Supreme Court of India
MOHIT KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 704
- Decided
- 14 May 2025
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Board is not obligated to accept OBC certificates that do not conform to the prescribed format; failure to comply with the notification’s mandatory requirements justifies rejection of the candidate’s claimed reservation status.
Summary
The Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (UPPRPB) issued a 2021 notification for sub‑inspector recruitment requiring OBC candidates to submit a caste certificate in a specific state‑prescribed format. Mohit Kumar and Kiran Prajapati, both OBC candidates, submitted certificates in the Central Government format, were treated as general‑category candidates, and were not selected. They filed writ petitions challenging the Board’s refusal to accept their certificates; the High Court dismissed Mohit’s petition but allowed Kiran’s, a decision later upheld by a Division Bench. The Supreme Court examined whether the Board was bound to accept certificates not in the prescribed format and held that the format requirement is mandatory and must be scrupulously followed. It emphasized that recruitment advertisements set the yardstick for all aspirants and non‑compliance justifies rejection. Consequently, the Court dismissed the lead appeal (Mohit) and allowed the connected appeal (Kiran), finding no relief for either appellant.
Issues considered
- Whether the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board is bound to accept OBC certificates not in the format prescribed in the recruitment notification.
- Whether non‑compliance with the prescribed certificate format warrants treating the candidate as a general‑category applicant.
- Whether the terms of a recruitment advertisement are amenable to judicial challenge on the ground of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Legislation cited
Headnote
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board was bound to accept the OBC certificates submitted by aspirants which, admittedly, were not in the format prescribed in the recruitment notification. Headnotes† Service law – Recruitment in the format prescribed – Requirement, if mandatory – Appellant-candidate applied for the post of sub-inspector and was called for examination – However, his representation rejected on the ground that he did not submit OBC certificate in the prescribed format and thus,
Subjects
OBC certificateCertificate in prescribed formatAhir communityGeneral category candidateReservationRecruiting authorityUttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion BoardRecruitment notificationPost of sub-inspectorPublic employmentBenefit of reservationSelection process
Judgment
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 499 : 2025 INSC 704
Mohit Kumar
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5233 of 2025)
15 May 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and
Promotion Board was bound to accept the OBC certificates
submitted by aspirants which, admittedly, were not in the format
prescribed in the recruitment notification.
Headnotes†
Service law – Recruitment – Submission of caste certificate
by aspirants in the format prescribed – Requirement, if
mandatory – Appellant-candidate applied for the post of
sub-inspector and was called for examination – However, his
representation rejected on the ground that he did not submit
OBC certificate in the prescribed format and thus, considered
in the general category – Writ petition by the appellant –
Dismissed by the High Court – In other case, the respondent-
candidate not placed on select list because certificate was not
submitted in the prescribed format – Writ petition thereagainst,
allowed by the Single Judge of High Court, directing the
Recruitment Board to accept the OBC certificate submitted
by the respondent and to process her application further –
Division Bench upheld the same – Correctness:
Held: Although there is no statutory mandate as regards the
requirement of production of a certificate from the competent
authority in the facts of the case, requirement in question is no
less mandatory and must be scrupulously followed – Once a
process of recruitment is set in motion, all aspirants are entitled in
law to equal treatment – There cannot be different yardsticks for
different sets of aspirant – Non-compliance with the terms of the
notification is bound to trigger adverse consequences of rejection
of the aspirant’s claimed status – Selecting body/appointing
authority would be justified in not entertaining the application of
* Author
500 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
an aspirant as a member of the community for whom reservations
are permissible – Terms of an advertisement issued in connection
with a selection process are normally not open to challenge unless
the challenge is founded on the ground of breach – Recruiting
authority is the best judge of what its requirements are and it is
such understanding of the recruiting authority that would matter
most in cases brought up before the courts – After commencement
of the process wherein aspirants have participated without raising
any demur as to what a particular terms means, even if any of
the terms be ambiguous, the courts should lean in favour of the
recruiting authority – Even if the two candidates had doubts as
to whether the certificates that they had would suffice, nothing
prevented them from seeking such clarification and, at the same
time, approach the concerned tehsildars to issue certificates in
the requisite format – It cannot be said that insistence on the part
of Board of certificates issued in the requisite format is a mere
formality which could have been dispensed with since they had
certificates issued in the other format – Thus, the candidates not
entitled to any relief. [Paras 14, 19, 21, 24]
Case Law Cited
Registrar General, Calcutta High Court v. Shrinivas Prasad Shah
and Ors. [2013] 3 SCR 211 : (2013) 12 SCC 364 – relied on.
Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan [2011] 11 SCR 635 :
(2011) 12 SCC 85; State of T.N. v. G. Hemalathaa (2020) 19 SCC
430; Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee & Ors. [2004] Supp. 5 SCR
79 : (2005) 9 SCC 779; Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public
Service Commission (2017) 11 SCC 276; Ram Kumar Gijroya v.
Delhi Subordinate Services Selections Board and Anr. (2016) 4
SCC 754; Karn Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi &
Ors., (2024) 2 SCC 588; Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar [2019] 15
SCR 273 : (2019) 20 SCC 17 – referred to.
Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P., 2013 SCC OnLine All 1286 –
referred to.
List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Schedule Castes,
Schedule Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994; Uttar
Pradesh Sub-inspector and Inspector (Civic Police) Service
(Amended) Rules, 2015; Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 501
Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
List of Keywords
OBC certificate; Certificate in prescribed format; Ahir community;
General category candidate; Reservation; Recruiting authority; Uttar
Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board; Recruitment
notification; Post of sub-inspector; Public employment; Benefit of
reservation; Selection process.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5233
of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in WA No. 18987 of 2022
With
Civil Appeal No. 5234 of 2025
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv., Kumar Gaurav, Tom Joseph, Ms. Kristen
Sleeth, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Ms. Veera Mahuli, Sharanya Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ruchira Goel, Ms. Veera Mahuli, Sharanya Singh, Kumar Gaurav,
Tom Joseph, Ms. Arya Krishnan, Prashant Bhardwaj.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Dipankar Datta J.
1. These appeals, arising out of orders passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad1 on separate writ petitions2 with differing
outcomes but concerning the same recruitment process, raise a
common question of law.
1 High Court
2 WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2022 and WRIT - A No. – 18987 of 2022
502 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Facts in Civil Appeal 5233 of 2025
2. Respondent no.3/Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion
Board3 issued a notification on 24th February 2021 for direct recruitment
on the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police and Platoon Commander,
PAC and Fire Officer, for the year 2020-2021.4 The appellant-Mohit
Kumar,5 on 20th April 2021, applied for the post of Sub-Inspector,
Civil Police as well as for Platoon Commander and was thereafter
called for examination, which was held on 17th May 2022.
3. Pursuant to the examinations conducted by UPPRPB, Mohit scored
313.84 marks. A list of non-selected candidates came to be published,
which featured Mohit’s registration number at serial number 11108.
Aggrieved thereby, Mohit made a representation to UPPRPB on
21st July 2022. Receiving no response, Mohit moved a writ petition6
before the High Court, praying that his representation be considered.
The High Court, on 4th August 2022, directed the Superintendent of
Police, UPPRPB, to consider the representation and pass a reasoned
order thereon within 4 weeks.
4. Respondent no. 4,7 by its speaking order dated 15th September
2022, rejected Mohit’s representation on the ground that he did not
submit OBC8 certificate in the format prescribed at the time of initial
recruitment release and, thus, he was considered in the general
category instead of the OBC category. The cut-off marks for the
general category were 316.11, whereas for the OBC category it was
305.542. The order also stated that as per Mohit’s own case, at the
time of application, he had mentioned the certificate issued by the
Central Government instead of the State Government.
5. Mohit yet again approached the High Court by way of a writ petition,9
challenging the order rejecting his representation. The High Court,
by its judgment and order dated 22nd March 2023, dismissed the writ
petition while holding that the order impugned in the petition did not
3 UPPRPB
4 Recruitment Notification
5 Mohit
6 WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2022
7 Additional Secretary, UPPRPB
8 Other Backward Class
9 WRIT - A No. – 18987 of 2022
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 503
Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
call for interference. The order of the High Court rejecting Mohit’s
writ petition has been impugned in the lead appeal.
Facts in Civil Appeal 5234 of 2025
6. UPPRPB, by the same notification as referred to in the lead appeal,
notified the recruitment for posts of sub-inspector (SI) Civil Police,
Platoon Commander and PAC and Fire Fighting Second Officer for
the year 2020-2021. The sole respondent-Kiran Prajapati10 applied
for the post of sub-inspector (SI) Civil Police on 8th April 2021,
in the OBC category. Similar to the lead appeal, Kiran appeared
for the examination and cleared the same by scoring 287 marks.
Pertinently, the cut-off marks for the general category and the OBC
category were 296.597 and 285.92. However, after verification of
documents and noticing that the OBC certificate was not submitted
in the prescribed format by Kiran, UPPRPB did not place her in the
select list. Against this rejection, Kiran addressed a representation
to UPPRPB.
7. Receiving no response, Kiran filed a writ petition11 before the High
Court seeking a direction for acceptance of the OBC Certificate
submitted by her. A single judge of the High Court allowed the writ
petition vide order dated 27th March 2023 and directed UPPRPB to
accept the OBC certificate submitted by Kiran and to process her
application further. Against the order of the single judge, UPPRPB
preferred an appeal12 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
By an order dated 25th August 2023, the High Court dismissed the
appeal and confirmed the order of the single judge.
8. The appellants in the connected appeal impugn this order of the
High Court rejecting their appeal.
Submissions for the State of Uttar Pradesh
9. Ms. Ruchira Goel, learned counsel appearing for the State and the
UPPRPB contended that the requirement prescribed by UPPRPB
under the recruitment notification/ release and the consequent
10 Kiran
11 Writ Petition A No. 5245 of 2023
12 Special Appeal Defective No. 562 of 2023
504 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
rejection of the candidature of Mohit and Kiran by UPPRPB was
valid. She further urged that:
i. The recruitment conducted by UPPRPB was under the Uttar
Pradesh Sub-inspector and Inspector (Civic Police) Service
(Amended) Rules, 2015.13 Further, the Uttar Pradesh Public
Services (Reservation for Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes and
Other Backward Classes) Act, 199414 provides for reservation for
OBCs in the state of Uttar Pradesh. A Government Order dated
17th December, 201415 issued under the 1994 Act proscribed
OBC reservation for persons having gross annual income of
Rs. 8 lakh or above or possessing wealth above the exempted
limit under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.
ii. The advertisement stated that 2437 posts were reserved for OBC
candidates and laid down the eligibility norm in clause 5.4(4)
of the advertisement, which reads as under:
5.4(4) If the candidates belonging to other backward
class category do not submit the certificate in the
prescribed format-I/ within prescribed period or if
they submit the certificate of Other Backward Class
category valid for the services of Government
of India, they will be treated as candidates of
unreserved category.
(emphasis supplied)
iii. Both Mohit and Kiran submitted their OBC (NCL) caste
certificate in the format prescribed for appointments to the
Central Government, and not the one prescribed for the State
Government, as mandated by clause 5.4(4).
iv. Since Mohit and Kiran were considered in the unreserved
category and secured marks less than the required cut-off
marks, they were not selected.
13 2015 Rules
14 1994 Act
15 G.O. No.13/22/16/92/TC-iii-Ka-2/2014
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 505
Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
v. Judgment rendered by the Full Bench of the High Court in
Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P.16 was relied upon which held
that there is no repugnancy between the financial criteria fixed
by the Union and the State Governments for the purpose of
identification of creamy layer.
vi. The object and rationale of the criteria in clause 5.4(4) is to ensure
compliance of or ascertainment of creamy layer, which is redefined
by the State Government and the Central Government from time
to time. While the creamy layer criteria may be congruent at a
given point of time, it is always subject to change. In view of the
subjective nature, it is essential that all the candidates submit proof
that they do not fall within the exclusionary zone set out by the
State Government. In the absence thereof, the State machinery
would be burdened with the inquiry of individual candidates who
submit a caste certificate for Central Government and would
have to ascertain whether they also qualify as OBC-NCL under
the rules of the State Government.
vii. The format prescribed in ‘Format-I’ of the recruitment notification
categorically requires that the gross annual income of the
candidate’s parents for a continuous period of three years is
not above Rupees eight lakh and that he/she does not possess
wealth above the exemption limit, as prescribed in the Wealth
Tax Act 1957. This prescription finds no place in the caste
certificate prescribed for jobs under the Central Government.
viii. The Central Government refers to ‘Department of Personnel and
Training’s O.M. No.36012/22/93 Estt (SCT) dated 8th September,
1993 or the latest notification of Government of India modified
vide O.M. No.36033/3/2004 Estt(Res.) dated 9th March, 2004 and
further modified vide O.M. No. 36033/3/2004-Estt.(Res) dated
14th February, 2008 or the latest notification of the Government of
India, whereas, the format prescribed by the State Government
is as per the Government Order dated 17th December, 2014.
ix. The decisions relied upon by Mohit and Kiran are distinguishable
on facts since the candidates in those cases were already
appointed under the OBC category as Constables and sought
16 2013 SCC OnLine All 1286
506 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
appointment in the same category for the posts under the
present recruitment notification. Thus, in those cases, the caste
category already stood verified by UPPRPB.
x. The decision in Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan17
was cited for the proposition that if the rules do not provide,
relaxation is not permitted.
xi. The impugned judgment dismissing Mohit’s writ petition rightly
considered the ratio of this Court’s decision in State of T.N. v.
G. Hemalathaa.18
xii. Under the said notification, there remained no vacancies after
publication of the final selection result. However, after the final
result, 122 posts eventually remained unfilled either due to
cancellation of candidature or death or absence/disqualification
in medical examination or expulsion. Under the 2015 Rules, the
vacant posts were required to be carried forward to the next
selection. Consequently, under the recruitment notification, the
122 OBC posts that remained unfilled were carried forward for
the selection year of 2023-24 and the process of publishing the
notification is in progress.
Submissions on behalf of Mohit and Kiran
10. Mr. Rahul Kaushik, learned senior counsel appearing for Mohit,
submitted that the OBC certificate submitted by Mohit ought to have
been accepted for/on the following reasons/grounds:
i. OBC certificate for participating in recruitment processes initiated
by both the Central Government and the State Government, is
issued by the Tehsildar.
ii. Mohit comes from a poor family and his entire hard work would
be drained for want of a certificate in a particular format.
iii. Mohit having secured 313.684 marks which is in excess of the
cut-off that was prescribed for OBC candidates, i.e., 305.542
marks, merit has been overlooked much to his detriment and
prejudice.
17 (2011) 12 SCC 85
18 (2020) 19 SCC 430
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 507
Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
iv. Mohit belongs to Ahir community, which is recognized as
backward class in the State of Uttar Pradesh and this is
categorically reflected from the certificate submitted by him.
v. The decision of this court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee
& Ors.19 was cited for highlighting that every infraction of rule
may not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
vi. Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public Service
Commission20 was cited for the proposition that in case of
any doubt as to qualification of any candidate, the candidate
could have been called upon to produce the required certificate.
vii. This Court’s decisions in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi
Subordinate Services Selections Board and Anr.21 and Karn
Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors.22 were
cited for reminding us that the object of providing reservations to
members of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe communities
is to remove inequalities in employment and provide a level
playing field for those belonging to educationally and socially
backward classes of society; hence, it would be unreasonable
to be too technical in one’s approach and throw asunder the
object sought to be achieved by reservations.
11. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, learned counsel for Kiran, adopted the submissions
of Mr. Kaushik.
The Issue
12. The issue that arises for consideration is, whether UPPRPB was
bound to accept the OBC certificates submitted by Mohit and Kiran
which, admittedly, were not in the format prescribed in the Recruitment
Notification.
13. We may initiate our discussion by first referring to this Court’s decision
in Registrar General, Calcutta High Court v. Shrinivas Prasad
Shah and Ors.23 The question that was raised is whether, the West
19 (2005) 9 SCC 779
20 (2017) 11 SCC 276
21 (2016) 4 SCC 754
22 (2024) 2 SCC 588
23 (2013) 12 SCC 364
508 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Bengal Public Service Commission was justified in considering the
1st respondent as a general candidate for recruitment in connection
with a judicial service examination, instead of his claim of being
a member of the Scheduled Tribe community. The advertisement
stipulated that in order to obtain the benefit of reservation, the
requisite certificate had to be issued by the competent authority as
specified in the stated enactment and SCs/STs Welfare Department
Order No. 261-TW/EC/MR-103/94 dated 6th April, 1995. Instead
of producing a certificate issued by the competent authority, the
1st respondent produced a certificate issued by the Director of the
Backward Classes Welfare Department certifying him as a member of
the Scheduled Tribe community; hence, such certificate was ignored
and he was considered to be a general candidate. The 1st respondent
was fortunate enough to succeed in the two tiers before the High
Court at Calcutta, which directed the PSC to consider him as a ST
candidate, fortune deserted him before this Court. It was held thus:
“15. We find no error in the decision taken by the
Commission in not entertaining the respondent’s application
as a ST candidate since no certificate was produced from
the competent authority, as provided under the West Bengal
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification)
Act, 1994. The information to the candidates specifically
stated that the candidates claiming to be SC/ST/BC must
have a certificate from a competent authority specified
in the West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994. No such certificate was
produced from that competent authority by the respondent.
Consequently, in the absence of the requisite certificate,
the Commission was justified in treating him as a general
category candidate. The first time the respondent produced
the certificate from the competent authority was only when
he appeared in the examination held on 30-7-2010, by
that time he had obtained a certificate from the competent
authority on 22-9-2009. Admittedly, at the time when
the 2007 examination was held no such certificate was
produced from the competent authority along with the
application. Consequently, the respondent was treated
as a general category candidate and hence he could not
get appointment as judicial officer in the examination held
in the year 2007.
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 509
Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
16. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the
specific legislation passed by the West Bengal State
Legislative Assembly i.e. the West Bengal Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994,
and the specific stipulation in the notification issued to
the candidates, Guideline 10 of para 13 of Madhuri Patil
v. Commissioner, Tribal Development [(1994) 6 SCC 241]
is inapplicable, particularly to the facts of this case. The
Act does not recognise the Director, Backward Class
Welfare, West Bengal as a competent authority to issue the
certificate. Therefore, the Commission was justified in not
placing reliance on the certificate issued by the Director,
Backward Class Welfare, West Bengal. ... ”.
(italics in original)
14. What follows from the above decision is that irrespective of whether
an aspirant for public employment belongs to a particular community
like SC/ST/OBC, the status claimed by him for being accorded the
benefit of reservation is per se not decisive. Such status has to be
certified by the competent authority upon following due process and
identification that the aspirant is what he claims to be. In Shrinivas
Prasad Shah (supra), the requirement of production of a certificate
from the competent authority was held to be mandatory in view of a
statutory mandate. Although there is no such statutory mandate in
the facts of the present case, the requirement in question is no less
mandatory and must be scrupulously followed. Once a process of
recruitment is set in motion, all aspirants are entitled in law to equal
treatment. There cannot be different yardsticks for different sets of
aspirants. Non-compliance with the terms of the advertisement/
notification is bound to trigger adverse consequences of rejection
of the aspirant’s claimed status by the selecting body/appointing
authority, should he choose not to adhere to the same. Having regard
thereto, the selecting body/appointing authority would be justified in
not entertaining the application of an aspirant as a member of the
community for whom reservations are permissible.
15. The proposition of law as settled by the above decision does not
appear to have been doubted in any subsequent decision and we
do hereby endorse the same.
510 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
16. Let us now examine whether in the light of the settled law in this
behalf, Mohit and Kiran deserve any relief.
17. Clause 5.4(4) of the recruitment notification has been noticed above.
It clearly warns what the consequence would be should an aspirant
fail to submit the requisite certificate in Format–I. Admittedly, the
certificates submitted by Mohit and Kiran do not align with Format-I.
Viewed thus, we need not even carry the discussion forward to
ascertain whether Mohit and Kiran have been unfairly treated.
However, since it has been assiduously argued by Mr. Kaushik that
Mohit after all belongs to the OBC category, and Mr. Kumar Gaurav
appearing for Kiran has supported him, we consider it proper to deal
with such argument too.
18. Here, the Government of Uttar Pradesh is the appointing authority.
The appointments would follow, once UPPRPB makes the necessary
recommendations. The entire process of recruitment is regulated
by statutory rules. 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?
19. It is no longer res integra that terms of an advertisement issued
in connection with a selection process are normally not open to
challenge unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach
of Article 16 of the Constitution or, for that matter, Article 14. Once an
advertisement is issued inviting applications for public employment,
it is the responsibility, nay duty, of an aspirant to read and note the
terms and understand what its requirements are. If any aspirant
finds any of the terms ambiguous and there is scope for an inquiry
inbuilt in the advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation,
an effort ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding
the requirements accurately. If no such scope is available, nothing
prevents the aspirant from seeking clarity by making a representation.
Should such clarity be not provided, the aspirant may participate in
the process without prejudice to his rights and may question the term
even after he is not selected. However, if the aspirant does not make
any such effort and takes a calculated chance of selection based on
his own understanding of the disputed term in the advertisement and
later, he emerges unsuccessful, ordinarily, it would not be open to
him to challenge the selection on the ground that the disputed term
[2025] 6 S.C.R. 511
Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
is capable of being understood differently. In such cases, the courts
should be loath to entertain such plea of ambiguity while preferring
to accept the recruiting authority’s understanding of the said term.
This is for the simple reason that the recruiting authority is the best
judge of what its requirements are and it is such understanding of
the recruiting authority that would matter most in cases brought up
before the courts; hence, after commencement of the process wherein
aspirants have participated without raising any demur as to what a
particular terms means, even if any of the terms be ambiguous, the
courts should lean in favour of the recruiting authority.
20. We are conscious of what this Court observed in paragraphs 15 to 19
of its decision in Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar24 under the heading
‘Preliminary Issues’. If the procedure followed by the selecting body/
appointing authority is such that the same is in breach of constitutional
safeguards, an aspirant’s challenge to the procedure may not be
nipped in the bud only on the ground that he has participated in
the process. We also read the decision as recognizing that it may
not always be possible for an aspirant to foresee any illegality in
the procedure followed, till such time the select list is published. In
all such cases where the illegality could not have been foreseen,
a challenge to the procedure cannot be spurned on the specious
ground that the aspirant having participated in the process, he has
forfeited his right.
21. Be that as it may, clause 5.4(4) with which we are concerned is far
from ambiguous. It is absolutely clear what UPPRPB required and
what would be the consequence of non-adherence. In the wake of
such requirement, no aspirant could possibly have any iota of doubt
as to the format in which the certificate was to be issued. Even
if Mohit and Kiran had doubts as to whether the certificates that
they had would suffice, nothing prevented them from seeking such
clarification and, at the same time, approach the concerned tehsildars
to issue certificates in the requisite format. It has not been shown
that obtaining a second certificate in the format required by the State
Government was barred by any law. Having regard thereto, both
Mohit and Kiran cannot take shelter under the plea that insistence
on the part of UPPRPB of certificates issued in the requisite format
24 (2019) 20 SCC 17
512 [2025] 6 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
is a mere formality which could have been dispensed with since they
had certificates issued in the other format.
22. Finally, the reason why UPPRPB has insisted for the certificate in
the requisite format as explained by Ms. Goel [recorded in paragraph
9 (vi) to (viii) above] commends our acceptance.
23. We are conscious that aspirants similarly placed like Mohit and Kiran
have been granted relief by the High Court earlier and coordinate
Benches of this Court have not interfered with such decisions.
However, in all such cases, the special leave petitions were dismissed
at the admission stage and, therefore, do not operate as binding
precedents.
24. For the reasons aforesaid, Mohit and Kiran are not entitled to any
relief.
25. Consequently, the lead appeal is dismissed while the connected
appeal is allowed.
Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "OBC certificate"Sign in to search