Balram vs UNION OF INDIA on 30 October 2026

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants challenging the action of the respondents in declaring them ineligible for consideration under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category for recruitment to their respective posts pursuant to Recruitment Notification No. 01/2025 dated 13.11.2025, on the ground that their OBC-NCL certificates were not issued within the prescribed period, i.e. from 01.01.2025 to 04.12.2025. It is submitted that each of the applicants was already in possession of an OBC-NCL certificate issued by the competent authority during the Financial Year 2024-25, i.e. between 01.04.2024 and 31.12.2024, much prior to the closing date of submission of applications. It is further submitted that some of the applicants have also obtained subsequent OBC-NCL certificates during the Financial Year 2025-26.

2. Learned counsel further submits that the last date for submission of online applications, initially fixed as 04.12.2025, was extended by the respondents vide Public Notice dated 04.12.2025 up to 11.12.2025. However, the respondents have proceeded to reject the candidature of the applicants by treating 04.12.2025 as the last date for issuance of the OBC-NCL certificates.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants places reliance upon the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 3789/2026 and batch, decided on 07.10.2026, in the matter of Pankaj Pal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. The relevant portions of the said decision are reproduced hereinbelow: "54. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned rejection of the applicants' candidature, insofar as it rests solely upon the fact that their OBC-NCL certificates were issued outside the period 01.01.2025 to 04.12.2025, cannot be sustained where such certificates were issued within the relevant financial year and the applicants otherwise satisfy the substantive OBC-NCL requirements. The impugned orders/actions, to that limited extent, are accordingly set aside. Respondents are directed to allow such applicants to participate in further recruitment process.

55. Insofar as OA No. 3791/2026 is concerned, the impugned Certificate of Verifying & Controlling Officers dated 25.09.2026, declaring the applicant “Not Eligible for the Source” solely on the ground that he did not possess a valid OBC-NCL certificate “as per Advt.”, is set aside to the aforesaid extent. The respondents are directed to reconsider the candidature of the applicant and permit him to participate in the recruitment process at the appropriate stage, treating the date of issuance of the OBC-NCL certificate dated 16.03.2026 as not being a disqualifying factor, subject to verification of his substantive OBC-NCL status, the applicable non-creamy-layer criteria, the genuineness and validity of the certificate, the competence of the issuing authority and fulfilment of all other eligibility conditions prescribed under Recruitment Notification No. 01/2025.

56. The present Original Application, along with the aforesaid Original Applications, is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. All pending Miscellaneous Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."

4. According to learned counsel, in view of the aforesaid decision, the applicants' OBC-NCL certificates cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the dates of their issuance fall outside the period stipulated in the recruitment notification, particularly when the certificates were issued within the relevant financial year. He submits that the applicants are similarly situated and their candidature is also required to be considered subject to verification of their substantive OBC-NCL status and fulfilment of the other eligibility conditions prescribed under the recruitment notification.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants also places reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 2018/2019, titled Amjad Khan v. The Chairman, DSSSB & Ors., decided on 24.09.2025, as well as the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 6460/2015, titled Baljeet Singh v. School Management of Guru Harkrishan Public School & Ors., decided on 23.08.2018. He submits that an OBC certificate is essentially proof of an existing status and that the applicants cannot be deprived of consideration under the reserved category on a hyper-technical ground relating to the date of issuance of the certificate.

6. Heard.

7. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr S Rajappa with Mr R Gowrishankar and Ms G Divyashree, Ms Anamika Ghai, Mr Arun Kuma Shukla, Mr Varun Jain, Mr A K Shukla Mr Dilbagh Singh, Mr U N Singh, learned counsel(s) for the respondents, accept notice. They seek and are granted four weeks' time to file their reply. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

8. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants presses for grant of interim relief, as prayed for in paragraph 9 of the O.A., which is reproduced hereinbelow: "9. INTERIM RELIEF:

(a) Direct the respondents to permit Applicant No. 4 to appear in the document verification and interview scheduled on 03.11.2026, and to conduct a special document verification and interview for Applicant Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, provisionally and subject to the outcome of the present Original Application, without treating the date of issue of their OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) certificates as a ground of ineligibility; (b) Direct the respondents to keep one post each of Post Graduate Teacher (Physics), Post Graduate Teacher (Economics), Trained Graduate Teacher (Social Studies) and Trained Graduate Teacher (Computer Science), and two posts of Trained Graduate Teacher (Library/ Librarian), in the OBC (NCL) category vacant during the pendency of the present Original Application;

(c) In the alternative, declare that any appointment made by the respondents to the said posts in the OBC (NCL) category will be subject to the outcome of the present Original Application; and (d) Pass such other or further order(s) or direction(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper."

9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently oppose the prayer for interim relief and submit that the recruitment process is governed by the conditions stipulated in the advertisement and the applicants are required to satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions within the stipulated period. In support of his submissions, he places reliance upon the judgments/orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly those dealing with the determination of eligibility with reference to the prescribed cut-off date. He submits that the relevant judgments/orders shall be placed on record.

10. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the nature of the controversy involved, the decision of this Tribunal in Pankaj Pal (supra), and the fact that the applicants claim to possess OBC-NCL certificates issued by the competent authorities, the issue regarding the acceptability of such certificates, particularly with reference to the prescribed period of issuance and the extension of the last date for submission of applications, requires consideration.

11. At this stage, we are not inclined to grant the interim relief as prayed for by the applicants. However, in the interest of justice, as an ad interim measure, we direct that any appointment offered to the applicants to their respective posts pursuant to the aforesaid recruitment process shall remain subject to the final outcome of the present O.A.

12. List for further consideration on 03.12.2026.

Shri Rajveer Singh Verma Member (J) Chhabilendra Roul Member (A) Pinky Yadav ( steno 'c' )