Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court observed that to apply under the recruitment advertisement, the caste certificate must be submitted in the specific format prescribed therein, and a candidate cannot claim exemption from this requirement merely on the basis of belonging to that category.

Holding thus, the bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan declined to grant relief to the candidate who had applied for posts advertised by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (“UPPRPB”) using OBC caste certificates issued in the format valid for central government jobs, rather than the specific format required by the recruitment advertisement. As per the advertisement, certificates not submitted in State Format would result in the candidates being treated under the unreserved category.

Aggrieved by his rejection from the recruitment process due to submitting an OBC certificate not conforming to the State Government norms specified in the recruitment advertisement, the candidate filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court denied relief, prompting the candidate to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Affirming the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Datta relying on the case of Registrar General, Calcutta High Court v. Shrinivas Prasad Shah, (2013) 12 SCC 364 observed that the certificates must be issued by the competent authority as per the prescribed format prescribed in the advertisement, otherwise it would have an adverse consequence on the candidate's candidature.

“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.”, the court said.

According to the Court, the recruiting authority is the best judge of the recruitment process, and generally it is impermissible for the Court to interfere in the recruitment process after its commencement. It is expected of the candidate to read and understand the recruitment notification before applying for the posts, failing which later, they cannot dispute the selection process, especially because of their fault in not understanding the requirements in the recruitment notification in its letter and spirit, the court said.

“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.”, the court observed.

The Court said that the candidate cannot be expected to be doubtful about the format of the certificate to be submitted, and instead could have approached the concerned authority for issuance of the correct certificate, without taking a plea that the submission of the caste certificate was a mere technicality when they belong to a particular caste.

“Having regard thereto, both Mohit and Kiran (candidate in connected case) cannot take shelter under the plea that insistence on the part of UPPRPB of 17 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.”, the court noted.

In terms of the aforesaid, the Court refused to extend relief to the candidate and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: MOHIT KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS. (and connected case)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 591

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Mr. Tom Joseph, AOR Ms. Kristen Sleeth, Adv. Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Ms. Veera Mahuli, Adv. Mr. Sharanya Singh, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Ruchira Goel, AOR Ms. Veera Mahuli, Adv. Mr. Sharanya Singh, Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Mr. Tom Joseph, AOR Ms. Arya Krishnan, Adv. Mr. Prashant Bhardwaj, Adv.