$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision : 03.02.2026 + W.P.(C) 3404/2025 BHARATH SINGARAPPA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Mr. A. Abhiraj and Mr. Aamir Abbas Naqvi, Advs.

versus UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMISSION & ORS.

.....Respondents Through: Mr Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Mr. Vasu Agarwal and Mr. Lekh Raj Singh, Advs. for R1.

Mr. R. V. Sinha, SPC, Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. A. S. Singh, and Ms. Shriya Sharma, Advs. and Inspector Athurv.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-

“A. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the cancellation of the Petitioner’s candidature of the CAPF Examination 2023, to the extent of denying the Petitioner a seat in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) despite meeting the eligibility criteria and clearing all stages of the selection process as outlined in the notification dated

26.04.2023.

B. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction directing the Respondents to forthwith offer the Petitioner a seat in the CRPF in accordance with his merit position in the CAPF Examination 2023.”

2. In effect, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith offer him a seat in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in accordance with the merit position in Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandants) Examination, 2023 [CAPF Examination 2023].

3. The facts to be noted are that the petitioner is challenging the final result of CAPE Examination 2023 conducted by the respondent no.1, i.e. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). According to the petitioner, despite successfully clearing all stages of examination with an All India rank of 208, he was denied a seat in his choice of service, i.e., CRPF due to a mere technical requirement related to the submission of a Other Backward Classes Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate.

4. Mr Shivesh Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CAPF Examination 2023 notification stipulated that the OBC NCL certificate must be issued within a specific period, i.e., between 01.04.2023 to 16.05.2023; however, the petitioner had a valid OBC NCL certificate dated 16.02.2023 issued by the competent authority at Bengaluru and also another that was issued to him in the month of February 2024. According to him, due to prevailing government policy in Karnataka at that time, he was unable to obtain a fresh NCL certificate within the specified period as the policy did not allow for the issuance of the multiple NCL certificates within a period of a year. He submits that the petitioner made diligent efforts to address the issue by communicating with the UPSC and CRPF through email and letters explaining the circumstances, and requested them to consider his existing NCL certificate as a valid one. However, his candidature was kept provisional and he was denied the seat in the CRPF. He submits that even though, the petitioner had NCL certificates for the financial year 2022-23 and 2023-24, but the respondents insisted upon the petitioner having an NCL certificate only between the period 01.04.2023 to 16.05.2023. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have such a certificate and despite being in merit, he has been denied the appointment.

5. Mr Ravinder Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the UPSC though would justify the impugned action of the respondents, he also state that the issue is no more res integra as the very advertisement became the subject matter of challenge in Raghvendra Singh & Another v. UPSC & Another, 2025:DHC:11105-DB wherein this Court in paragraph no.58-59 held as under:-

“58. In the present case, it is not the case of respondents that the petitioners did not possess any OBC-NCL certificates, rather, it is evident from the record that the petitioners were in possession of OBC