IMPORTANT POINT
A caste certificate's format does not negate its validity if it proves eligibility for OBC status, emphasizing the need for a pragmatic approach in interpreting reservation laws.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner was applicant in the category of other backward class (OBC) for the post of Sub Inspector in Civil Police pursuant to the advertisement No. PRPB- nsk-2 (3 fo /2020) dated 25.2.2021, however at the time of submission of his online application form, he furnished the certificate issued by the competent authority of the State, of the backward caste meant for the post under the Central Government. He was permitted to appear in the written examination and having been successful as such and also qualifying the other physical standard and efficiency test, deserved to be considered in the merit list of the OBC category. At the time of document verification on 17th May, 2022, he furnished a notary affidavit alongwith certificate issued by the competent authority of the OBC caste but this time issued on the format meant for the post under the State Government. The certificate that was furnished by the petitioner was issued on 26.11.2018, which was available to him at the time of filling up the form but was not issued during the period required for i.e. between 1.4.2021 and 30th April, 2021.

3. In view of the fact that petitioner did not furnish requisite certificate issued on the format meant for the posts under the State Government of the relevant period and had submitted certificate on the format meant for the posts under the Central Government, the respondent seems to have considered the petitioner in open category instead of OBC and that is how petitioner having not qualified the merit in the open category, could not make it successful to find place in merit list. It is submitted that last cut-off marks for the selected candidate in OBC is 305.54 for the post of Sub Inspector, whereas petitioner's marks are 305.84.

4. Two fold arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner:

(a). The controversy regarding irreconcilable the difference of repugnancy between norms fixed for issuing caste certificate for the posts under the Central Government and that for the posts under the State Government is no more res integra as format has been issued for the both the purposes by the same State Government for the Court which recognized as OBC in the state and both the certificates are issued by the competent authority assigned for such purpose by the State Government; and

(b) The purpose of the cast certificate being to make an acknowledgement that a person (candidate) is belonging to a particular caste and such an evidence of this fact and unless and until there is dispute with respect to a candidates falling under the non creamy layer a certificate issued and recognized by the State Government cannot be denied by the selecting body merely being on a different format.

5. Per contra, the argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is to the effect that requisite document is required to be filed alongwith application form filled up online upto the last date and if one is not possessed of the requisite document as required for, till the last date of the submission of form, a candidate cannot be permitted to rectify shortcomings subsequently.

6. The other argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that a caste certificate was required to be issued on a format prescribed for the posts under the State Government vide Clause 5.4(4) of the advertisement and there was specific rider to the effect that in the event the cast certificate issued on a required format is not filed or cast certificate meant for the posts under the Central Government is filed then candidature of such candidate in the reserved category shall be cancelled.

7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also sought to urge that in view of the answer given to third issue framed by the full bench of this Court in the case of Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.