Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment

“The OBC-NCL certificate merely certifies an existing fact; it does not create the eligibility”, In a pathbreaking ruling that is set to reverberate across future public recruitment processes, the Delhi High Court struck down Rule 21.2 of the Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandants) Examination Rules for 2023 and 2024, declaring it arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The rule, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and reiterated by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), had prescribed a narrow window of 43-45 days within which candidates were required to obtain their OBC-Non Creamy Layer (NCL) certificates.

In a joint judgment delivered by Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, the Court held that "eligibility under OBC-NCL category flows from social status by birth and not from date of certification. The certificate only affirms a pre-existing fact." Therefore, disqualifying otherwise eligible candidates based solely on the date of issuance of their caste certificate was held to be constitutionally impermissible.

The Case and Its Constitutional Significance

The judgment was delivered in a batch of writ petitions, the lead being W.P.(C) No. 8304/2025 titled Raghvendra Singh & Anr. v. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., where petitioners challenged the cancellation of their candidature for the CAPF (AC) Examination 2023 and 2024, solely on the basis that their OBC-NCL certificates were issued outside the cut-off window stipulated under Rule 21.2 of the recruitment rules.

The impugned rule mandated that the OBC-NCL certificates had to be issued between 1st April and mid-May of the respective exam years. For 2023, the window was from 01.04.2023 to 16.05.2023, and for 2024, it was 01.04.2024 to 14.05.2024. However, the recruitment notifications themselves were issued after these windows had already begun — on 26.04.2023 and 24.04.2024 respectively — effectively leaving the candidates with less than 20 days to obtain fresh certificates.

The petitioners, all of whom belonged to the OBC-NCL category, had cleared various stages of the CAPF selection process, including written examinations, physical efficiency tests, medical evaluations, and interviews. Yet, they were disqualified or placed under provisional status for failing to furnish certificates dated within the mandated cut-off. In some cases, even uploading the wrong certificate due to technical error became fatal to their candidature.

Court’s Key Legal Findings and Doctrinal Framework

The Court examined the rule not only in light of service law and administrative law but also through the constitutional lens of substantive equality. In its reasoning, the Court repeatedly emphasized that reservation is not merely a procedural formality, but a constitutional right flowing from Articles 14 and 16, aimed at achieving substantial equality for backward classes in public employment.

The bench observed:

"To cancel the candidature of otherwise eligible candidates on sole grounds of issuance date deprives the petitioners of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and actually runs contrary to the object sought to be achieved by providing reservations in public employment."

The Court was particularly critical of the delayed communication of the rules, noting that:

“Candidates were not even made aware of the specific cut-off window until the notification had already been issued midway into the period — effectively leaving only 20 days or less to obtain certificates from local authorities.”

This, the Court held, violated the doctrine of legitimate expectation, which demands fairness in administrative action. Quoting from the decision in Sivanandan C.T. v. High Court of Kerala, the Court observed:

“Public interest serves as a limitation on the application of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. Courts have to determine whether the public interest is compelling and sufficient to outweigh the legitimate expectation of the claimant.”

No such compelling public interest was found in the present case to justify the imposition of such a narrow and arbitrary cut-off period.

On the Nature of Caste Certificates and Procedural Unreasonableness

The Court underscored that a caste certificate is not a qualification that is “acquired” like a degree, but a declaration of a pre-existing social status by birth. In that sense, denying candidates the benefit of OBC reservation simply because their certificate was issued outside a 40-day window — even though it covered the correct financial years — is procedurally irrational.

Citing its own precedents in Ravi Kumar v. AIIMS, Hari Singh v. SSC, and Anil Kumar v. Union of India, as well as the Supreme Court’s landmark judgments in Indra Sawhney and Ram Kumar Gijorya, the Court reaffirmed the principle that:

“The caste certificate merely certifies an existing fact. Thus, rejection of candidature on account of submission of the OBC-NCL certificate issued beyond the cut-off date but within the financial year is arbitrary and lacks any rational nexus with the objective of reservation.”

Further, the Court criticized the respondents’ failure to act in accordance with the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 08.10.2015, which explicitly directs authorities to provisionally appoint candidates based on prima facie proof of OBC status and verify their claims later, if there is a genuine difficulty in obtaining timely certification.

Rejection of Respondents' Arguments on Estoppel and Cut-Off Sanctity

The UPSC and MHA had argued that candidates who participated in the selection process had accepted the rules and were thus estopped from challenging the cut-off retrospectively.

The Court squarely rejected this plea, observing that:

“The petitioners had no bargaining power or reasonable opportunity to challenge the rule before it took effect. Their participation in the selection process cannot be construed as acquiescence — it was a Hobson’s choice.”

On the sanctity of cut-off dates, the Court clarified:

“While the power to fix eligibility criteria and cut-off dates exists, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily or in a manner that defeats constitutional rights. The rules of the game must be fair — not merely fixed.”

Operative Directions of the Court

Striking down Rule 21.2 of the CAPF (AC) Examination Rules, 2023 and 2024, the Court issued the following key directions:

1. The OBC-NCL certificates of the petitioners are to be treated as valid if issued within the same financial year (i.e., FY 2023-24 for 2023 exam and FY 2024-25 for 2024 exam), regardless of the narrow window prescribed under Rule 21.2.

2. The respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of all petitioners without treating the cut-off date as fatal.

3. Verification of other eligibility criteria is left to the discretion of the appointing authorities, but issuance date of the caste certificate shall not be a basis of rejection.

4. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed, and all interim orders and directions made earlier stand confirmed.

The Court’s Closing Word: Substantive Equality Must Prevail

In conclusion, the Court powerfully reaffirmed the constitutional philosophy underlying affirmative action, noting:

“Where a party is inherently entitled, delayed production of proof to that effect cannot defeat or dilute the substantive rights owed to them. Procedural compliance cannot be an impediment in the broader pursuit of justice.”

This decision will undoubtedly impact not just CAPF recruitments but all future recruitments where reservation benefits are denied solely due to technical irregularities in document submission, reinforcing the judicial commitment to equity over formality.

Date of Decision: 10 December 2025