Mr. Saaket Jain, Ms. Shivangi Anand, Mr. Sarthak Kumar Meena and Mr. Parth Taran v. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ANR

Judgment

1. The present batch of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India centers around the same controversy, since all the Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 petitioners herein belonging to the category of Other Backward Class- (Non-Creamy Layer)1, are aggrieved by the cancellation of their candidature for the Central Armed Police Forces2 (Assistant Commandant3) Examination on the common ground that the OBC-NCL certificate submitted by them had not been issued and/or submitted by them within the prescribed cut-off period.

2. In view thereof, since the issue involved in the present batch of writ petitions is similar and rests upon a common legal substratum, the entire batch of writ petitions has been heard together and is being disposed of by way of this common judgment. Accordingly, WP(C) No. 8043 of 2025, titled “Raghvendra Singh & Anr. v. Union Public Service Commission & Anr.”, is treated as the lead matter for the purposes of adjudication of these petitions. FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The petitioners herein have applied for the CAPF (AC) Examination in the relevant years (i.e., either 2023 or 2024). The petitioners in these matters, have cleared the written examination and were declared qualified to proceed to the subsequent stages, being, the Physical Efficiency Test/Physical Standard Test4, Medical Standard Test5 and Personality Test (Interview). 1 “OBC-NCL” hereinafter 2 “CAPF” hereinafter 3 “AC” hereinafter 4 “PET/PST” hereinafter 5 “MST” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025

4. Since all petitioners before this Court are candidates who fall under the OBC-NCL Category, they were mandated to furnish OBC- NCL certificates issued within a prescribed timeframe for verification. This requirement of issuance of OBC-NCL certificate within a prescribed timeframe flowed from Rule 21.2 of the CAPF (AC) Examination Rules issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs6 vide Gazette Notifications dated 26.04.20237 and 24.04.20248 and the said Rule was further reiterated in the examination prospectus issued by Union Public Service Commission9.

5. This Rule is notably in pari materia for the relevant years 2023 and 2024. It stipulates that every OBC-NCL candidate must submit the requisite certificate based on the income for the three preceding financial years10. Further, the certificate sought was to comply with two conditions, namely (i) it ought to have been specifically issued only after the completion of the latest/last FY and (ii) it must be issued no later than the closing date of the applications for the CAPF (AC) Examination. In other words, the certificate must be issued and fall within the prescribed timeframe i.e., beginning of a FY (every 1st April) and ending on the last date for submission of applications for the examination. In the relevant years, i.e., 2023 and 2024, the prescribed cut-off period was as follows: (i) For 2023 - on or after 01.04.2023 but not later than the last 6 “MHA” hereinafter 7 No. I-45023/05/2023-PP 8 No. I-45023/13/2023-PP 9 “UPSC” hereinafter 10 “FY” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 date of application, i.e., 16.05.2023. (ii) For 2024 - on or after 01.04.2024 but not later than the last date of application, i.e., 14.05.2024.

6. Consequently, in the present batch of petitions, the petitioners were afforded a 43 or 45-day window for obtaining the said OBC-NCL certificate. The cut-off period began on 01.04.2023 for 2023 and

01.04.2024 for 2024. However, it is undisputed that the Examination Rules by MHA and the examination prospectus by UPSC which mandated this requirement were issued after the cut-off period had already begun, i.e., issued on 26th April 2023 and 24th April 2024.

7. For the sake of convenience, the abovementioned Rules of the 2023 and 2024 Examination Rules issued by MHA, are reproduced hereinbelow: 2023 – Issued on 26.04.2023 “21.2 The OBC candidates applying for CAPF (ACs) Exam, 2023 must produce OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate based on the income for the Financial Year (FY) 2022-23, 2021-22 and 2020-21 and issued on/after 01.04.2023 (after completion of FY 2022-23) but not later than the closing date of the application for Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandants) Examination, 2023.” 2024 – Issued on 24.04.2024 “21.2 The OBC candidates applying for CAPF (ACs) Exam, 2024 must produce OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificate based on the income for the Financial Year (FY) 2023-24, 2022-23 and 2021-22 and issued on/after 01.04.2024 (after completion of FY 2023-24) but not later than the closing date of the application for Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandants) Examination, 2024.”

8. It is gathered from the record that all the petitioners before this Court had submitted their respective OBC-NCL certificates; however, Signature Not Verified the primary issue faced by these petitioners was that the certificates Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 were not issued within the stipulated window (i.e., from 01.04.2024 to

14.05.2024 and from 01.04.2023 to 16.05.2023 respectively) and hence, their certificates were not considered by the respondents.

9. Due to the inability of the petitioners to procure the certificates bearing a date within the cut-off stipulated window, the respondents either cancelled the candidature or appointment or excluded their names from the interview or the Final Merit List or converted the petitioner’s candidature to General/Unreserved11 category.

10. While the core controversy is common in all petitions, i.e., the forfeiture of candidature or appointment on account of their OBC-NCL certificates not being issued within the cut-off period, the petitions differ on certain facts, such as the year of the examination, the stage of the selection process cleared, the dates of the certificates. We, for the sake of inclusiveness of these petitions to this common judgment, hereby reproduce the distinguishing data as stated in the record in a tabulated form as herein below: Writ Petition W.P.(C) No. Examination Year and Cut- Off Period 2023; 01.04.2023 till 16.05.2023 Certificate Dates

23.10.2023, 17.06.2023, 02.09.2020 Signature Not Verified 11 “UR” hereinafter Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 Stage of Selection Process and current status On culmination of the process, selections including personality list, named in the BSF merit list as a provisional candidate subject to verification of documents. Interim order dated 11.03.2025 provided that cancellation of the candidature Petitioner subject to the outcome of the WP. On culmination of the selections process, including the personality list, provisionally appointed as AC in ITBP. Interim order dated 12.03.2025 provided that the cancellation of the candidature of the Petitioner shall be subject to the outcome of the WP. On culmination of the process, selections including personality list, Petitioner No.1 was allotted Petitioner No. 2 was allotted CISF. Interim order dated 15.05.2025 provided cancellation candidature Petitioner subject to the outcome of the WP. Candidature cancelled before petitioners could sit for Test/ personality interview round. Interim order dated SSB W.P.(C) No. 2023; 01.04.2023 till 16.05.2023

29.12.2023, 21.01.2022, 23.11.2021, W.P.(C) No. 2023; 01.04.2023 till 16.05.2023 P1: 19.06.2023, 22.03.2023 13.12.2024 (Tehsildar verification) P2: 18.11.2023, 17.02.2023 W.P.(C) No. 2024; 01.04.2024 till 14.05.2024 P1: 10.10.2024, 15.02.2024 P2: 19.11.2024, 18.05.2023 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 P3: 16.11.2024, 26.06.2024 P4: 14.06.2024, 04.07.2023 W.P.(C) No. 2023; 01.04.2023 till 16.05.2023

27.05.2023, 15.03.2023 W.P.(C) No. 2024; 01.04.2024 till 14.05.2024 P1: 01.08.2024, 07.06.2023, 23.09.2019 P2: 21.05.2024, 15.05.2023, Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025

22.05.2025 provisionally allowed to participate process selection stating that in case the petitioners are found successful and meriting selection, they shall be duly selected and appointed. Candidature cancelled before the petitioner could sit for interview round. Allegedly, Petitioner was recommended after he was allowed to sit for interview vide interim order dated 30.05.2024, but it is stated that his forwarded for service allocation because the matter is sub-judice. Candidatures before cancelled petitioners could sit for personality Test/interview round it that both stated petitioners recommended they were allowed to a continue provisional basis participate process and if found successful, they shall be selected appointed but selection W.P.(C) No. 2024; 01.04.2024 till 14.05.2024 P1: 19.02.2024, 08.10.2024 P2: 19.02.2024, 25.05.2024 W.P.(C) No. 2024; 01.04.2024 till 14.05.2024 P1: 16/18.03.2024, 14/15.10.2024 P2: 12/15.04.2023, 10.10.2024 P3: 19.02.2024, 16.10.2024 W.P.(C) No. Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 2024; 01.04.2024 till 14.05.2024

30.04.2024, 16.01.2024, appointment will be subject to outcome of WP vide an interim order dated 22.05.2025. Candidature was cancelled before petitioners could sit for the interview. Vide interim order dated 30.05.2025, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the interview. It is stated that Petitioner No.1 has been recommended after the interview round. Candidature cancelled before petitioners could sit for Personality Vide Test/Interview. interim order dated 08.08.2025, petitioners permitted to participate in the selection process and, if selected, they be appointed, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. It is stated that the results have not disclosed UPSC despite categorical a direction to that effect in Para 15 of the order dt. 11.07.2025. Candidature cancelled before

22.03.2022 petitioners could sit for Personality Vide Test/Interview. interim order dated 16.07.2025, petitioner provisionally allowed continue participate remaining stages of the It selection process. was directed case the petitioner was found successful and meriting selection, she shall be duly selected and appointed.

11. Additionally, W.P.(C) Nos. 8304/2025, 6158/2025, 7043/2025, 7137/2024, 7749/2025, 9701/2025 and 10006/2025, seek to challenge Rule 21.2 of the Rules for the CAPF Examination of the relevant year issued vide Gazette Notification by the MHA wherein such cut-off period was stipulated.

12. Furthermore, WP(C) Nos. 3076/2025 and 3148/2025 vary in their general factual backdrop as well as the reliefs sought. The distinct factual backdrop in the petitions is set out herein below: W.P.(C) Nos. 3076/2025

12.1 This writ petition seeks to set aside the impugned communication dated 20.02.2025, whereby the petitioner’s candidature for the 2023 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 CAPF (AC) Examination was forfeited and consequently, seeks reinstatement. There is no specific challenge to the cut-off period stipulated in the Rules issued by MHA or the examination prospectus issued by UPSC.

12.2 In furtherance of the impugned Rule 21.2 mentioned above, the petitioner was mandated to submit an OBC-NCL certificate issued within the stipulated timeframe. However, the petitioner had submitted a certificate dated 24.08.2020 for proof of OBC status as there was a discrepancy in his name recorded in the Matriculation Certificate and the Aadhar Card.

12.3 After rectifying the said discrepancy, he applied for a fresh caste certificate as required. It is the claim of the petitioner that this certificate was issued on 16.10.2023, i.e., post the stipulated cut-off window, and furnished to the respondents during the personal interview on 07.06.2024. Subsequently, the petitioner was allotted to the Border Security Force.

12.4 Thereafter, vide communication dated 27.09.2024, the respondent reiterated their demand for the submission of the OBC-NCL certificate issued within the prescribed timeframe. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that his appointment letter was withheld, and his name was placed under provisional list.

12.5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.(C) No. 1758/2025, however, while the case was pending, the respondent issued the impugned letter dated 20.01.2025, whereby the Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 provisional appointment of the petitioner was forfeited. W.P.(C) Nos. 3148/2025

12.6 This writ petition is confined to seeking setting aside of the impugned communication dated 20.02.2025, whereby the petitioner’s candidature for the 2023 CAPF (AC) Examination was forfeited, along with a prayer for reinstatement. There is no challenge to the cut-off period stipulated in the Rules issued by MHA or the examination prospectus issued by UPSC.

12.7 It is asserted that the petitioner had qualified all stages of the selection process, i.e., written examination, PST/PET and MST. However, while submitting the application, the petitioner uploaded a certificate dated 21.08.2008, i.e., not within the cut-off period, due to which the petitioner was kept under provisional status.

12.8 The respondent, vide communication dated 12.08.2024, stated that the provisional status of the petitioner would be conserved for three months i.e., till 04.10.2024, and the petitioner was directed to furnish the stipulated OBC-NCL certificate and other required documents by

28.08.2024, failure of which would lead to the forfeiture of his candidacy. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner furnished certificates dated

23.11.2021, 21.01.2022 and 29.12.2023.

12.9 Thereafter, the respondents, on 26.09.2024, communicated that the petitioner was selected for the post of AC (General Duty) and was Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 allocated to Indo-Tibetan Border Police12 for appointment. Further, vide letter dated 08.10.2024, the respondent further communicated to the petitioner that his candidature was kept provisional, subject to verification of his original certificate dated 21.08.2008, since it was not issued within stipulated timeframe.

12.10 In furtherance of the abovementioned communication, it is claimed by the petitioner that he submitted the requisite certificates; vide letter dated 16.10.2024, and that Respondent No. 2 (ITBP) acknowledged the receipt of certificates of the petitioner dated

21.08.2008, 21.01.2022, 29.12.2023 and 23.11.2021. However, on

20.02.2025, the respondent (ITBP) issued the impugned order whereby the petitioner’s candidature was cancelled. W.P.(C) No. 10006/2025

12.11 This writ petition to quash impugned communication/letter dated 01.05.2025, whereby the candidature of the petitioner for the CAPF (AC) Examination of 2024, came to be cancelled and prays for quashing/modifying the Final/Merit List to the extent that it does not mention the petitioner therein. Additionally, a challenge has been posed to the cut-off period stipulated under Rule

21.2 of the CAPF Rules, 2024 on grounds of unconstitutionality.

12.12 It is the case of petitioner that she possessed an OBC-NCL certificate issued within the stipulated cut-off period. However, while Signature Not Verified 12 “ITBP” hereinafter Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 submitting her Detailed Application Form she, purportedly, uploaded a certificate issued prior to the cut-off date.

12.13 Subsequently, vide impugned order dated 01.05.2025, the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled under the OBC category with the reasoning that the certificate uploaded was actually dated

16.01.2024, i.e., not within the stipulated timeframe. The petitioner’s candidature was converted to that of UR category. Hence, it is the case of petitioner that, to retain her candidature, the petitioner was compelled to continue the process as a candidate under the UR category.

12.14 During the Personality Test (interview), the petitioner furnished her OBC-NCL certificate dated 30.04.2024 (within cut-off period). However, allegedly, no favourable response was received from the respondents.

12.15 Thereafter, the petitioner continued the selection process as a UR category candidate and secured 310 marks in the examination, but the qualifying marks for a UR candidate were 311, and for OBC candidate, it was 308 marks. Hence, it the case of the petitioner that she was rendered disqualified in the selection process despite having secured the qualifying marks prescribed for her original OBC-NCL Category, since she was compelled to participate in the selection process as a UR candidate.

13. Accordingly, being aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the present batch of writ Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 petitions, assailing the forfeiture of their respective candidatures. SUBMISSIONS

The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently opposed the stipulated cut-off period deeming it as arbitrary, prejudicial and lacking rational nexus with the object sought. It was emphasized that the candidature of the petitioners was cancelled without affording them any opportunity for explanation which directly violates principles of natural justice. It was submitted that the sheer disregard of the respondents towards the fact that all the petitioners were in possession of valid OBC- NCL certificates, even though they were not issued within the stipulated timeframe, did not change the fact that the petitioners did, in fact, belong to OBC-NCL category.

15. It was submitted that the cut-off period was insufficient and arbitrary, and it posed adverse effects on the future prospects of the candidates. Further, it is violative of the principles of equality and equity enshrined in the Constitution of India including equality in public employment. It was submitted that the rejection of valid OBC- NCL certificates for the relevant years only on technical lapses, i.e., that they were not issued within the stipulated window, constitutes unjust and exploitative use of power/authority. It was further submitted that such mechanical exercise of power was unwarranted and violative principles of fairness and reasonableness. Reliance was placed on Ms. Pushpa v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 13 Signature Not Verified 13 2009 SCC OnLine Del 281 Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025

16. Further, it was submitted that the inability to furnish the requisite certificate could not be attributed to the petitioners since the respondents did not account for the fact that such certificates are not issued within such short span of time, i.e., only approximately 20 days were granted to the petitioners, which was virtually impossible. According to the learned Counsel, this 20-day window given by the respondents has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by providing reservation to deserving candidates and no purpose is being served by making such a stringent stipulation, which neither has any rationale nor appears to be fair or reasonable.

17. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that even if the certificate was prior to or post the cut-off date, it was still valid for the entire year.

18. It was contended that the petitioners were aggrieved by the lack of procedural fairness. Reliance, in that respect, was placed on Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & Ors.14. It was further submitted that the respondent (UPSC) being a constitutional body is reasonably expected to act in a non- arbitrary manner and within the four corners of the Constitution of India. Further, reliance was placed on Ravi Kumar v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences15, wherein the facts were analogous, and relief was granted in favour of similarly situated candidates, to contend Signature Not Verified 14 (2015) 8 SCC 519 15 W.P.(C) No. 15514/2023 Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 that the petitioners herein are entitled to the reliefs prayed for.

19. The learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to an Office Memorandum16 dated 08.10.2015 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training17, wherein it was stipulated that if a candidate belonging to a reserved category is unable to produce a certificate from a competent authority, they may be appointed on a provisional basis based on some prima facie evidence of such status which may be rectified upon furnishing the requisite certification thereafter. It was emphasized in the said OM that if there were a “genuine difficulty” in procuring such certificate, then the appointing authority itself could verify the same through the concerned District Magistrate.

20. With respect to W.P.(C) No. 10006/2025, it was argued that the grievance was very limited, that a certificate of the previous year was uploaded by mistake and that the petitioner did possess an OBC-NCL certificate issued within the cut-off period. It was submitted that there was no window provided for uploading correct certificates. Further, that the selection process continues for a year, however, the time granted to upload certificates was grossly insufficient. In support of the case of the petitioner in this matter, reliance was placed on Anil Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India18, Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr.19, Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors.20, Latika Vs. Staff Selection Commission and Ors.21, Ravi Kumar 16 “OM” hereinafter 17 “DoPT” hereinafter 18 2013 SCC OnLine Del 1401 19 (2016) 4 SCC 754 20 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6553 21 (2017) SCC OnLine Del 10770 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 (supra) and All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Ravi Kumar22.

21. For WP(C) No. 3076/2025, it was submitted that despite the pendency of W.P.(C) No. 1785/2025, the respondent proceeded to cancel the appointment of the petitioner, which rendered the petition infructuous and was in total disregard of the interim orders of this Hon’ble Court.

22. Per contra, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondents emphasized that prescribing a cut-off date is an essential function and power to maintain administrative certainty, especially in large-scale recruitment. It was submitted that a uniform benchmark had been adopted to ensure parity among all candidates who had furnished certificates beyond the stipulated window.

23. The learned Counsel for the respondents resisted the claims of the petitioner and submitted that the petitioners who have not challenged the Rule issued by MHA stipulating the cut-off period, cannot challenge it now. It was submitted that the examination notification/prospectus was issued as per the Rules of Examination issued by MHA via Gazette notification and because the petitioners have participated in the said examination, they are estopped from challenging the same. The learned Counsel stressed on the point that since the game has started, the rules of the game cannot be changed by UPSC. Reliance, in this regard, was placed on Tej Prakash Pathak & Signature Not Verified 22 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2147 Signed By:PRAGYA ARORA Signing Date:10.12.2025 17:59:01 W.P.(C) 8304/2025 Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.23 and Hemani Malhotra v. High Court of Delhi24. It was reiterated that even the said prospectus categorically stated that the candidature of all candidates was provisional in nature at all times, subject to satisfaction of the eligibility criteria. It was further submitted that fixation of a cut-off date for a post is a discretionary power of competent authority, as also held in Amit Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan25.

24. It was submitted that all candidates were required to submit a Detailed Application Form after clearing the written examination and this Form contained an undertaking that a reserved candidate’s status will be subject to the Rules of CAPF. It was also submitted that verification would be done only of the documents submitted along with the said Form. The learned Counsel argued that, in light of the OM dated 08.10.2015 issued by DoPT, the candidates falling under the reserved category who are unable to produce their requisite caste/community certificate, may be appointed but only provisionally, based on any prima facie evidence subject to furnishing the requisite certificate within reasonable time.

25. With regard to the contention that the notification was published only after the cut-off period itself had started, it was submitted that UPSC had uploaded the Annual Calendar for the relevant year including the CAPF (AC) Examination almost a year in advance. It was