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

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.