# Rajat Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 247
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-06
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 779 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajat-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50602
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law
-
Recruitment
-
OBC
Reservation - Caste Certificate Format -
Affirmative Action - An OBC candidate,
applied for the post of Sub Inspector in Civil
Police He was denied OBC reservation due to
submitting a caste certificate in the format
meant for Central Government posts instead
of the St. Government format for the required
period The respondents treated him as a
general category candidate, and he did not
qualify due to higher cut-off marks. The
petitioner argued that both certificates, issued
by the same St. authority, confirmed his OBC
status, and the format difference should not
disqualify him. The sole issue is whether a
candidate can be denied OBC reservation
benefit merely for not furnishing the caste
certificate in the prescribed "St. Government"
format during the relevant period, despite
producing a valid certificate (on Central
format) issued by the same St. authority.
Respondents
directed
to
consider
the
petitioner under OBC category and include
him in the OBC merit list. If his marks are
above the last OBC cut-off, he shall be
offered appointment.

Writ petition allowed.

Citations:

## Text

8 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
247
appointment of the appellant by means of
the impugned judgment/order. The learned
Single Judge has taken great pain in
deciding all the issues which were agitated
by the parties. No new ground has been
pressed, which would enable this Court to
take a contrary view as has been expressed
by the learned Single Judge.

(41) For the aforesaid reasons, since
the appellant obtained appointment upon a
false representation to belong to the
reserved category and her very appointment
to the post of Lecturer (Urdu) stands
vitiated, we deem it not to deal with other
issues raised by the appellant in the abovecaptioned special appeals and allow the lis
to set at rest without any further action or
counter claim.

(42) The above-captioned intra Court
appeals
being
bereft
of
merits
are,
accordingly, dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs for the facts
and circumstances of the case.

(43) Before parting with the case, this
Court must candidly express unreserved
and
uninhibited
appreciation
for
the
assistance rendered by Ms. Pushpila Bisht,
Amicus Curiae representing the appellant in
the above-captioned appeals, therefore, she
shall be paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards
her remuneration by the High Court Legal
Service Committee.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 247
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J

Writ A No. 779 of 2023
Rajat Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yashpal Yadav, Sri Lalji Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service
Law
-
Recruitment
-
OBC
Reservation - Caste Certificate Format -
Affirmative Action - An OBC candidate,
applied for the post of Sub Inspector in Civil
Police He was denied OBC reservation due to
submitting a caste certificate in the format
meant for Central Government posts instead
of the St. Government format for the required
period The respondents treated him as a
general category candidate, and he did not
qualify due to higher cut-off marks. The
petitioner argued that both certificates, issued
by the same St. authority, confirmed his OBC
status, and the format difference should not
disqualify him. The sole issue is whether a
candidate can be denied OBC reservation
benefit merely for not furnishing the caste
certificate in the prescribed "St. Government"
format during the relevant period, despite
producing a valid certificate (on Central
format) issued by the same St. authority.
Respondents
directed
to
consider
the
petitioner under OBC category and include
him in the OBC merit list. If his marks are
above the last OBC cut-off, he shall be
offered appointment.

Writ petition allowed.

Citations:

1. St. of U.P. Through Addl. Chief Secretary
(Home) Vs Rinki Yadav Special Appeal (Def.)
No. 274 of 2022, decided on 11.02.2022

2. Gaurav Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & ors.- 2017
(2) ESC 877 (All) (FB)

3. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava
& ors.- (2015) 1 SCC 347

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner was applicant in the
category of other backward class (OBC) for
the post of Sub Inspector in Civil Police
pursuant to the advertisement no. PRPB-
nsk-2 (3 fo /2020) dated 25.2.2021,
however at the time of submission of his
online application form, he furnished the
certificate
issued
by
the
competent
authority of the State, of the backward
caste meant for the post under the Central
Government. He was permitted to appear in
the written examination and having been
successful as such and also qualifying the
other physical standard and efficiency test,
deserved to be considered in the merit list
of the OBC category. At the time of
document verification on 17th May, 2022,
he furnished a notary affidavit alongwith
certificate
issued
by
the
competent
authority of the OBC caste but this time
issued on the format meant for the post
under the State Government. The certificate
that was furnished by the petitioner was
issued on 26.11.2018, which was available
to him at the time of filling up the form but
was not issued during the period required
for i.e. between 01.4.2021 and 30th April,
2021.

3. In view of the fact that petitioner
did not furnish requisite certificate issued
on the format meant for the posts under the
State Government of the relevant period
and had submitted certificate on the format
meant for the posts under the Central
Government, the respondent seems to have
considered the petitioner in open category
instead of OBC and that is how petitioner
having not qualified the merit in the open
category, could not make it successful to
find place in merit list. It is submitted that
last cut-off marks for the selected candidate
in OBC is 305.54 for the post of Sub
Inspector, whereas petitioner's marks are
305.84.

4. Two fold arguments have been
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner:

(a). The controversy regarding
irreconcilable the difference of repugnancy
between norms fixed for issuing caste
certificate for the posts under the Central
Government and that for the posts under
the State Government is no more res
integra as format has been issued for the
both the purposes by the same State
Government
for
the
Court
which
recognized as OBC in the state and both
the certificates are issued by the competent
authority assigned for such purpose by the
State Government; and

(b) The purpose of the cast
certificate
being
to
make
an
acknowledgement that a person (candidate)
is belonging to a particular caste and such
an evidence of this fact and unless and until
there is dispute with respect to a candidates
falling under the non creamy layer a
certificate issued and recognized by the
State Government cannot be denied by the
selecting body merely being on a different
format.

5. Per contra, the argument advanced
by learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel is to the effect that requisite
document is required to be filed alongwith
application form filled up online upto the
last date and if one is not possessed of the
requisite document as required for, till the
last date of the submission of form, a
candidate cannot be permitted to rectify
shortcomings subsequently.
8 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
249

6. The other argument advanced by
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
is that a caste certificate was required to be
issued on a format prescribed for the posts
under the State Government vide Clause
5.4(4) of the advertisement and there was
specific rider to the effect that in the event
the cast certificate issued on a required
format is not filed or cast certificate meant
for the posts under the Central Government
is filed then candidature of such candidate
in the reserved category shall be cancelled.

7. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel has also sought to urge that in
view of the answer given to third issue
framed by the full bench of this Court in
the case of Gaurav Sharma v. State of
U.P. and Other, 2017 (2) ESC 877 (All)
(FB), vide Paragraph 28, despite there
being no repugnancy in the norms fixed by
the Union and State Government, it would
not absolve a candidate of liability to
furnish a requisite document evidencing his
cast status of to a particular reserved
category as recognized and identified by
the State,

8. In rejoinder to the counter
submissions
advanced
by
learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel, learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner
reiterated his argument and further added
that even previously petitioner had been
selected as constable by the police
department on the basis of certificate issued
in the year 2018, and therefore, there could
be no doubt that petitioner did belong to
OBC category and fell under non creamy
layer.

9. It is also argued by learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner that in the State
Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home
(Police) Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others v.
Rinki Yadav passed in Special Appeal
(Def.) No. 274 of 2022 on 11.02.2009, a
division bench has addressed all these issues
and also referred to the judgment of the full
bench in the case of Gaurav Sharma (supra)
and has thus dismissed the appeal of the State
Government against the order passed by the
learned Single Judge who had permitted for
consideration of candidature of that petitioner
against the same recruitment examination
conducted despite the fact that in that case
also the caste certificate issued on the format
meant for the posts under the Central
Government, issued by the competent
authority of the State, was filed initially.

10. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and their arguments
raised across the bar, I find there to be the
only issue that requires consideration as to
whether merely because the petitioner did
not get the requisite document in the form of
certificate on the format of the State
Government of the relevant period, would
make any difference even if he had
furnished caste certificate on the format
meant for the post under the Central
Government issued by the competent
authority during period prescribed for under
the advertisement.

11. In view of findings returned by the
division bench of this Court in the case of
State of U.P. v. Rinki Yadav (supra) vide
paragraph 15 and 16, I do not consider it
appropriate to go again into the controversy
as to whether a candidate filing a certificate
on the format meant for the post under the
Central Government of the required period
issued by the competent authority, would be
considerable or not .

12. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the
judgment of the division bench are
reproduced hereunder:
250 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. One of the issues which was
considered by the Full Bench in the case of
Gaurav Sharma (Supra) was as to whether
there exists any irreconcilable difference or
repugnancy between the norms fixed by the
Union and State Governments with regard
to certification of creamy layer? If not, its
effect. It is also relevant to point out that
petitioner in the Gaurav Sharma case had
also submitted the certificate certifying that
he belonged to the O.B.C, category in the
same format in which the respondentpetitioner obtained the caste certificate and
submitted the same for seeking benefit of
the reservation available to O.B.C category
candidates. The format in which the
respondent-petitioner
obtained
the
certificate is prescribed by the State of
Uttar Pradesh. This fact is not in dispute,
however, as stated by the learned counsel
for the appellant-State authorities, the said
format is for claiming benefit of reservation
available to O.B.C, category candidates in
relation
to
employment
under
the
Government of India and not in relation to
employment under the State of Uttar
Pradesh. The caste certificate relied upon
by the candidate in the case of Gaurav
Sharma has been extracted in para-5 of the
said judgement which is the same in which
the respondent-petitioner was issued the
certificate by the Tehsildar. The Full Bench in
the case of Gaurav Sharma (Supra) has
opined that, "while it is true that a caste
certificate is only a recognition of an
existing
status,
an
O.B.C.
candidate
necessarily
must
establish
the
twin
conditions of belonging to an O.B.C. group
recognized by the State and also that he does
not fall within the creamy layer. In
paragraph-26 of the judgment in the case of
Gaurav Sharma, the Full Bench has further
observed that, "while it is true that an
O.B.C. candidate even he produces a
certificate which evidences that he does not
stand excluded from the benefits of
reservation in terms of office memorandum
dated 14th October, 2008, that issue still
remain as to whether he is an O.B.C, as
specified and identified by the State of Uttar
Pradesh. The Full Bench further observes
that, "although the certificate initially
submitted by the O.B.C, candidates before
the court did not stand excluded by virtue of
standards fixed by the office memorandum
dated 14th October, 2008, the certificate did
not evidence them belonging to an O.B.C, as
identified in the State of Uttar Pradesh".
The court further goes on to observe that,
"for the purposes of seeking the benefit of
reservation it is imperative for a candidate to
establish that he belongs to O.B.C, as
recognized and identified by the State
concerned and further that he/she does not
fall within the field of exclusion".

16. Finally answering the issue
(C), it has been said by the Full Bench in
para-27 of the report that:

"27.
We
accordingly
answer
Question No. 1 in the negative and hold that
an OBC candidate is not exempt from the
rigours of a cut off or last date prescribed in
an advertisement or recruitment notice. We
further declare that Arvind Kumar Yadav
correctly articulates the law on the issue and
overrule Pravesh Kumar and Shubham
Gupta. Insofar as Question No. 3 is
concerned, we hold that although there is no
repugnancy in the norms fixed by the Union
and State Government, the same would have
no favourable impact upon the eligibility of
a candidate unless he also furnishes a
certificate evidencing him as belonging to
the OBC category as recognised and
identified by the State."
(emphasis added)

13. The Court vide paragraph 20
discussed the OBC caste Ahir belonging to
OBC category which is given in the
8 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
251
scheduled-1 as appended to the Reservation
Act of 1994 and in that regard has also
discussed
and
has
also
referred
to
notification issued in the Gazette of India,
extraordinary dated 13th September, 1993.
Paragraph 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment
are reproduced hereunder:

"20. The Schedule-1 appended to
Reservation Act 1994 is referable to
Section-2 (b) of the said Act. Section 2(b) of
the Reservation Act defines other backward
classes of citizens to mean the backward
classes of citizens specified in Schedule-1.
Schedule-1 appended to the Reservation
Act 1994 is extracted herein below:-

[SCHEDULE-I]

[See Section 2(b)]

1.
Ahir,
Yadav,
Gwala,
Yaduvanshiya

41. Bhurji, Bharbhunja, Bhooj,

Kandu, Kashaudhan

2. Sonar, Sunar, Swarnkar

42. Bhathiara

3. Jat

43. Mali,Saini

4.
Kurmi,
Chanau,
Patel,
Patanwar, Kurmi-Mall, Kurmi-Seinthwar

44. Sweeper (Those not included
in

Scheduled
Caste
Category),
Halalkhor

5. Giri

45. Lohar, Lohar-Saifi

6. Gujar

46. Lonia, Nonia, Gole-Thakur,
Lonia- Chauhan

7.Gosain

47. Rangrez, Rangwa

8. Lodh, Lodha, Lodhi, Lot,
Lodhi-Rajput

48. Marchcha

9. Kamboj

49. Halwai, Modanwal

10.Arakh, Arakvanshiya

50. Hajjam, nai, Salmani, Savita,
Sriwas

11.Kachchi, Kachchi-Kushwaha,
Shakya

51. Rai Sikh

12.[xxx]

52. Sakka-Bhisti, Bhisti- Abbasi

13.[xxx]

53. Dhobi (Those not included in
the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes
category

14.Kisan

54. Kasera,Thathera, Tamrakar

15.Koeri

55. Nanbai

16[xxx]

56. Mirshikar

17.Kasgar

57.
Shekh
Sarwari
(Pirai),
Peerahi

18.Kunjra or Raeen

58. Mev, Mewati

19.Gareria, Pal,Vaghel

59. Koshta/Koshti

20.Gaddi, Ghoshi

60. Ror

21.Chikwa,
Qassab
Qureshi,
Chak

61.
Khumra,
Sangatarash,
Hanseri

22.Chhippi, Chipa

62 Mochi

23.Jogi

63. Khagi

24.Jhoja

64. Tanwar Singharia

25.Dhafali

65. Katuwa

26.Taraoli, Barai, Chaurasia

66. Maheegeer

27.Teli, Samani, Rogangar, Sahu,
Rauniar,Guandhi, Arrak

67. Dangi

28.Darji, Idrisi, Kakutstha
252 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

68. Dhakar

29. [x x x]

69. Gada

30.Naqqal

70. Tantawa

31. Nat (Those not included in
Scheduled Castes category)

71.Joria

32. Naik

72. Patwa, Patahra, Patehara,
Deovanshi

33. Faqir

73. Kalal, Kalwar, Kalar

34.
Banjara,
Ranki,
Mukeri,
Mukerani

74. Manihar, Kacher Lakhara

35. Barhai, Saifi, Vishwakarma
Panchal, Ramgadhiya, Jangir, Dhiman

75. Murao, Murai, Maurya

36.Bari

76. Momin (Ansar)

37. Beragi

77. Muslim Kayastha

38.[x x x]

78. Mirasi

39.Biyar

79. Naddaf (Dhuniya), Mansoori,
Kandere, Kadera, Karan (Karn)].

40.[x x x]

21. A perusal of afore quoted
Schedule-1 appended to 1994 Reservation
Act clearly reveals that entry-1 therein
mentions
the
community
"Ahir".
Accordingly as per the identification and
recognition made by the State of Uttar
Pradesh for a particular community
belonging to other backward class, the
entries in Schedule-1 is the only source for
determination of such an issue. Admittedly
"Ahir" community is included in the
Schedule-1 at entry-1 and hence in terms of
the identification made by the State of Uttar
Pradesh for providing reservation available
to O.B.C category candidates, persons
belonging
to
"Ahir"
community
are
identified and recognized for the said
purpose.

22. If we examine the notification
published
in
the
Gazette
of
India,
extraordinary dated 13th September, 1993
which publishes the resolution of the
Government of India dated 10th September,
1993 what we find is that in the State of
Uttar Pradesh Ahir community is listed at
Serial No.1. Accordingly, on examination of
the identification made by the Government
of India as also by the State of Uttar
Pradesh for the purposes of inclusion of a
particular group or community amongst the
Other Backward Classes or citizens entitle
to seek benefit of reservation available to
them, we find that there does not exist any
repugnancy as far as "Ahir" community is
concerned. The reason for us to observe
that there is no such repugnancy is that
"Ahir" community finds mentioned in the
notification of the Government of India
dated
13th
September
1993
which
published the resolution of the Government
of India dated 10th September 1993 and it
is also included at Entry-1 of Schedule-1
appended to 1994 Reservation Act passed
by the Legislature of State of Uttar
Pradesh. "

14. The Court also referred to both the
formats framed by the State Government
vide paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment,
which run as under:

"7. Learned counsel for the
appellant- State Authorities has vehemently
argued that as per the Notes appended to
Clause 5.4 of the advertisement, the benefit
of reservation to those candidates who
belong to Other Backward Classes but fall
in the creamy layer will not be available.
Drawing out attention to Note 3 appended
to clause 5.4 of the advertisement, it has
been argued by learned State Counsel that
8 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253
the said provision in the advertisement
clearly
provides
that
the
candidates
belonging to Other Backward Classes as
mentioned in Schedule-I of the Uttar
Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other
Backward
Classes)
Act
1994
(hereinafter referred to as the Reservation
Act 1994) will not be entitled to the benefit
of reservation if they fall in the creamy
layer category. He has also stated that as
per the stipulation made in Note 3, the
caste certificate to be submitted by the
candidates
claiming
the
benefit
of
reservation available to Other Backward
Classes shall be in a format (Praroop -1)
and should have been issued on or after
01st April, 2020 but till the last date of
making the application. That is to say, the
caste certificate to be submitted by the
candidate concerned should have been
issued between 01st April, 2020 and 30the
April, 2021 for the reason that 30th April,
2021 was the last date as per the
advertisement to make the application.
Note 3 appended to Clause 5.4 to the
advertisement is extracted hereunder :-

(3) उत्तर प्रदेश लोि सेवा (अनुसूकचत
जाकतयों, अनुसूकचत जन जाकतयों और अन्य कपछडे वगों िे
कलए आरक्षण) अकिकनयम-1994 (समय-समय पर यथा
सांशोकित) िी अनुसूची-दो िे अनुसार क्रीमीलेयर िे अन्तगदत
आने वाले उत्तर प्रदेश िे अन्य कपछडे वगद िे अभ्यकथदयों िो
आरक्षण िा लाभ अनुमन्य नहीं है । अन्य कपछडे वगद िे कलए
जाकत प्रमाण-पत्र ( प्रारूप-1) 01 अप्रैल, 2020 या उसिे
बाद िा हो परन्तु अभ्यथी द्वारा इस भती हेतु आवेदन िरने िी
कतकथ ति कनगदत होना चाकहए (अभ्यथी द्वारा आवेदन िरने िी
अकन्तम कतकथ 30-04-2021 िो आवेदन िरने िी कस्थकत
में जाकत प्रमाण- पत्र कदनाांि: 30- 04-2021 ति कनगदत
होना चाकहये)

8.
Praroop-1
as
per
the
advertisment
is
also
extracted
hereunder:-

प्रारूप-1

उत्तर प्रदेश िे अन्य कपछडे वगद िे कलए जाकत प्रमाणपत्र

शासनादेश सांख्या-13/22/16/92/टीसी-iii-िा-
2/2014 कदनाांि 17 कदसम्बर, 2014

प्रमाकणत
किया
जाता
कि
श्री/श्रीमती/िुमारी........................सुपुत्र/
सुपुत्री
/श्री.........
कनवासी
ग्राम.........
तहसील..........नगर......... कजला..............उत्तर प्रदेश
राज्य िी ............. कपछडी जाकत िे व्यकक्त हैं। यह जाकत
उत्तर प्रदेश लोि सेवा (अनुसूकचत जाकतयों, अनुसूकचत
जनजाकतयों और अन्य कपछडे वगों िे कलये आरक्षण
अकिकनयम, 1994 (यथासांशोकित) िी अनुसूची- एि िे
अन्तगदत मान्यता प्राप्त हैं। यह भी प्रमाकणत किया जाता है कि
श्री/श्रीमती/िुमारी .................. ..पूवोक्त अकिकनयम
1994 (यथासांशोकित) िी अनुसूची-दो (जैसा कि उत्तर
प्रदेश लोि सेवा) (अनुसूकचत जाकतयों, अनुसूकचत जनजाकतयों
और अन्य कपछडे वगों िे कलये आरक्षण) (सांशोिन)
अकिकनयम 2001 द्वारा प्रकतस्थाकपत किया गया है एवां जो
उ०प्र० लोि सेवा (अनुसूकचत जाकतयों, अनुसूकचत जनजाकतयों
और अन्य कपछडे वगों िे कलये आरक्षण) (सांशोिन)
अकिकनयम 2002 द्वारा सांशोकित िी गयी है, से आच्छाकदत
नहीं हैं। इनिे माता कपता िी कनरन्तर तीन वर्द िी अवकि िे
कलये सिल वाकर्दि आय आठ लाख रूपये या इससे अकिि
नहीं है तथा इनिे पास िनिर अकिकनयम 1957 में यथा
कवकहत छूट सीमा से अकिि सम्पकत्त भी नहीं है।
श्री/श्रीमती/िुमारी......... तथा/अथवा उनिा पररवार उत्तर
प्रदेश
िे
ग्राम.......तहसील.........नगर..
......कजला...........में सामान्यतः रहता है।

स्थान......

कदनाांि......

मुहर.......

हस्ताक्षर..

पूरा

 नाम.

पदनाम...

कजलाकििारी/अकतररक्त कजलाकििारी/

कसटी मकजस्ट्रेट/परगना मकजस्ट्रेट/ तहसीलदार "
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. I have perused the caste certificate
of the petitioner issued on format meant for
the post of Central Government filed as
Annexure 1 at page 25-b and find that
petitioner
has
been
certified
to
be
belonging to 'Ahir' community and also
not falling in category and persons
belonging to 'creamy layer' and the
certificate which was earlier issued to the
petitioner on 26.11.2018, the petitioner has
been declared certified to be belonging to
'Ahir' community and also within the
financial status, which would fall out of
'creamy layer'.

16. In view of above, therefore, in my
considered view as petitioner belongs to the
same selection and recruitment in respect
of which judgment was passed in the case
of State of U.P. and Rinki Yadav (supra)
the petitioner is entitled to the same relief.

17. In the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar
Srivastava and Others (2015) 1 SCC 347,
vide paragraph 22.1, Supreme Court has
held thus:

" The normal rule is that when a
particular set of employees is given relief
by the Court, all other identically situated
persons need to be treated alike by
extending that benefit. Not doing so would
amount to discrimination and would be
violative of Article 14of the Constitution of
India. This principle needs to be applied in
service matters more emphatically as the
service jurisprudence evolved by this Court
from time to time postulates that all
similarly situated persons should be treated
similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would
be that merely because other similarly
situated persons did not approach the
Court earlier, they are not to be treated
differently"

18. Now, there could be a question
here, as has been argued by learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
Counsel,
regarding distinguishing facts between the
two cases. In the case of State of U.P. v.
Rinki Yadav (supra), the certificate on the
formant meant for the posts under State
Government was furnished of the requisite
period later on whereas in the present case,
petitioner
has
never
furnished
the
certificate on the format meant for the posts
under the State Government. This argument
though appears to be quite impressive
looking to the conditions laid down under
the advertisement but one must not forget
that in the event two certificates are being
issued by same Government authority, and
purpose/object in two different formats is
the same, furnishing requisite information,
the
State
selecting
body
under
the
circumstances
cannot
just
reject
the
candidature on the ground that certificate
has not been furnished on a particular
format required for under the advertisement
of the requisite period even though
certificate
of
requisite
period
was
submitted.

19. It is necessary here at this stage
also to go through the clause 5.4(4) of the
advertisement
dated
25.2.2021
is
reproduced hereunder:

" vzU; fiNM+k oxZ Js.kh ds vH;fFkZ;ksa
}kjk fu/kZkfjr izk:i&1 fu/kkZfjr vof/k dk izek.k
i= izLrqr u fd;s tkus vFkok Hkkjr ljdkj dh
lsokvksa gsrq ekU; vU; iNM+k oxZ Js.kh dks
izek.k&i= izLrqr fd;s tkus ij mldks vukjf{kr
Js.kh ds vH;FkhZ ds :i esa O;og`r fd;k tk;sxk A
"

20. The language of clause 5.4(4)
though in so many words prescribes that
certificate should not be on the format
meant for the posts under the Government
8 All. Rajat Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
255
of India but looking to the object with
which the clause has been framed that the
candidate
must
furnish
a
certificate
evidencing the caste meant to make him
eligible for the particular category under
reservation in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

21. There could be cases where a
caste recognized as falling in particular
reserved category as per notification of
Central Government but not in the State
and vice versa, in as much as since posts
under Central Government are applied at
the country land from different states and
so Union of India/ Central Government has
prescribed a common format for all states.
Hence, therefore, we should have a
pragmatic approach. The format whether of
Central Government or State Government,
if has all the requisites to identify a person
belonging to a particular caste so as to
ascertain his/her eligibility for reservation,
it should be acceptable provided, of course
both the certificates are issued by the same
authority and of the same State where posts
are under State Government and are subject
to selection and recruitment.

22. Here, I would like to refer to
paragraph 29 of the judgment of the
division bench, in which reservation has
been taken to be an affirmative action on
the part of the State Government to reach
out to most defined section of the society in
giving proper representation in government
service with an object to bringing them in
the main stream of the country. Paragraph
29 of the judgment in the division bench of
State of U.P. v. Rinki Yadav (supra) is
reproduced hereunder:

"29. Before parting with this
case, we may observe that benefit of
reservation
in
public
employment
to
different disadvantaged sections of Society
is permissible under the Constitution of
India as an affirmative action. It is not in
dispute that the respondent-petitioner was
given appointment while she claimed the
benefit of reservation available to O.B.C.
candidates in her selection to the post of
Constable (Civil Police). Merely because
the certificate produced by her was not in
Praroop-1, though the certificate produced
by her clearly evidences that she belongs to
an O.B.C, group as identified by the State
of Uttar Pradesh and also that she does not
get excluded as a person belonging to
creamy layer in terms of the criteria laid
down by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the
said purpose, it should not be taken aid of
by the State authorities for denying her
otherwise constitutionally guaranteed right
of affirmative action. "

23. It is also necessary here to refer to
last paragraph 5 of the judgment of the full
bench in the case of Gaurav Sharma
(supra) wherein question no. 3 has been
answered and which was heavily relied
upon by the Additional Chief Standing
Counsel in support of his argument. The
answer given by the full bench in question
no. 3 in paragraph 28 is reproduced
hereunder:

"28. Applying the reasoning as
given by the Full Bench in the case of
Gaurav Sharma (supra), we, accordingly,
are of the opinion that the certificate relied
upon and submitted by the respondentpetitioner, dated 15th April 2021 which was
issued by Tehsildar, Unnao sufficiently
certifies and evidences that the respondentpetitioner belongs to an O.B.C, group
identified and recognized by the State of
Uttar Pradesh and further that she as per
the criteria prescribed by the State of Uttar
Pradesh for exclusion under creamy layer
does not fall in the creamy layer and hence
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
she is eligible and entitle to claim
reservation available to O.B.C. category
candidate. "

24. Upon reading of the aforesaid
paragraph of the judgment, it is clear that a
candidate is required to furnish certificate
evidencing him to be belonging to OBC
category as recognized and identified by
the State so the ratio behind the answer by
the full bench appears to be very clear that
a candidate is required to furnish certificate
which certifies him belonging to the caste
of particular category under which he/ she
claims reservation benefit.

25. I would also observe here that the
object behind reservation being to bring
into mainstream of the nation the most
oppressed
class
both
socially
and
financially and castes in the state and at the
nation level are identified and notified of
such category to offer them reservation in
government service, so if there is no
quarrel about the cast of a person as
notified by the state deserving benefit of
regularization in that state, it should not
matter on which format certificate has been
issued. Both the posts under Union of India
and the State if are reserved for such
category and the state is issuing certificates
one
meant
for
posts
under
Central
Government and other for post under State
Government, if requisite information is
available,
it
would
be
hypothetical
approach to reject a certificate just for it
being on a format prescribed for the posts
under Central Government. To this extent
the relevant clause in the advertisement
should be construed liberally.

26. In the present case whether it is
upon format meant for the posts under
Government of India or upon format meant
for posts the State Government both the
certificates having been issued by the State
Government certifying the petitioner to be
belonging to Ahir cast , the OBC caste and
also
not
belong
to
creamy
layer,
respondents are not justified in rejecting
candidature of the petitioner as far as his
eligibility for OBC category is concerned.

27. In view of above, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The respondents
are directed to consider the candidature of
the petitioner as candidate of other
backward caste, in the selection held for the
recruitment against the post of Sub
Inspector under the advertisement PRPB-
nsk-2 (3 fo /2020) dated 25.2.2021. The
petitioner shall be placed in the merit list of
OBC category as per marks obtained and if
is at par or above the last cut off, shall be
offered appointment.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 256
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J
THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Special Appeal No. 1013 of 2018
with other connected cases

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Shiv Jag Sharma & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Yogendra Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.A.G., A.S.G.I., Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena,
Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Civil Law - Civil Service Regulations,1986 -
Regulation 361 - Industrial Employment
(Standing
Orders)
Act,
1946
-
U.P.