New Delhi: The Delhi High Court Wednesday ruled that the UPSC and MHA cannot summarily reject the candidature for Central Armed Police Forces positions solely based on the delayed issuance of certificates for Other Backward Class (OBC) Non-Creamy Layer (NCL)—due to which candidates cannot produce them within set deadlines.
This marks a significant victory for a group of OBC-NCL aspirants who had petitioned the court against their disqualification from the CAPF’s assistant-commandant positions.
Nearly three months after reserving its verdict in the matter, a bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and O. Prakash Shukla has found the strict adherence to a narrow cut-off window for the certificates “arbitrary and unreasonable”. The window lacked a rational connection to the goal of providing reservations in public employment, the court has held.
Through a 56-page judgment, the Delhi High Court has now directed the recruitment authorities to consider all OBC-NCL certificates, provided they are issued within the relevant financial year.
The core controversy
The controversy centred on a batch of writ petitions filed by petitioners who had successfully cleared the initial stages of the CAPF-assistant-commandant test, such as the written exam, the physical efficiency test/physical standard test (PET/PST), and the medical standard test (MST).
These petitioner-candidates, all belonging to the OBC-NCL category, were later disqualified and had their candidature cancelled or their category converted to General/Unreserved (UR)—solely based on the issuance of their OBC-NCL certificates outside the timeframe set by a Rule among the CAPF (AC) Examination Rules.
For the 2023 test, the Rule mandated that the certificate can be issued on or after 1 April 2023, but no later than 16 May 2023—the application closing date. For the 2024 examination, the window ran between 1 April and 14 May last year.
Candidates whose certificates were issued even slightly outside these short windows found their eligibility forfeited.
The UPSC and the MHA insisted that prescribing such a cut-off date was an “essential function and power to maintain administrative certainty”.
The Delhi High Court, however, made a crucial note—the narrow cut-off dates defined in Rule 21.2 were established after the window’s commencement.
In essence, the MHA issued the Rules on 26 April for the 2023 exam and 24 April for the 2024 exam. With the Rules issued on 1 April, the candidates only had 20 days to obtain the necessary documents.
The petitioners argued that this “truncated” timeframe imposed on them had “no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by providing reservation to deserving candidates”.
The court agreed, observing that the delay in communication could not be attributed to the candidates. It stated that the candidates had a “legitimate expectation of reasonableness in administrative action, especially from constitutional and administrative bodies”, like the MHA. The authorities, expected candidates, would act reasonably and communicate the requirement either before or at the beginning of the cut-off window.
The court found “no reasonable justification” by the authorities for a lapse of 24 days in 2024 and 26 days in 2023 before the candidates were informed about the duration and the cutoff date.
Also Read: In big Calcutta HC ruling on Bengal TET scam case, relief for 32,000 teachers & a message to courts
OBC status
A major point of emphasis in the ruling was the fundamental difference between obtaining caste status and acquiring qualifications.
Relying on past precedents, the Delhi High Court affirmed that eligibility for the OBC category is a “pre-existing fact” acquired by virtue of birth.
The court reiterated that the certificate itself “merely certifies an existing fact”, and the act of furnishing it is characterised as a “ministerial act” that cannot be equated with acquiring an educational qualification.
Denying opportunity based on a technical lapse in the certificate’s issuance date constitutes a “technical error not going into the root of eligibility”, the court held.
It stressed that invalidating a candidature on this sole ground “deprives the petitioners of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India”, running contrary to the core objective of affirmative action.
The court further criticised the authorities for failing to follow the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum, dated October 8, 2015, stipulating that candidates facing “genuine difficulty” in procuring a certificate should be provisionally appointed based on prima facie proof. This means allowing the appointing authority itself to verify the status through the district magistrate concerned.
Court’s directive
In conclusion, the court held that the rigid stipulation on the certificate’s issuance date lacks “rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved through reservation in recruitment”.
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitions and directed the UPSC and the MHA to take a flexible approach. Specifically, they’re directed to consider the OBC-NCL certificates, regardless of whether they were issued post the cut-off date.
Plus, they’re directed to accept the certificates so long as the date of issuance falls within the relevant financial year corresponding to the examination year. For instance: 1 April 2023 to 31 March 2024, for the 2023 examination.
Lastly, the authorities have the liberty to test and examine the other criteria of eligibility and qualification required for the appointment of the respective candidates, ensuring that the cut-off date shall not be a factor for disqualification any further.
(Edited by Madhurita Goswami)
Also Read: Once a ‘whistleblower’, now convicted for money laundering: Who is ex-IAS Pradeep Sharma