$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1401/2026 & CM APPL. 6872/2026 RAJU MAHTO .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Alok Raj, Advocate.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sahaj Garg, SPC with Mr.

Deepansh Sharma, G.P. for R-1.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 02.02.2026

1. The Petitioner, a visually impaired (blind) person, is presently employed as a Junior Clerk with the East Central Railway, Dhanbad Division. He applied for recruitment to the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for the vacancies pertaining to the year

2026-27.

2. The recruitment notification provided for reservation in favour of candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes (‘OBC’) as well as Persons with Disabilities (‘PwD’). The Petitioner applied under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category and also claimed the benefit of reservation as a visually impaired candidate. He appeared in the preliminary as well as the main examination, cleared both stages, and secured marks above the prescribed cut-off. Consequently, he was called for interview.

3. At the stage of interview, the Petitioner was required to furnish a valid OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate. However, since he relied upon an OBC certificate dated 22^nd August, 2022 and did not produce a certificate issued within the period prescribed under the recruitment notification, he was not permitted to participate in the interview on the ground that the certificate relied upon by him had expired.

4. It is in this background that the Petitioner has approached this Court, seeking the following reliefs:

“Issue a writ of Mandamus or Any Other Appropriate Writ(s), Order(s) or Direction(s) directing the Respondent No. 3 to conduct the interview of the Petitioner for CRP PO/MT-XV Common Recruitment Process for recruitment of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for vacancies of 2026-27 and consider his candidature on merits”

5. Mr. Alok Raj, counsel for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner had secured marks in the main examination above the cut-off prescribed even for the unreserved category. It is contended that the Petitioner fulfils all substantive eligibility criteria and genuinely belongs to the OBC (Non- Creamy Layer) category. Being a visually impaired candidate, denial of participation in the interview on account of non-production of a contemporaneous OBC certificate is arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

6. It is urged that the Petitioner was unaware that the OBC certificate dated 22^nd August, 2022 was valid only for a period of one year, and came to know of this requirement only with the assistance of a friend. The Respondents have adopted a mechanical and unfair approach in denying him the opportunity to appear in the interview.

7. Mr. Raj further submits that even prior to the date of interview, the Petitioner had applied for issuance of an income certificate, which is a prerequisite for issuance of an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate. The application in this regard was submitted before the concerned Sub- Divisional Magistrate on 13^th December, 2025. However, since the income certificate could not be issued before the date of interview, the consequential delay occurred. It is stated that the Petitioner has since obtained the requisite OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate and, therefore, a writ of mandamus ought to be issued directing the Respondents to conduct his interview and consider his candidature on merits for the post of Probationary Officers/Management Trainees for the vacancies of 2026-27.

8. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions. Undoubtedly, the Petitioner cleared both the preliminary and main examinations, which reflects merit in his candidature. The Court also has sympathy for the Petitioner, particularly keeping in view his disability. However, sympathy cannot override the binding conditions of the recruitment process, and the Court must act within the confines of law.

9. The