The State Of Up And 6 Others vs Waseem Ahmad
2025 Latest Caselaw 9952 ALL

Allahabad High Court

The State Of Up And 6 Others vs Waseem Ahmad on 29 August, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Gupta

Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:152052-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 596 of 2025   
 
   The State Of Up And 6 Others    
 
  .....Appellant(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   Waseem Ahmad    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Appellant(s)   
 
:   
 
Kunal Ravi Singh, Rama Nand Pandey   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
Atipriya Gautam   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 21
 
   
 
 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.  

HON'BLE RAM MANOHAR NARAYAN MISHRA, J.

A. Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 02 of 2025

1. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 125 days.

2. Cause shown for delay is found to be sufficient. The delay is condoned.

3. The application is allowed.

4. Office is directed to allot regular number to the instant appeal.

B. Order on memo of appeal.

1. Heard Shri Rama Nand Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Ms. Atipriya Gautam for the non-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner').

2. The appellants have preferred the instant intra-court appeal being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 passed by Single Judge Bench in Writ-A No. 3138 of 2025, (Waseem Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and 6 others), whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein to allow the petitioner, who was a candidate for selection on the post of Assistant Operator in Radio Department, to participate in the next stage of selection i.e., physical efficiency test (PET) and medical examination, has been allowed, and the appellants herein have been directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the said post under the OBC (Male) category.

3. The sole issue in the writ petition was whether the petitioner was entitled to participate in the selection on basis of OBC certificate submitted by him not in the format prescribed by the State Government for services under the State but in the format prescribed for central government services. Admittedly, the selection in question was in relation to a State service. Learned Single Judge, placing reliance on the judgment in Rajat Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, (2023) 10 ADJ 409, has allowed the writ petition. It has been held that the candidature of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the technical ground that the OBC certificate submitted by the petitioner was not on the format prescribed under the recruitment process so long it was not in dispute that the petitioner was an OBC candidate.

4. Shri Rama Nand Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the same controversy, also arising out of recruitment held by appellant no.2 (U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board) wherein also the requirement was for filing OBC certificate in same format, has been decided by the Supreme Court by judgment dated 15 May 2025, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 46646 of 2024. The Supreme Court has held that the prescription in the advertisement in relation to filing of OBC certificate in prescribed format serves a particular purpose and is not a mere formality and in case, the said condition is not complied with, the Recruitment Agency was well within its right to decline to consider candidature of such person. It is, thus, submitted that the order of learned Single Judge being contrary to the recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court, is liable to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of certain other candidates similarly situated, the writ petitions were allowed and the special leave petitions filed before the Supreme Court were dismissed. One such order in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Rinki Yadav, Special Leave to Appeal No. 2840 of 2023, is being relied upon.

6. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5233 of 2025 (Mohit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others) connected with Civil Appeal No. 5234 of 2025 (State of U.P. and others vs. Kiran Prajapati). In the said case, the Supreme Court has considered exactly the same issue as to whether OBC certificate granted for recruitment in central government services in a different format could be taken to be valid. The Supreme Court has held that the requirement of filing certificate in prescribed format was not a mere formality but essential requirement under the advertisement and in case, the same was not followed, the Recruitment Agency was justified in rejecting the candidatures. The relevant observations are as follows:

"21. Be that as it may, 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. In the wake of such requirement, no aspirant could possibly have any iota of doubt as to the format in which the certificate was to be issued. Even if Mohit and Kiran had doubts as to whether the certificates that they had would suffice, nothing prevented them from seeking such clarification and, at the same time, approach the concerned tehsildars to issue certificates in the requisite format. It has not been shown that obtaining a second certificate in the format required by the State Government was barred by any law. Having regard thereto, both Mohit and Kiran cannot take shelter under the plea that insistence on the part of UPPRPB of certificates issued in the requisite format is a mere formality which could have been dispensed with since they had certificates issued in the other format.

22. Finally, the reason why UPPRPB has insisted for the certificate in the requisite format as explained by Ms. Goel [recorded in paragraph 9 (vi) to (viii) above] commends our acceptance.

23. We are conscious that aspirants similarly placed like Mohit and Kiran have been granted relief by the High Court earlier and coordinate Benches of this Court have not interfered with such decisions. However, in all such cases, the special leave petitions were dismissed at the admission stage and, therefore, do not operate as binding precedents.

24. For the reasons aforesaid, Mohit and Kiran are not entitled to any relief.

25. Consequently, the lead appeal is dismissed while the connected appeal is allowed."

7. The Supreme Court has approved the submissions made on behalf of the State, as recorded in paragraphs (vi) to (viii), which for convenience of reference, are extracted below:

"vi. The object and rationale of the criteria in clause 5.4(4) is to ensure compliance of or ascertainment of creamy layer, which is redefined by the State Government and the Central Government from time to time. While the creamy layer criteria may be congruent at a given point of time, it is always subject to change. In view of the subjective nature, it is essential that all the candidates submit proof that they do not fall within the exclusionary zone set out by the State Government. In the absence thereof, the State machinery would be burdened with the inquiry of individual candidates who submit a caste certificate for Central Government and would have to ascertain whether they also qualify as OBC-NCL under the rules of the State Government.

vii. The format prescribed in 'Format-I' of the recruitment notification categorically requires that the gross annual income of the candidate's parents for a continuous period of three years is not above Rupees eight lakh and that he/she does not possess wealth above the exemption limit, as prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act 1957. This prescription finds no place in the caste certificate prescribed for jobs under the Central Government."

8. It is noteworthy that before Supreme Court also specific plea was taken that certain similarly situated candidates have been granted relief by the High Court and the special leave petitions filed against the said judgment have been dismissed. However, the Supreme Court has declined to give parity to the candidates before it observing that the special leave petitions were dismissed at the admission stage and therefore, do not operate as binding precedents. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the submission that because Rajat Yadav or any other candidate had been given relief as the special leave petition was dismissed at the admission stage, the petitioner would be entitled to similar benefit.

9. As admittedly, the OBC certificate filed by the petitioner was not on prescribed format, therefore, we find no illegality in the stand taken by the appellants that the petitioner would not be entitled for consideration of his candidature in the selection in question.

10. As a result of above discussion, the judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 12.03.2025 is hereby set aside.

11. The appeal stands allowed. In consequence, the writ petition stands dismissed.

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

(Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.)

August 29, 2025

Mukesh Kr.