The Delhi High Court recently ruled that recruitment authorities cannot insist on rigid or arbitrary issuance dates for Other Backward Class–Non Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) certificates [Raghvendra Singh & Anr v Union Public Service Commission & Anr].
The Court held that such certificates must be accepted so long as they are issued within the same financial year as the examination for which a candidate applies.
A Division Bench of Justices C Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla observed that caste/OBC status is a pre‑existing fact by birth and the certificate merely evidences that status, unlike an educational qualification that must exist by the cut‑off date.
It observed that OBC‑NCL certificates are based on income for the preceding three financial years and conceptually align with the financial year, not with arbitrary windows announced by recruiting authorities, leaving candidates only a few days to procure the certificates.
“The cut-off date in the middle of the FY deprives the petitioners of rights owed to them under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Put differently, the OBC-NCL certificate shall be considered by an appointing/recruiting authority so long as its date of issuance falls within the same FY as that of the examination for which the candidate appears,” the Court held.
The Court allowed a batch of petitions challenging the cancellation or downgrading of OBC-NCL candidates who had cleared the 2023 and 2024 CAPF (AC) written exams.
Their candidature was rejected, converted to general, or kept provisional because their OBC-NCL certificates were not issued within the narrow windows -- April 1 to 16 May 2023 and April 1 to 14 May 2024.
The condition was imposed under Rule 21.2 of the CAPF (AC) Examination Rules. It required certificates to reflect income for the preceding three financial years and to be issued only after the latest financial year and before the application deadline.
After considering the case, the bench stressed that the cut-off period had “no rational nexus” with the purpose of reservation.
“The insistence of the respondents on the cut-off period has deprived otherwise eligible petitioners-candidates and is in the teeth of the affirmative action as envisaged by our Constitution in providing reservation in public employment. Such insistence cannot be allowed to override rights owed to the petitioners under Article 16 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.
Therefore, it declared Rule 21.2 as arbitrary and ordered the government to reconsider the candidature of the petitioners, considering all OBC-NCL certificates issued within the relevant financial year.
Advocates Saaket Jain, Shivangi Anand, Sarthak Kumar Meena, Parth Taran Singh, Saurav Agrawal, Asav Rajan, Ajay Sharma, Mayank Biyani, Akash Saxena, Devang Shrotriya and Kashish Chadha, Pankaj Mehta, Shweta Soni, Akansha Singh and Apaar Puri appeared for the petitioner.
Senior Advocate Naresh Kaushik with Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh and Vasu Agarwal appeared for the UPSC.
Advocates Rajesh Gogna, Priya Singh, Rebina Rai, Shivam Tiwari, Mahamaya Chatterjee, Akash Dubey, Vijendra Singh Mahndiyan, Syed Abdul Haseeb, Wahid Mashaal, Anisul Haque, Akash Vajpai, Archana Kumari, Mukul Singh and Aryan Dhaka represented the Union of India.
[Read Judgment]