1. Recruitment for police posts — Dispute over rejection of candidature due to submission of OBC certificates in Central Government format instead of the prescribed State Government format. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 843
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, MANMOHAN, JJ.
Mohit Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5233 of 2025
With
State of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Kiran Prajapati – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5234 of 2025
Decided On : 15-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the 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 the 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.
For the 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 the 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.
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Reservation – Irrespective of whether an aspirant for public employment belongs to a particular community like SC/ST/OBC, status claimed by him for being accorded benefit of reservation is per se not decisive – Such status has to be certified by competent authority upon following due process and identification that aspirant is what he claims to be.
(2) 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.
(3) Appointment – It may not always be possible for an aspirant to foresee any illegality in procedure followed, till such time select list is published – In all such cases where illegality could not have been foreseen, challenge to procedure cannot be spurned on specious ground that aspirant having participated in the process, he has forfeited his right.
Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Reservation – Irrespective of whether an aspirant for public employment belongs to a particular community like SC/ST/OBC, status claimed by him for being accorded benefit of reservation is per se not decisive – Such status has to be certified by competent authority upon following due process and identification that aspirant is what he claims to be – 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 terms of advertisement/notification is bound to trigger adverse consequences of rejection of aspirant’s claimed status by selecting body/appointing authority, should he choose not to adhere to the same – Having regard thereto, selecting body/appointing authority would be justified in not entertaining application of an aspirant as a member of community for whom reservations are permissible. (Para 14)
(B) Service Law – Appointment – Terms of an advertisement issued in connection with a selection process are normally not open to challenge unless challenge is founded on the ground of breach of Article 16 of Constitution or Article 14 – Once an advertisement is issued inviting applications for public employment, it is responsibility of an aspirant to read and note terms and understand what its requirements are – If any aspirant finds any of terms ambiguous and there is scope for inquiry inbuilt in advertisement or is provided by any rule/regulation, an effort ought to be first made to obtain clarity for understanding requirements accurately – If no such scope is available, nothing prevents aspirant from seeking clarity by making representation – Recruiting authority is the best Judge of what its requirements are and it is such understanding of recruiting authority that would matter most – If procedure followed by selecting body/appointing authority is such that same is in breach of constitutional safeguards, an aspirant’s challenge to procedure may not be nipped in bud only on the ground that he has participated in the process – It may not always be possible for an aspirant to foresee any illegality in procedure followed, till such time select list is published – In all such cases where illegality could not have been foreseen, challenge to procedure cannot be spurned on specious ground that aspirant having participated in the process, he has forfeited his right – It has not been shown that obtaining a second certificate in format required by State Government was barred by any law – Appellants cannot take shelter under the plea that insistence on part of UPPRPB of certificates issued in requisite format is a mere formality which could have been dispensed with since they had certificates issued in other format – Appellants are not entitled to any relief. [Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civic Police) Service (Amended) Rules, 2015 ; Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994] (Paras 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24)
Facts of the case:
Instant appeals, arising out of orders passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on separate writ petitions with differing outcomes but concerning same recruitment process, raise a common question of law.
Findings of Court:
Aspirants similarly placed like Mohit and Kiran have been granted relief by High Court earlier and coordinate Benches of this Court have not interfered with such decisions. However, in all such cases, special leave petitions were dismissed at admission stage and, therefore, do not operate as binding precedents.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the recruiting authority is bound to accept OBC certificates in a non-prescribed format or if strict adherence to the notification's format is mandatory for reservation. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 )
3. The court observed that strict adherence to the prescribed format is mandatory to ensure equal treatment and verify state-specific creamy layer criteria, which may differ from central norms. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. Candidates claiming reservation must produce certificates from the competent authority in the prescribed format; non-compliance justifies treating the candidate as belonging to the unreserved category. (Para 14 , 15 )
5. Appeal by the candidate dismissed and appeal by the recruiting authority allowed. (Para 24 , 25 )
6. Is the production of a caste certificate in the prescribed format mandatory for claiming reservation in public employment?
Yes. The status claimed for reservation must be certified by the competent authority following due process. Non-compliance with the terms of the recruitment notification regarding the certificate format justifies the selecting body treating the aspirant as a general category candidate to ensure equal treatment for all. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
7. Can a candidate challenge the terms of a recruitment advertisement after the selection process is complete?
Generally, advertisement terms are not open to challenge unless they breach Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. If a candidate participates without raising objections to clear terms, they cannot later challenge the selection based on a different interpretation of those terms. (Para 19 , 20 )
8. Why might a state government require a specific certificate format for OBC candidates instead of accepting a central government certificate?
State and Central Governments may define creamy layer criteria differently regarding income and wealth. A specific state format ensures compliance with state-specific exclusionary zones, preventing the state machinery from having to conduct individual inquiries into central certificates. (Para 9 , 22 )
9. Does the principle of merit override the requirement for a prescribed certificate format in reservation claims?
No. While merit is important, the right to reservation is contingent upon proving eligibility through the prescribed process. Strict adherence to the notification's format is necessary to maintain a level playing field and avoid arbitrary relaxation of rules. (Para 14 , 17 , 21 )
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA J.
1. These appeals, arising out of orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad [High Court] on separate writ petitions [WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2022 and WRIT - A No. – 18987 of 2022] 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 Board [UPPRPB] 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 [Recruitment Notification]. The appellant-Mohit Kumar [Mohit], 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 petition [WRIT - A No. - 11413 of 2022] 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 [Additional Secretary, UPPRPB], by its speaking order dated 15th September 2022, rejected Mohit’s representation on the ground that he did not submit OBC [Other Backward Class] 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 [WRIT - A No. – 18987 of 2022], 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 Prajapati [Kiran] 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 petition [Writ Petition A No. 5245 of 2023] 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 appeal [Special Appeal Defective No. 562 of 2023] before the Division Bench of the High Court. By an order dated 25th August 2023, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed t
