Niresh Kumar vs UNION OF INDIA on 30 October 2026

1. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants challenging the action of the respondents in rejecting/declining to consider their candidature under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category for recruitment to the posts of TGT (Special Educator), TGT (Library/Librarian) and TGT (Physical & Health Education), 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.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants belong to the respective OBC communities recognised in the Central List and do not fall within the creamy layer. It is contended that the applicants possess valid OBC-NCL certificates issued by the competent authorities and that the same cannot be rejected merely on the ground of the dates of their issuance. It is further submitted that the last date for submission of applications, initially fixed as 04.12.2025, was subsequently extended to 11.12.2025.

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, Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Pandey, Mr. S. K. Chaturvedi and Mr. Dilbagh 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 Nos. 1 and 2 to appear provisionally in the interviews for TGT (Special Educator) and TGT (Library/Librarian), respectively, on a date to be fixed before the conclusion of the ongoing interviews for those posts, subject to the outcome of this O.A.; (b) Direct the respondents not to declare Applicant No. 3 ineligible at the document verification on 05.11.2026 on the ground of the date of issuance of his OBC-NCL certificate, and to permit him to appear provisionally in the interview for TGT (Physical & Health Education) on 05.11.2026 or on any other date fixed for him, subject to the outcome of this O.A.;

(c) Direct the respondents to keep one post vacant for each applicant until further orders, namely, one post of TGT (Special Educator) in the OBC- NCL category (PwBD-LD) for Applicant No. 1, one post of TGT (Library/Librarian) in the OBC-NCL category for Applicant No. 2, and one post of TGT (Physical & Health Education) in the OBC-NCL category for Applicant No. 3.

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' )