Requirement of submission of OBC certificate in prescribed format is mandatory: SC

Case Details: Mohit Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - [2025] 178 taxmann.com 623 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dipankar Datta & Manmohan, JJ.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, UP Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (UPPRPB) issued a notification for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police. The appellant applied for the said post in the OBC category and was thereafter called for examination, in which the appellant scored 313.84 marks.
Pursuant to examinations conducted by UPPRPB, a list of non-selected candidates was published, which featured the appellant’s registration number. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant made a representation to UPPRPB.

The UPPRPB, by its speaking order, rejected appellant’s representation on the ground that he did not submit an OBC certificate in a format prescribed at the time of initial recruitment release and, thus, he was considered in the general category instead of the OBC category.

The cut-off marks for the general category were 316.11. It was absolutely clear what UPPRPB required and what the consequences of non-adherence would be. In the wake of such a requirement, no aspirant could possibly have any doubt as to the format in which the certificate was to be issued.

In the instant case, Clause 5.4(4) of the recruitment notification clearly warns of the consequences that would befall an aspirant should they fail to submit the requisite certificate in Format-I. Thus, even if the appellant had doubts about whether the certificate he had would suffice, nothing prevented him from seeking clarification and, at the same time, approaching the concerned tehsildars to issue a certificate in the requisite format.

Further, it had not been shown that obtaining a second certificate in the format required by the State Government was barred by any law.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that the appellant could not take shelter under the plea that the insistence on the part of UPPRPB for the certificate to be issued in the requisite format was a mere formality, which could have been dispensed with, since he had a certificate issued in another format. Thus, aspirants-appellants were not entitled to any relief.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Allahabad High Court orders in Mohit Kumar v. State of UP [WRIT – A No. – 18987 of 2022, dated 22-2-2023] [Para 25]affirmed
• State of UP v. Kiran Prajapati (SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. – 562 of 2023, dated 25-8-2023][Para 25]set aside

List of Cases Referred To

• Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P. 2013 SCC OnLine All 1286 (para 9)
• Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan (2011) 12 SCC 85 (para 9)
• State of T.N. v. G. Hemalathaa (2020) 19 SCC 430 (para 9)
• Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee (2005) 9 SCC 779 (para 10)
• Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public Service Commission (2017) 11 SCC 276 (para 10)
• Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selections Board (2016) 4 SCC 754 (para 10)
• Karn Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2024) 2 SCC 588 (para 10)
• Registrar General, Calcutta High Court v. Shrinivas Prasad Shah [2013] 5 taxmann.com 344 (SC) (para 13)
• Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar (2019) 20 SCC 17 (para 20).