Back
2025 Supreme(All) 3968
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Ajit Kumar, J.
Km. Lovely Chauhan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - A No. - 147 of 2021
Decided On : 17-07-2025
For the Petitioner: Om Prakash Singh,Rajani Singh,Sanjay Singh
For the Respondent: C.S.C.
Eligibility for reservation must be possessed and disclosed by the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement. Failure to meet these mandatory conditions entitles the recruiting body to treat the applicant as a general candidate, and courts should not relax these strict criteria to protect the integrity of the selection process.
Headnote:(A) Constitutional Law - Equality under Articles 14 and 16 - Recruitment process - Mandatory conditions in advertisements - Eligibility criteria - Failure to possess and disclose required certificates before the cut-off date - Consequences thereof.
(B) Legal Principle: Eligibility of a candidate is to be judged with reference to the specific cut-off date mentioned in an advertisement. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification or certificate subsequent to such date cannot be considered eligible for reservation benefits.
(C) Judicial Review: Interference in administrative recruitment conditions to favor an individual applicant violates the doctrine of equality and prejudices prospective candidates who adhered strictly to the prescribed terms. (Paras 21, 31)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner participated in a recruitment process but failed to furnish details regarding a residential status certificate in the online application form within the prescribed duration. The necessary certificate was obtained only after the deadline. Consequently, the petitioner claimed the benefit of horizontal reservation for special categories, which was denied by the selection authority due to the non-fulfillment of criteria and non-disclosure of relevant details at the material time.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the advertisement explicitly mandated that applicants must possess the required domicile certificate by the last date of submission and provide the details thereof in the application form. The omission of these details and the late acquisition of the certificate disqualified the candidate from seeking the reserved category benefit.
Issues: Whether a selection authority is legally compelled to accept reservation-related documentation that was neither held by the cut-off date nor disclosed in the initial application, and whether such mandatory conditions can be relaxed by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that when an advertisement prescribes terms of eligibility, they are binding upon all applicants. Eligibility must be established and evidenced by the last date of application. Allowing relaxation of these rules for an individual would undermine the integrity of the selection process and violate the principle of equality for those who adhered to the advertised conditions.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. establishing the factual background of the petitioner's selection process and advertisement conditions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. conflicting claims regarding the necessity and deadline for submitting residence and reservation-related certificates. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. the court's initial inquiry into the eligibility of an applicant who failed to declare mandatory information. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. binding precedent dictates that reservation eligibility must be proven by the last date of application submission. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. final determination that failure to meet prescribed application deadlines results in dismissal of the petition. (Para 32 , 33) |
JUDGMENT :
Ajit Kumar, J.
1. Heard Ms. Rajani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by R.S.Umrao, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Petitioner who has been applicant against advertisement qua U.P. Police Constable Recruitment 2018, has assailed the condition provided under the advertisement to have a domicile certificate issued in favour of candidate applying under the advertisement, of date prior to the last date provided to fill up application form under advertisement. Petitioner claims to be domicile of Uttar Pradesh for the reason that she possessed domicile certificate of being resident U.P. though issued on 27th September, 2017.
3. The advertisement admittedly having been issued on 16th November, 2018 prescribing last date as 7.12.2018, the certificate issued on 27.09.2017 would not have worked to entitle the petitioner to avail 20 per cent horizontal reservation being a women candidate, as is applicable in the State U.P. Petitioner appeared for the written examination and then was called for document verification and physical standard test, but failed to find placed in the final select list and hence this petition.
4. I may also here refer to a fact that initially when this petition was filed on 17th December, 2020, there was only prayer to quash the select list as petitioner was wrongly deprived of benefit of reservation, but it appears that petitioner having realized that she could obtain domicile certificate further 26.12.2018, the condition prescribed to have domicile certificate of the year 2018 and that too prior to the last date prescribed to fill up application form under the advertisement, was irrational one and hence amendment application was filed. Amendment application was allowed and petitioner got writ petition amended on 18.11.2024.
5. Pleadings have been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that since petitioner had already applied for caste certificate on 07th December, 2024, which could be issued to her only on 26.12.2018, petitioner could not have been blamed for not having required certificate within time and hence could not have been deprived of the benefit of horizontal reservations.
6. In support of her above submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case Ravi Kumar v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences , deided on 02.02.2024, in which judgment the case of Anil Kumar and Another v. Union of India (4) 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1401 an earlier judgement of the Same Court, has been relied upon. The Delhi High Court held that date provided under the advertisement is to be construed in a manner favourable to the candidate and not to nullify fundamental right merely because OBC-NCL certificate (Other backward Caste Non Creamy Layer) being submitted post cut-off date and thus Delhi High Court allowed the petition of that petitioner directing for consideration of OBC-NCL certificate date 23.11.2023 by the respondent selecting body though issued after period prescribed under the prospectus that is between 27th September, 2023 (05:00 pm onwards) to 5.11.2023 (till 05:00 pm).
7. It is contended that against judgment of
