# Prashant Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. 124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2021) 5 ILRA 123
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-05-12
- **Case number:** Writ -A No. 6939 of 2020
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prashant-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-124-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-47048
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A. Service law - Candidature - Physically
Handicapped Certificate - Requirement to
submit
before
cutoff
date
-
Noncompliance - Effect - Certificate could not
be submitted at the time of written
examination, but at the time of interview
- Held, for successful completion of any
competitive
examination,
which
are
having candidates of different categories
based upon many factors like physically
handicapped,
vertical
or
horizontal
reservation etc, it is necessarily required
to submit all relevant documents well
within the cutoff date prescribed by the
Commission/Selection Body - In case of
failure of the same, there is no illegality in
rejecting their candidature or transferring
them into general category. (Para 46)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,925 of 46,958. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39925 for what follows._

5 All. Prashant Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
123
OMR Answer sheet relating to either the
Registration Number, the Roll Number or
Question Booklet Series and the Language
attempted and that is why their results have
not been declared. The manual check can be
conducted but the larger issue before the
Court is whether such a direction should be
given at all. In our opinion, it is for the
examining body to work out a method for the
recruitment process and the manner in which
Answer Sheets is evaluated and once clear
instructions
have
been
given
to
the
candidates
that
incorrect
information
relating
to Registration
Number,
Roll
Number, Question Booklet Series and
Language attempted would lead to non-
declaration of the result, the examining body
should not be directed to conduct a manual
check..... This would take substantial time
and ultimately result in causing delay in the
declaration of the result. It is this delay that
was sought to be eliminated by requiring the
candidates to give reasons in the OMR
Answer Sheet so that they could be scanned
by electronic means.

.......The error committed by the
candidates cannot be said to be minor in
nature. It is the Registration Number, Roll
Number that determines identity of the
candidates. The candidates who appeared
in the examination were mature students
and were to be appointed as Assistant
Teachers in institution. They should have
read the instructions that was issued time
and again and should have correctly filled
the entries relating to Roll Number,
Registration Number, Question Booklet
Series and Language attempted. The
entries were, however, inaccurately filled
as a result of which the scanner has not
been able to process the result." (Emphasis
Supplied)

Similar view has been taken by
another Division Bench of this Court in
Ramesh
Chandra's
case
(supra)
by
observing: "if this Court permits the
appellants and persons alike to have manual
corrections in the OMR sheet, then that will
frustrate
the entire purpose of using
technology for expeditious completion of the
process of selection."

12. The submission of the learned
counsel for the appellants that Roll Number
was written correctly in numerals therefore
there was no justification to reject the answer
sheet only because the circles/ bubbles were
not filled correctly does not appeal to us.
Because, it is from the colouring or darkening
of circles/ bubbles in the OMR sheets that the
scanner is able to process the information.
The mention of Roll Number in numerals
might be to keep a double-check on foul play.
However, whatever the purpose might be, we
need not speculate on that. The fact remains
that once the instructions were clear and were
to apply universally to all candidates, if the
error as per the instructions is fatal, a handsoff approach by the Writ Court is justified,
hence we find no good reason to interfere in
the matter. Consequently, the appeal is
dismissed.
----------
(2021)05ILR A123
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ -A No. 6939 of 2020

Prashant Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Uma Dutt Shukla, Sri B.D. Pandey, Sri
Ratnakar Upadhyay, Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri
Radha Kant Ojha (Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri M.N. Singh, Sri Nisheeth Yadav

A. Service law - Candidature - Physically
Handicapped Certificate - Requirement to
submit
before
cutoff
date
-
Noncompliance - Effect - Certificate could not
be submitted at the time of written
examination, but at the time of interview
- Held, for successful completion of any
competitive
examination,
which
are
having candidates of different categories
based upon many factors like physically
handicapped,
vertical
or
horizontal
reservation etc, it is necessarily required
to submit all relevant documents well
within the cutoff date prescribed by the
Commission/Selection Body - In case of
failure of the same, there is no illegality in
rejecting their candidature or transferring
them into general category. (Para 46)
Writ Petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Dheerender Singh Paliwal Vs UPSC; (2017) 11
SCC 276
2. Writ-A No. 40159 of 2016; Smt. Rajni Shukla
Vs U.O.I. & 3 ors. decided by Allahabad High
Court on 8.3.2017
3. Ram Kumar Gijoriya Vs Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board & anr.; (2016) 4 SCC
754
4. Writ-A No. 5383 of 2020; Prashant Kumar
Dwivedi & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & 2 ors. decided
by Allahabad High Court on 28.8.2020
5. Writ-A No.7401 of 2015; Rajendra Patel Vs
St. of U.P. & anr. decided by Allahabad High
Court on 14.8.2015
6. Special Appeal No. 762 of 2016; Arvind
Kumar Yadav Vs U.P. Recruitment & Promotion
Board & 2 ors. decided by Allahabad High Court
on 5.12.2016
7. Special Appeal Defective No. 136 of 2017;
Pravesh Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & 2 ors., , decided
by Allahabad High Court on 1.3.2017
8. Writ Petition No. 748 (S/B) of 2014; Shubham
Gupta Vs Indian Overseas Bank Office, Chennai
& ors. , decided on 8.7.2016
9. Gaurav Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2017
(5) ADJ 494 (FB)
10. Civil Appeal No. 6669 of 2019; St. of T.N. &
ors.s Vs G. Hemalatha & anr. decided by
Supreme Court on 28.8.2019

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri
B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for the
respondent no.1 and Sri Nisheeth Yadav,
learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

2. Sri Radha Kant Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate submitted that Uttar
Pradesh
Public
Service
Commission
(hereinafter referred to as "Commission")
has
advertised
the
vacancies
vide
advertisement No. A-2/E-1/2018 dated
6.7.2018.
Petitioner
is
physically
handicapped candidate and in this regard, a
certificate was issued to him from the
office of Chief Medical Officer, Sultanpur
on 10.9.2015, therefore, he had applied
against the said advertisement under
physically
handicapped
category.
Accordingly, he deposited examination fee
of Rs. 25/-, which was prescribed for
physically handicapped candidate. He next
submitted
that
he
had
appeared
in
preliminary examination, result of which
declared on 30.3.2019 and he was found
successful. He was issued marksheet of
preliminary examination showing him
under
general/physically
handicapped
category.
After
being
successful
in
preliminary examination, petitioner had
5 All. Prashant Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
125
filled
up
main
examination
form
mentioning his category as physically
handicapped. Thereafter, admit card was
issued to petitioner showing him as
physically handicapped candidate. He was
also declared successful in the main
examination and appeared in interview. At
that time, he was required by respondent
no.2 to fill up certain forms and he again
mentioned his category as physically
handicapped candidate. He also submitted
an old medical certificate dated 10.9.2015
for treating himself under the category of
physically handicapped candidate.

3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing
on behalf of the petitioner further submitted
that when the final result was declared,
petitioner was not shown successful as he
was not treated under the category of
physically handicapped candidate. He next
submitted that after being inquired from the
"Commission", he was orally informed that
he
has
not
submitted
his
physically
handicapped certificate at the time of filling
of main examination form, which is contrary
to
the
condition
mentioned
in
the
advertisement. Therefore, his candidature
cannot be treated under the category of
physically handicapped candidate and he has
not been declared successful. He also
submitted that though he could not submit
certificate at the time of main examination,
but he has submitted the same at the time of
interview. Therefore, his candidature should
not be treated as general candidate, but it
should have been treated as physically
handicapped candidate and accordingly,
result should also be declared on the basis of
minimum cut off marks of physically
handicapped candidate.

4. In support of his contention, he has
placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex
Court in the matter of Dheerender
Singh Paliwal Vs. UPSC reported in
(2017) 11 SCC 276 decided on 21.04.2016.
Replying upon the paragraph nos. 4, 5, 14
& 15 of judgment, he submitted that if the
petitioner is fully qualified though he could
not submit his application form, his
candidature should not be transferred into
general category candidate, but it should be
treated under the category of physically
handicapped candidate.

5. Paragraph nos. 4, 5, 14 & 15 of the
aforesaid judgments relied by learned
Senior Advocate are quoted hereinbelow:-

"4.
In
the
instructions
and
additional information to candidates for
recruitment by selection at SI. No.3 under
the
head
"Minimum
educational
qualifications" it was stipulated that all the
applicants
must
fulfil
the
essential
requirements for the post. It was further
mentioned therein that the candidate
should mention all the qualifications and
experience in the relevant field over and
above the minimum qualification and
should attach attested/self-certified copies
of the certificates in support thereof.

5. In Note III of the said
paragraph it is specifically mentioned "in
regard to educational qualifications, the
marksheet in lieu of educational certificate
will not be accepted by the Commission."
In the same instructions in SI. No.7 the
requirements of certificate to be attached, it
is mentioned at Serial (ii) "Degree or
diploma certificate or other certificates in
support of their educational qualifications
to be attached either by way of attested
copies or self-certified copies". By way of
Note III, it is mentioned that if no copies of
above certificates are sent with the
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application, it is liable to be rejected an no
appeal against its rejection would be
entertained.

14.
Having
considered
the
respective submissions and having noted
the dictum of this Court as noted above, we
are of the view that in the light of the
prescription noted in the advertisement, the
particulars furnished by the appellant in
response to the said advertisement and the
production of the degree certificate for
having secured the Bsc degree with
Zoology as the subject at a later point of
time there was substantial compliance with
the requirement to be fulfilled in the matter
of the essential qualifications possessed by
the appellant. Therefore, applying the
principle set down by this Court, the
respondent Commission ought to have
considered the application and more so
when the appellant was already in the
services
of
the
Forensic
Science
Laboratory as Senior Scientific Assistant
and his essential qualifications were very
much on record in the form of resume and
therefore pursuant to the direction of the
Tribunal when the respondent Commission
interviewed the appellant and found him fit
to be selected and appointed for the post of
Senior Scientific Officer in all fairness
should have appointed the appellant.

15. In the first place, it must be
stated that it is not a case of the appellant
not possessing
the
required
essential
qualification but was of only not enclosing
the certificate in proof of the added
qualification of Zoology as one of the
subjects at Bsc level, from a recognized
University. In the application when once the
appellant, marked '1' against Column 9 and
thereby confirmed that he possesses the
essential
qualification,
namely,
the
postgraduate qualification as well as the
degree level qualification, if at all there was
any doubt about any of the qualification, the
appellant should have been called upon to
produce the required certificate in proof of
such essential qualification. In fact in this
context, when we refer to the interview
proceedings of the appellant as well as two
other candidates we find that the appellant
produced the original Bsc/MSc degree in
Zoology and also submitted the attested
photocopy of Bsc Zoology degree. The
outcome of the said interview was that the
appellant should be cleared of his selection.
Insofar as other two candidates, namely,
Miss Babyto and Miss
Imrana, are
concerned, we find that the production of
their caste certificate was not in the
prescribed pro forma initially, nevertheless
those candidates were allowed to produce
the original caste certificate issued by the
competent authority and after verifying the
same by accepting the attested photocopies
of such caste certificates, their cases were
cleared. Therefore, when such a course was
adopted by the respondent Commission in
regard to those two candidates there is no
reason why the candidature of the appellant
alone was kept in suspension, though he also
cleared interview process. Even assuming
such clearance was not made awaiting the
outcome of the order of the Tribunal, when
the Tribunal upheld his selection and
directed the respondent to issue necessary
orders for appointment, in all fairness the
respondent Commission should have issued
the order of appointment. We are of the view
that such an approach of the respondent
Commission was unfair having regard to the
very trivial issue, namely, a non-production
of an added qualification as part of the
essential qualification at the degree level
which the appellant did possess and for
mere asking, the appellant could have
readily produced the same through his
employer."
5 All. Prashant Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
127

6. He next placed reliance upon the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court
in the matter of Smt. Rajni Shukla Vs.
Union of India and 3 others passed in
Writ-A No. 40159 of 2016 decided on
8.3.2017. After relying upon the judgment
of Dheerender Singh Paliwal (supra), in
that case too, Court was of the same view
that
in
case
of
non-submission
of
certificate, candidature cannot be rejected
or transferred to any other category.

7. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment
relied
by
learned
Senior
Advocate is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"The facts and circumstances of
the case in hand are similar to that of
Dheerender Singh Paliwal's case (supra).
The petitioner was having required degree
of post graduation on the relevant date and
she had mentioned in her application form
that she was possessing the required
degree of post graduation. Petitioner
should have been called upon to produce
the required certificate in proof of her
essential qualification, if there was any
doubt about her qualification. It is not in
dispute that no other candidate was higher
in rank to the petitioner for being
considered to be appointed on the post of
Statistical
Investigator,
Grade-III.
Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, denial of appointment to the
petitioner for the post of Statistical
Investigator, Grade-III, merely on the
ground that she did not attach the required
certificate of master degree alongwith
application form, can not be justified in the
eyes of law."

8. Further, he placed reliance upon the
judgment of Apex Court in the matter of
Ram
Kumar
Gijoriya
vs.
Delhi
Subordinate Services Selection Board
and Another reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754
decided on 24.02.2016. He next submitted
that this case is squarely covered with the
judgment where OBC candidate could not
submit certificate after last date mentioned
in
the
advertisement
and
ultimately
Supreme
Court
allowed
the
appeal
accepting the certificate after that.

9. Relevant paragraph nos. 2 & 18 of
the aforesaid judgment relied by the
learned Senior Advocate are being quoted
below:-

"2. The important question of law
to be decided in these appeals is whether a
candidate who appears in an examination
under the OBC category and submits the
certificate after the last date mentioned in
the advertisement is eligible for selection to
the post under the OBC category or not?

18. In our considered view, the
decision
rendered
in
Pushpa
is
in
conformity with the position of law laid
down by this Court, which have been
referred to supra. The Division Bench of
the High Court erred in reversing the
judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge, without noticing the binding
precedent on the question laid down by the
Constitution Benches of this Court in Indra
Sawhney and Valsamma Paul wherein this
Court after interpretation of Articles 14,
15, 16 and 39-A of the directive principles
of State Policy held that the object of
providing reservation to the Scs/STs and
educationally
and
socially
backward
classes of the society is to remove
inequality
in
public
employment,
as
candidates belonging to these categories
are unable to complete with the candidates
belonging to the general category as a
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
result of facing centuries of oppression and
deprivation
of
opportunity.
The
constitutional
concept
of
reservation
envisaged
in
the
Preamble
of
the
Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 15
and 39-A of the directive principles of State
Policy is to achieve the concept of giving
equal opportunity to all sections of the
society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in
reversing the judgment and order passed
by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the
impugned judgment and order passed by
the Division Bench in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only
erroneous but also suffers from error in
law as it has failed to follow the binding
precedent of the judgments of this Court in
Indra Sawhney and Valsamma Paul.
Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court is liable to be set aside and
accordingly set aside. The judgment and
order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the
learned Single Judge in Ram Kumar
Gijoriya v. Govt (NCT of Delhi) is hereby
restored.

The appeals are allowed. No
costs."

10. Lastly, he placed reliance upon the
judgment of this Court in the matter of
Prashant Kumar Dwivedi and Another vs.
State of U.P. And 2 others passed in Writ-A
No. 5383 of 2020 decided on 28.8.2020. In
that
case,
in
the
same
examination,
"Commission" itself has granted certain
considerations to the candidates, who were
required to submit experience certificate
alongwith signature of Competent Authority.
In that case, certificate was submitted without
countersign
of
Competent
Authority.
"Commission" has given another chance to
the candidates to submit their certificates
alongwith
countersign
of
Competent
Authority.
He
next
submitted
that
"Commission" has itself accepted this fact
before the Court that decision has already
been taken to this effect by its orders dated
27.7.2001, 7.6.2011 and 9.8.2019 to grant
such relief and it was confined only to those
students, who had uploaded the form of
experience,
but
in
the
certificate
of
experience, signature of the Joint Director
could not be obtained. He further submitted
that under such acceptance of fact and also
law laid down by the Courts, petitioner is also
entitled to be declared successful under
category
of
physically
handicapped
candidate.

11. Mr. Nisheeth Yadav, learned
counsel for the respondent no.2 has
vehemently opposed the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner
and submitted that in paragraph 7 of the
advertisement, it was clearly mentioned
that candidates are required to enclose selfattested copies of all the certificates
alongwith the application forms of main
examination in support of the claims made
by them in their application forms of
preliminary
examination
regarding
eligibility
and
category/sub
category,
failing which their claims shall not be
entertained.

12. Relevant paragraph no.7 of the
advertisement
is
being
quoted
hereinbelow:-

"It
is
mandatory
for
the
candidates to enclose self-attested copies of
all
the
certificates
along
with
the
application forms of Main Examination in
support of the claims made by them in their
application
forms
of
Preliminary
Examination
regarding
eligibility
and
category sub category, failing which their
clams shall not be entertained."
5 All. Prashant Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
129

13.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents further submitted that after
completion of written examination, another
notification dated 7.5.2019 was issued by
the "Commission" and again applicants
were informed to submit all certificates
alongwith
main
examination
form.
Paragraph 3 of the said notification is being
quoted hereinbelow:-

"vkuykbu
Hkjs
x;s
QkeZ
lsV
(vkosnu&i=) dks eqfnzr djds mlds lkFk leLr
layXudksa (izR;sd o"kZ dh vad rkfydkvksa] mikf/k;ksa
rFkk vU; lHkh nkoksa ls lEcfU/kr izek.k&i=ksa dh
Lokizekf.kr izfr;kW) lfgr ,d fyQkQs esa Hkjdj rFkk
mDr fyQkQs ij eqfnzr irk iphZ (Addres Slip)
pLik dj fnukad 29 Mays 2019 dks 5%00 PM rd
vFkok mlds iwoZ lfpo] m0iz0 yksd lsok vk;ksx]
(ijh{kk
vuqHkkx&3)]
10&dLrwjck
xka/kh
ekxZ]
iz;kxjkt] fiu dksM&ua&211018 dks iathd`r Mkd
}kjk vFkok O;fDrxr :i ls vk;ksx ds xsV la[;k&3
ij fLFkfr Mkd vuqHkkx ds dkmUVj (iwN&rkN
dkmUVj) ij vo'; miyC/k djk nsaA mDr vfUre
frfFk ds ckn izkIr gksus okys vkosnu&i= fdlh Hkh
n'kk esa Lohdkj ugha fd, tk,axsA"

14. He next submitted that this fact is
undisputed
that
alongwith
main
examination form, petitioner could not
submit
his
certificate
of
physically
handicapped candidate.

15. In support of his contention, he
placed reliance upon the judgments of
Apex Court as well as this Court. He first
placed reliance upon the judgment of Full
Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra
Patel Vs. State of U.P. And another passed
in Writ-A No.7401 of 2015 decided on
14.8.2015.

16. Relevant paragraph of the said
judgment relied by learned counsel is being
quoted hereinbelow:-

"For these reasons, we hold
that where the Commission requires the
submission of a hard copy of the online
application together with all accompanying
documents by a prescribed last date and
has clearly placed the candidates on notice
of the fact that an application which is
submitted beyond the last date together
with the prescribed documents would result
in the invalidation of the candidature, the
condition which has been imposed by the
Commission would have to be scrupulously
observed. It would not be open to the Court
to hold that notwithstanding such a clear
condition, an application which has not
been received by the last date should be
entertained. The Commission has given an
option to candidates of submitting their
applications in the hard copy by either of
the two modes, namely by registered post
or by personal delivery. A candidate who
has opted for one of the two modes, is
required to comply with the condition that
all the requisite four stages are completed
within the time stipulated."

17. He further submitted that similar
issue was again before this Court in the
matter of Arvind Kumar Yadav vs. U.P.
Recruitment & Promotion Board and 2
others passed in Special Appeal No. 762 of
2016 decided on 5.12.2016, Court has
clearly held that in case of non submission
of requisite certificate within the cut off
date,
treating
the
general
category
candidates no error has been committed by
the learned Single Judge while rejecting the
claim set up by the petitioner.

Relevant
paragraph
of
the
aforesaid judgment relied by the learned
counsel is being quoted hereinbelow:-
130 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"Since the petitioner had failed to
satisfy
the
requirements
of
the
advertisement, as were prescribed by
submitting the certificate, we are more than
satisfied that the learned Single Judge is
right in coming to the conclusion that
petitioner is liable to be treated as a
General category candidate. No error has
been committed by the learned Single
Judge while rejecting the claim set up by
the petitioner.

18. He further submitted that similar issue
again came before the Division Bench of this
Court in the matter of Gaurav Sharma and
Court was having conflict of opinion with
regard to judgments rendered by two other
Division Benches in the matter of Pravesh
Kumar v. State of U.P. And two others,
Special Appeal Defective No. 136 of 2017,
decided on 1.3.2017 and Shubham Gupta v.
Indian Overseas Bank Office, Chennai and
others, Writ Petition No. 748 (S/B) of 2014
decided on 8.7.2016 and in the matter of Arvind
Kumar Yadav (supra). Therefore, Full Bench
was constituted in the matter of Gaurav
Sharma Vs. State of U.P. And others which
has decided the issue and reported as 2017 (5)
ADJ 494 (FB). The Full Bench has framed
three issues out of which two relevant issues are
being quoted hereinbelow:-

"A. Whether the candidature of an
OBC candidate is liable to be rejected on the
ground of the caste certificate having been
submitted after the last date for submission of
applications?

"B. Whether the decision in
Arvind Kumar Yadav lays down and
represents the correct position of law."

19.

He
submitted
that
while
considering the first question, the Full
Court in the matter of Gaurav Sharma
(supra) has observed as follows:-

"Having noticed the statutory
position, we then proceed to consider
whether such a concession or exemption
can be said to flow from Articles 14 or 16
of the Constitution as contended. Upon a
thoughtful consideration, we find ourselves
unable to accept the broad proposition as
canvassed by the learned counsels. We are
of the considered view that no such right of
exemption can possibly be said to reside in
or flow from Article 16 of the Constitution.
Insofar as infraction of Article 14 is
concerned, we presume that the same has
been urged as a corollary to the contention
that the prescription is superfluous. We are
afraid that we find ourselves unable to
sustain this submission either. As noted
above the prescription of a cut off date in
an advertisement serves more than one
salutary
purpose.
By
requiring
all
applicants to adhere to this date, the State
is not practicing any discrimination nor
can it be said to be acting unfairly. The
absence of such a requirement would
quagmire the entire selection process in a
state of complete uncertainty. One of the
primary purposes which such a stipulation
serves is enabling the selecting body to
identify
the
number
of
candidates
constituting the field of eligibility. Judging
whether a particular candidate is entitled
to the benefits of reservation or has rightly
claimed as falling in the said category is an
essential exercise liable to be undertaken.
For the purposes of undertaking this
exercise the selecting body must be in a
position to adjudge for itself whether a
particular candidate is entitled to the
benefits and exemptions as claimed. If this
were not read as being an inherent power
in the selecting body, the process of
5 All. Prashant Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
131
selection
itself
may
be
completely
derailed."

20. Court replied the same and held
that it cannot be said that the requirement
of submission of such certificate by a
particular date is not attracted to the case of
an OBC candidate, meaning thereby it is
required to submit the certificate before the
last date for submission of application form
or time granted for submitting any
certificate, documents etc.

21. He next submitted that while
considering the second question, Full Court
in the matter of Gaurav Sharma (supra), is
of the view that in case of Ram Kumar
Gijoriya (supra), no last date of submission
of OBC certificate is prescribed in
advertisement and OBC certificate was
only
required
after
completion
of
examination whereas in the present case
last date was very well mentioned in
advertisement dated 6.7.2018 as well as
notification dated 7.5.2018.

22. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid
judgment relied by learned counsel are
quoted hereinbelow:-

"We then proceed to address the
second question framed for our consideration
and which pertains to the correctness or
otherwise of the judgment of the Division
Bench in Arvind Kumar Yadav. As noted
above, the sheet anchor of the case of the
appellant and the writ petitioners was the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Ram
Kumar Gijroya. It becomes relevant to note
that in the said case, the Supreme Court was
called upon to consider the correctness of a
judgment rendered by the Delhi High Court
which had overturned a judgment rendered
by a learned Single Judge of the said Court
who had followed two earlier precedents
to hold that the candidature of a Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidate could not
be turned down only on the ground that the
caste certificate was submitted after the last
date prescribed in the advertisement. The two
prior precedents which the Delhi High Court
considered were Pushpa Vs. Govt. (NCT of
Delhi)9 and Tej Pal Singh V. Govt. (NCT of
Delhi)10 . In the appeal of Ram Kumar
Gijroya, the learned Single Judge of the
Delhi High Court following the two
precedents referred to above had directed the
respondents therein to accept the OBC
certificate of the appellant. One of the
significant and distinguishing features of
Ram Kumar Gijroya, which immediately
springs to light is that the advertisement did
not prescribe a cut off date at all. The
requirement of submitting the OBC certificate
was introduced only by a notice issued by the
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
while declaring the final results.

We
are
therefore
of
the
considered view that the Division Bench in
Arvind Kumar Yadav rightly noted the
distinct factual backdrop in which Ram
Kumar Gijroya came to be rendered. The
aspect of there being no consideration of
the impact of a negative stipulation in an
advertisement in the said judgment of the
Supreme
Court
clearly
escaped
the
Division
Benches
which
pronounced
judgments in Pravesh Kumar and Shubham
Gupta."

23. Court after detail discussion,
replied the second question of law and held
that law laid down by the Arvind Kumar
Yadav (supra) is correct.

24. He next submitted that Full Bench
replied both the questions in favour of
132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent "Commission" and taken clear
view that every candidate is required to
submit their original certificates within the
last date fixed and further cannot be
exempted from the rigours of a cut off or
last date prescribed in an advertisement or
recruitment notice. Finally, Full Court has
held that law laid down in the matter of
Arvind Kumar Yadav (supra) is correct
law.

25. Lastly, he placed reliance upon
the judgment of Apex Court in the matter
of State of Tamil Nadu and others Vs. G.
Hemalatha and another passed in Civil
Appeal No. 6669 of 2019 decided on
28.8.2019. Supreme Court has held that
instructions issued by the "Commission"
are mandatory, having the force of law and
they have to be strictly complied with.

26. Paragraph nos. 7 and 12 of the
said judgment relied by the learned counsel
are being quoted below:

"7. We have given out anxious
consideration to the submissions made by the
learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent.
The instructions issued by the Commission
are mandatory, having the force of law and
they have to be strictly complied with. Strict
adherence to the terms and conditions of the
Instructions is of paramount importance. The
High Court in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution cannot
modify/relax the instructions issued by the
Commission."

12. After giving a thoughtful
consideration, we are afraid that we cannot
approve the judgment of the High Court as
any order in favour of the candidate who has
violated the mandatory instructions would be
laying down bad law. The other submission
made by Ms. Mohana that an order can be
passed by us under Article 142 of the
Constitution which shall not be treated as a
precedent also does not appeal to us."

27. He also submitted that so far as
judgment of Prashant Kumar Dwivedi
(supra) is concerned, for the facts involved in
that case, there is no pleadings in the present
case, therefore, cannot be replied.

28. Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate in his rejoinder argument
submitted that judgment of State of Tamil
Nadu (supra) would not be applicable in the
case of petitioner for the reason that in that
case there was violation of instruction of the
Commission upon answer sheet as well as
OMR sheet and not in submission of
application form or any other certificate,
therefore, this judgment would not help the
respondents. Similarly, he also submitted that
judgment of Full Court in the case Rajendra
Kumar Patel (supra) as in that matter after
submission of application form through
online, there is requirement of submission of
hard copies of application form or relevant
certificate and here the case is different.
There is no case of submission of application
form through online, therefore, this judgment
is also not come in the rescue of respondents.

29. So far as Full Bench of this Court
in the matter of Gaurav Sharma (supra) is
concerned, Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior
Advocate submitted that "Commission"
cannot take two different stands against its
advertisements as in the matter of Prashant
Kumar Dwivedi (supra), Commission is
coming with another stand and wherein in
the matter of Gaurav Sharma (supra)
Commission has taken a different stand.

30.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State has also supported
the case of "Commission" and adopted the
5 All. Prashant Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
133
argument raised by Sri Nisheeth Yadav,
learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.

31. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
judgments as well as records.

32. Undisputed facts of the case are
that in paragraph 7 of the advertisement
No. A-2/E-1/2018 dated 6.7.2018, it is
mentioned that candidates are required to
enclose
self-attested
copies
of
all
certificates in support of claims made by
them
in
their
application
forms
of
Preliminary
Examination
regarding
eligibility and category, sub-category along
with the application forms of Main
Examination. It is also mentioned that in
case self-attested copies of all certificates
alongwith Main Examination Forms are not
enclosed, claims shall not be entertained. It
is also not disputed that after completion of
written examination, in paragraph 3 of
another notification dated 7.5.2019 issued
by Commission, same fact of submission of
certificates within a cut off date was
reiterated. It is also undisputed that against
the said advertisement, petitioner had
applied
under
physically
handicapped
category and also deposited examination
fee of Rs. 25/-, which was prescribed for
physically handicapped candidate. Result
of preliminary examination was declared
on 30.3.2019 and in his marksheet, he was
shown
under
general/physically
handicapped
category.
In
his
main
examination, he has filled up his category
as physically handicapped and accordingly,
admit card was issued to petitioner showing
him as physically handicapped candidate.
After declaration of result of main
examination, while appearing in interview,
he again mentioned his category as
physically handicapped candidate. This
fact is also undisputed that alongwith main
examination form, petitioner could not
submit
his
certificate
of
physically
handicapped category as required by the
Commission.

33. Therefore, the issue before this
Court is that as to whether physically
handicapped certificate of the petitioner
could be accepted beyond the cut off date
or not.

34. Two sets of judgment have been
cited before this Court. One by learned
Senior Counsel for petitioner, which are
judgments of Dheerender Singh Paliwal
(supra), Smt. Rajni Shukla (supra) and
Ram Kumar Gijoriya (supra). In these
judgments, more or less Courts are of the
view
that
if
candidates
are
having
qualification, mere non production of
certificate at relevant point of time cannot
be a ground for rejection of candidature or
change of category from a particular sub
category to general category.

35. Another sets of judgment were
cited by the learned counsel for the
respondents, which are judgments of
Rajendra Patel (supra) and Arvind Kumar
Yadav (supra), Gaurav Sharma (supra)
and State of Tamil Nadu (supra). As per
these judgments, Courts are of the view
that its mandatory requirement to submit all
certificates for claiming any benefit within
the
cut
off
date
fixed
by
Commission/Selection
Body.
For
completion of selection process within the
particular time and for equal opportunity to
the candidates of same category having
their
rankings
just
below
to
the
petitioner/candidate, it is mandatory to
produce all relevant documents mentioned
134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
within
the
cut
off
date
fixed
by
Commission/Selection
Body
in
the
advertisement.

36. The judgment of Dheerender
Singh Paliwal (supra) was based upon two
facts. First of all, appellant was already in
the services of the same department i.e.
Forensic Science Laboratory as Senior
Scientific Assistant and certificates for his
essential qualifications were very much
available on record in the form of resume
and he was again appointed in the same
department on the post of Senior Scientific
Officer. Secondly, for the very same
selection, two other candidates, who had
not produced their caste certificates at the
time of interview have been given time, but
petitioner was denied for the same.
Therefore, considering all these facts, Apex
Court directed the selection body to issue
appointment letter after accepting the
certificate, whereas in the present case, no
such discrimination is available or done by
the "Commission", therefore, the facts of
the case of Dheerender Singh Paliwal
(supra) are different from the present case.
Relying upon the very same judgment of
Dheerender Singh Paliwal, (supra), this
Court has allowed the Writ Petition No.
40159 of 2016 ( Rajni Shukla Vs. Union of
India and 3 others). Therefore, the same
would also be not helpful for the very same
reasons.

37. Another judgment of Ram Kumar
Gijoriya (supra), Apex Court has taken
view in the matter of OBC candidate, if
caste certificate is not submitted within
time, that cannot be a ground for rejecting
the candidature. Court is of the view that if
a person is OBC by birth and not by
acquisition of this category because of any
other event happening at a later stage, a
certificate issued by competent authority to
this effect is only an affirmation of fact,
which is already in existence. This
judgment was subject matter of Full Bench
of this Court in the matter of Gaurav
Sharma (supra) and for reasons discussed
would not be helpful for petitioner.

38. So far as second sets of judgment
are concerned, Court has taken different
view that candidate is required to submit
the application form/certificate or any other
documents or on before the cut off date
fixed by the Commission/ Examination
Authority and no relaxation can be granted

39. The Full Bench of this Court in
the matter of Rajendra Patel (supra) with
regard to submission of a hard copy of the
online application within the cut off, has
taken the same view and held that all
conditions should have been completed
within the stipulated time given by the
competent authority.

40. Again in the matter of Arvind
Kumar Yadav (supra) came before this
Court for adjudication and after considering
the case of Ram Kumar Gijoriya (supra),
Court has taken different view and upheld
the judgment of learned Single Judge with
the observations that since the petitioner
had failed to satisfy the requirements of the
advertisement and not submitted the
certificate within time, he has rightly been
treated as general category candidate.

41.