as per the Supreme Court findings, it’s the duty of the candidates to note the terms and to find if there is any ambiguity and take effort to clarify that. If he/she didn’t get any clarity, thus, without any prejudice he/ she can participate in the selection process and can question the term even if he/ she is not selected. And if the candidate didn’t seek for clarification from recruiting authority and get unselected court may take decision in favour of recruiting authority. Supreme Court cited that the decision in Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar (2019 20 SCC 17) which says the illegality which could not be foreseen, then participation do not restrict the candidate from court procedures.
Defects of Law
Having laws regarding the protection and reservation of Back ward classes are significant to ensure social and economic equality in our society. But having a clear view on this by each and every citizen is important. That we are having different caste certificates according to Central Government and State Government reservations, even if the same authority issues it. This can make confusions among common people. So having a uniform rule for the determination and identification of particular community while issuing caste certificates can ease the procedure of issuing certificates along with this, it avoids confusions and reservation procedures would be more unambiguous. It is the most essential change that our laws have to undergone as it play a major role in uplifting backward classes. And also while avoiding ambiguity in this, it can ensure the equality to every citizen which is provided under Article 14 and Article 16 of Constitution of India. Here, in this case, Mohit and Kiran are not treated unequally by UPPRPB. But still having two different certificate for the same community for same purpose, that’s job placement under Centre and State can make it a burden for the back ward society and also, it can be seen discriminatory. This can also be addressed under Article 21 of Indian Constitution as Right to life and personal liberty can be interpreted as right to have means for standard of life. And if an opportunity to get a posting for job is denied just because of a certificate, that’s a caste certificate, which is already submitted, but for the same matter having two different certificates can be found as a violation of Article 21 along with Article 19 (g) ie, Right to have a profession, according to Constitution of India. And according to 2017 11 SCC 276 authorities should inform the candadates , if the submissions are not satisfactory a.
The law shows that the candidates are strictly adhered to the rules in the notification and they are not able to challenge it before the court of law unless it is the violation of Article 14 and Article 16 of Constitution of India. In the precedent, Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar (2019 20 SCC 17), it says in unforeseen conditions, this can be challenged even after the results are published. This may lead candidates to a confusion that understanding the unforeseen ambiguity cannot have a prescribed standards. But having a new enactment determining uniform basic standards for the recruitment procedure and requested documents all over India can give a clear image to the candidates.
And this is not a criticism against the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and rules in India, a concern arising regarding the recruitment mandatories in India.
Inference
It is a welcoming decision took by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in favour of UPPRPB. It obviously shows how Article 226 of Indian Constitution should be effectively used and misusing can be restricted. Thus it is a warning sign towards the unnecessary suits and writ petitions.
Also it infers how responsible should be a candidate towards his job application and how vigilant should be each citizen towards the law. Unless in such unforeseen conditions candidates can only approach the court if they did not get answered by the authority after participation and result declaration
This decision took by Supreme Court stands a reminder of law. It orders individuals to strictly adhere towards the law. And also it remembers us to challenge or clarify the doubts on time. Once it is delayed court cannot do something on that, as the primary tool which is our have hands are still remaining unused.
Case Commentary by: Rose Maria Nikson
Government Law College, Thrissur, Kerala