“Once a process of recruitment is set in motion, all aspirants are entitled in law to equal treatment.”
With these emphatic words, the Supreme Court delved into a contentious dispute involving two OBC candidates who were denied selection in the Uttar Pradesh Police recruitment over a procedural lapse in the certification format. What followed was a detailed examination of merit, fairness, and the fine print of reservation policy, raising critical questions about technical compliance and substantive justice. Read on to uncover the Court’s reasoning and its implications for future recruitment processes.
Brief facts:
The case arose from the UP Police Recruitment Board’s 2020–21 notification for Sub-Inspector and related posts. Mohit Kumar and Kiran Prajapati, both OBC category applicants, were rejected for submitting OBC certificates in the Central Government format instead of the State-prescribed Format-I. As a result, they were considered under the general category and failed to qualify despite meeting the OBC cut-off. Their representations to the Board were rejected or ignored. While Mohit’s writ petition was dismissed by the High Court, Kiran’s was allowed, with the Division Bench upholding the direction to accept her certificate. These conflicting decisions led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court, raising the issue of whether the Board must accept non-prescribed format OBC certificates.
Contentions of Appellant:
The counsel for the State and UPPRPB submitted that the recruitment followed the 2015 Rules and the 1994 Reservation Act, supported by a 2014 Government Order excluding OBC candidates with income above Rs. 8 lakh or excess wealth. The notification required OBC certificates in the State-prescribed Format-I; certificates issued for Central Government purposes were not accepted, resulting in Mohit and Kiran being treated as general category candidates and rejected for not meeting the cut-off. The State argued that State-specific certification is necessary to ensure compliance with income and wealth criteria and to avoid administrative burden. Central Government certificates lack the required details on income and wealth. The candidates’ prior appointments under OBC were not applicable here. Lastly, 122 unfilled OBC posts were carried forward to the 2023-24 recruitment cycle.
Contentions of Respondent:
The respondents argued that his Tehsildar-issued OBC certificate, valid for both Central and State recruitments, should be accepted. Mohit’s merit (313.684 marks) exceeded the OBC cut-off, and rejecting him over certificate format unfairly harmed him. Mohit belongs to the Ahir community, recognized as OBC in Uttar Pradesh. Counsel stressed that minor procedural errors should not lead to disqualification and clarifications could have been sought. The reservation’s purpose to uplift socially and educationally backward classes should not be defeated by technicalities.
Observations of the Court:
The Top Court emphasized the mandatory nature of adhering to recruitment notification requirements, particularly regarding the format of OBC certificates. The Court reiterated, “Once a process of recruitment is set in motion, all aspirants are entitled in law to equal treatment,” stressing that uniform compliance with prescribed procedures ensures fairness.
Drawing from its precedent in Registrar General, Calcutta High Court v. Shrinivas Prasad Shah and Ors., the Court held that “the requirement of production of a certificate from the competent authority was held to be mandatory in view of a statutory mandate. Although there is no such statutory mandate in the facts of the present case, the requirement in question is no less mandatory and must be scrupulously followed.”
It clarified that non-compliance with clause 5.4(4) of the recruitment notification, which explicitly required OBC certificates in Format-I, justified treating Mohit and Kiran as general category candidates, as their Central Government-format certificates did not meet State-specific creamy layer criteria.
Furthermore, the Court addressed the candidate’s arguments that their OBC status was valid and that technicalities should not override merit. It rejected these contentions, stating, “Clause 5.4(4) with which we are concerned is far from ambiguous. It is absolutely clear what UPPRPB required and what would be the consequence of non-adherence.”
However the Court also noted that candidates could have sought clarification or obtained certificates in the required format, as no legal bar prevented this. The rationale for insisting on Format-I, as explained by the State, was accepted to avoid administrative burdens in verifying Central Government certificates against State criteria.
The Court also distinguished prior cases granting relief, noting they were dismissed at the admission stage and lacked binding precedent. While acknowledging the reservation policy’s aim to promote social equity, the Court held that “it is no longer res integra that terms of an advertisement issued in connection with a selection process are normally not open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on the ground of breach of Article 16 of the Constitution or, for that matter, Article 14.” Thus, the Court prioritized procedural compliance over a lenient interpretation of technical requirements.
The decision of the Court:
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the Top Court upheld the High Court’s rejection of Mohit Kumar’s writ petition and allowed the civil appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and UPPRPB while setting aside the High Court’s orders, which had directed acceptance of Kiran Prajapati’s OBC certificate. Consequently, neither Mohit nor Kiran were granted relief, as their failure to submit OBC certificates in the prescribed Format-I justified their treatment as general category candidates.
Case Title: Mohit Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 5233 Of 2025
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan
Advocate for Appellant: Sr. Adv. Rahul Kaushik, Adv. Kumar Gaurav, AOR Tom Joseph, Adv. Kristen Sleeth, AOR Ruchira Goel, Adv. Veera Mahuli, Adv. Sharanya Singh
Advocate for Respondent: AOR Ruchira Goel, Adv. Veera Mahuli, Adv. Sharanya Singh, Adv. Kumar Gaurav, AOR Mr. Tom Joseph, Adv. Arya Krishnan, Adv. Prashant Bhardwaj
Read Judgment @ latestlaws.com
Picture Source :