Mohit Kumar vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025 INSC 704 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5233 OF 2025

MOHIT KUMAR …APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5234 OF 2025

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR. …APPELLANTS

VERSUS

KIRAN PRAJAPATI …RESPONDENTS

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.

FACTS IN CIVIL APPEAL 5233 OF 2025

2. Respondent no.3/Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Signature Not Verified Board3 issued a notification on 24th February 2021 for direct Digitally signed by JATINDER KAUR Date: 2025.05.15 17:30:29 IST Reason: 1 High Court 2 WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2022 and WRIT - A No. – 18987 of 2022 3 UPPRPB

1 recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police and Platoon

Commander, PAC and Fire Officer, for the year 2020-20214. The

appellant-Mohit Kumar5, 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. 47, 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

4 Recruitment Notification 5 Mohit 6 WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2022 7 Additional Secretary, UPPRPB 8 Other Backward Class

2 305.542. 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 petition9,

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

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

9 WRIT - A No. – 18987 of 2022 10 Kiran

3 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 rejection of

the candidature of Mohit and Kiran by UPPRPB was valid. She further

urged that:

11

Writ Petition A No. 5245 of 2023 12 Special Appeal Defective No. 562 of 2023

4 i. The recruitment conducted by UPPRPB was under the Uttar

Pradesh Sub-inspector and Inspector (Civic Police) Service

(Amended) Rules, 201513. 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

13 2015 Rules 14 1994 Act 15 G.O. No.13/22/16/92/TC-iii-Ka-2/2014

5 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.

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

16 2013 SCC OnLine All 1286

6 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 17 th

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

appointment in the same category for the posts under the

7 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. Hemalathaa18.

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.

17 (2011) 12 SCC 85 18 (2020) 19 SCC 430

8 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.

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

19 (2005) 9 SCC 779

9 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.

20 (2017) 11 SCC 276 21 (2016) 4 SCC 754 22 (2024) 2 SCC 588

10

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 Ors23. The question that was raised is whether, the West

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

23 (2013) 12 SCC 364

11 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.

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

12 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.

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.

13 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

14 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 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

24 (2019) 20 SCC 17

15 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

16 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.

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.

………..…………………J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

….……..………………J. (MANMOHAN) NEW DELHI;

MAY 15 , 2025.

17 18