This petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's candidature seeking OBC reservations. The High Court dismissed it, noting the submitted State OBC certificate (Sept 2016) was backdated beyond the advertised window (until Feb 2016) and citing precedent that no relief is available when the application form cannot be amended.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13593 of 2018
Petitioner :- Kuldeep Giri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandrachud Pandey,Rajeev Giri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition seeks a writ directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under the OBC category. This prayer is made thus since the petitioner had applied in a recruitment process initiated by the respondents for filling the posts of Constable PAC,
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner has obtained marks more than the last cut-off prescribed for OBC candidates, his candidature is not liable to be rejected.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, points out that initially the petitioner had submitted a certificate dated 7 January 2016, which held out that the petitioner belonged to OBC. However, this certificate was issued for the purposes of appointment to posts under the Government of
India. Learned Standing Counsel further points out that the subsequent State certificate for OBC, which was obtained and submitted is dated 24 September 2016, whereas in terms of the stipulations contained in the advertisement, the certificate should have been one issued between the period 1 April 2015 to 29 February 2016. Learned Standing Counsel further refers to and relies upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench of the Court in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 582 of 2016, ( Km. Pooja Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. ) to submit that in the absence of any liberty being available to effect corrections or to amend the on-line application form, no relief is liable to be granted to the petitioner.
Having considered the rival submissions, the Court notes that undisputedly, the initial certificate dated 7 January 2016, which was submitted, clearly was not in accord with the requirements placed under the advertisement. For the purposes of being considered as an OBC candidate, the petitioner was obliged to submit a certificate which established that he belonged to the Other Backward Class list as corrected and certified by the State of U.P.
This was evidently not done and the only certificate which
was submitted was in relation to appointment to posts under the Government of India. The subsequent certificate dated 24 September 2016 clearly falls foul of the stipulations carried in the advertisement, in which the last date prescribed was 29 February 2016.
On an overall considerations of the aforesaid facts, the Court finds no force in the petition, which shall stand dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.6.2018 VKS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner with OBC marks exceeding the last cut-off can be permitted to appear when the submitted backdated OBC certificate falls foul of the advertisement's date stipulations.
Whether relief can be granted to a petitioner where there was no liberty to correct the online application form regarding the eligibility certificate date.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Km. Pooja Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.Referred¶9
Special Appeal (Defective) No. 582 of 2016, Km. Pooja Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
Kuldeep Giri
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
