Summary
Two OBC candidates for Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector posts submitted caste certificates in the Central Government format rather than the State's Format-I required by clause 5.4(4) of the recruitment notification, and were treated as unreserved candidates. The Court held that the Board was not bound to accept the non-conforming certificates: the terms of an advertisement bind every aspirant equally, clause 5.4(4) was unambiguous about the consequence of non-compliance, and nothing prevented the candidates from obtaining a certificate in the prescribed format.
Issues
- Whether the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board was bound to accept OBC certificates submitted by the candidates which, admittedly, were not in the format prescribed in the recruitment notification.
- Whether an aspirant who participates in a selection process without objecting to a term of the advertisement can, after failing, challenge the recruiting authority's understanding of that term.
- Whether earlier High Court orders granting relief to similarly placed candidates, against which special leave petitions were dismissed at the admission stage, operate as binding precedent.
Provisions considered
- Articles 14 and 16, Constitution of IndiaThe Court restated that the terms of an advertisement for public employment are normally not open to challenge unless the challenge is founded on a breach of Article 16 or Article 14, and that where the procedure followed by the selecting body breaches constitutional safeguards, or the illegality could not have been foreseen before the select list was published, participation in the process does not by itself forfeit the right to challenge (Meeta Sahai). Clause 5.4(4) here was found to be unambiguous, so no such question arose. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21)
- Clause 5.4(4) and Format-I, UPPRPB Recruitment Notification dated 24 February 2021 (Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Platoon Commander PAC and Fire Officer, 2020-21)Clause 5.4(4) provides that OBC candidates who do not submit the certificate in the prescribed Format-I within time, or who submit a certificate valid for Government of India services, will be treated as unreserved. The Court held the clause clearly warned of the consequence, that the certificates admittedly did not conform to Format-I, and accepted the Board's reasons for insisting on the State format: Format-I certifies the State's creamy-layer criteria (parental income and wealth limits), which the Central Government format omits, so the State would otherwise have to verify each certificate individually. (¶¶ 9, 17, 21, 22)
Held
- Following Registrar General, Calcutta High Court v. Shrinivas Prasad Shah, (2013) 12 SCC 364, which the Court endorsed as undoubted, an aspirant's claimed SC/ST/OBC status is not per se decisive for the benefit of reservation; it must be certified by the competent authority on due process. Even without a statutory mandate, a requirement in the recruitment notification as to the certificate is no less mandatory and must be scrupulously followed. Once recruitment is set in motion all aspirants are entitled to equal treatment and there cannot be different yardsticks for different sets of aspirants; non-compliance with the advertisement justifies the selecting body in not entertaining the aspirant's claim to reserved status. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
- Clause 5.4(4) clearly warned of the consequence of failing to submit the certificate in Format-I, and the certificates submitted admittedly did not align with that format; that alone disposed of the claim to relief without any need to examine whether the candidates were unfairly treated. (¶ 17)
- Terms of an advertisement for a selection process are normally not open to challenge except on the ground of breach of Article 16 or Article 14. It is the duty of an aspirant to read and understand the terms; if a term appears ambiguous the aspirant should seek clarity through any inbuilt mechanism or by representation, and may then participate without prejudice and question the term after non-selection. An aspirant who makes no such effort, takes a calculated chance on his own understanding of a disputed term and then fails cannot ordinarily challenge the selection on the ground that the term could be read differently; courts should lean in favour of the recruiting authority's understanding, it being the best judge of its requirements. (¶¶ 18, 19)
- Where the selecting body's procedure breaches constitutional safeguards, or the illegality could not have been foreseen until the select list was published, a challenge cannot be spurned merely because the aspirant participated in the process (Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar). But clause 5.4(4) was far from ambiguous; no aspirant could have had any doubt about the required format, and if the candidates had doubts nothing prevented them from seeking clarification and approaching the tehsildar for a certificate in the requisite format, there being no law barring a second certificate. They could not treat the Board's insistence on the prescribed format as a dispensable formality. (¶¶ 20, 21)
- The Board's explanation for insisting on the State format, namely that Format-I certifies the State's creamy-layer criteria (parental income and wealth limits under the Government Order dated 17 December 2014) which the Central Government format does not, and that accepting Central certificates would burden the State with individual verification, was accepted. (¶¶ 9, 22)
- Earlier High Court orders granting relief to similarly placed aspirants, left undisturbed by coordinate Benches of the Supreme Court, do not operate as binding precedent because the special leave petitions in those cases were dismissed at the admission stage. (¶ 23)
Result
Lead appeal (Civil Appeal No. 5233 of 2025, by the candidate Mohit Kumar) dismissed; connected appeal (Civil Appeal No. 5234 of 2025, by the State and UPPRPB against the order directing acceptance of the candidate Kiran Prajapati's OBC certificate) allowed; neither candidate entitled to relief.