Saroj Kumari vs UNION OF INDIA on 30 October 2026

1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant challenging the action of the respondents in declaring her ineligible for consideration under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category for recruitment to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Special Educator), pursuant to Recruitment Notification No. 01/2025 dated 13.11.2025, on the ground that her OBC-NCL certificate was not issued within the prescribed period, i.e., from 01.01.2025 to 04.12.2025.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant belongs to the Kumhar (Prajapati) community, which is included in the Central List of OBCs, and does not fall within the creamy layer. It is contended that the applicant possesses a valid OBC-NCL

certificate dated 19.01.2026, issued by the competent authority. However, the said certificate has been rejected solely on the ground of its date of issuance, without recording any finding regarding the applicant's community status, her falling within the creamy layer, or the genuineness or validity of the certificate. Learned counsel further submits that, although the last date for submission of online applications was initially fixed as 04.12.2025, the same was extended by the respondents vide Public Notice dated 04.12.2025 up to 11.12.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance upon the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 3789/2026 and connected matters, titled Pankaj Pal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., decided on 07.10.2026, arising out of the very same Recruitment Notification No. 01/2025. The relevant observations of the Tribunal, as contained in paragraphs 54 and 55 of the said order, 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 for the applicant, in view of the aforesaid decision, the applicant's OBC-NCL certificate cannot be rejected solely on the ground that its date of issuance falls outside the period stipulated in the Recruitment Notification, particularly when the certificate was issued during the relevant financial year. It is submitted that the applicant is similarly situated to the applicants in the aforesaid Original Applications and her candidature is also required to be considered, subject to verification of her substantive OBC-NCL status and fulfilment of the other eligibility conditions prescribed under the Recruitment Notification.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant 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, Mr Thakur Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Ms Namrata Gupta with Mr Biswa Kumar Jain, Mr Dilbagh Singh, Mr U N Singh, learned counsel(s) appearing 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 applicant presses for grant of interim relief, as prayed for in paragraph 9 of the Original Application, which is reproduced hereinbelow: "9. INTERIM RELIEF:

(a) Direct the respondents to conduct a special document verification and interview for the Applicant provisionally and subject to the outcome of the present Original Application, without treating the date of issue of her OBC (NCL) certificate as a ground of ineligibility; (b) Direct the respondents to keep one post of Trained Graduate Teacher (Special Educator) in the OBC (NCL) category vacant during the pendency of the present Original Application; and

(c) 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' )