Allahabad High Court
KM RITU SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The court held that the respondents acted within the law by rejecting the out‑of‑period OBC certificate and declaring the petitioner unfit.
Summary
The petitioner, Km Ritu Singh, challenged the document verification and final result of the UP Police Computer Operator Grade A 2023 direct recruitment, alleging that her OBC caste certificate, though issued later, should be accepted. The recruitment advertisement required OBC candidates to submit a caste certificate issued between 1 April 2023 and the application deadline of 30 January 2024, expressly to exclude creamy‑layer candidates. The petitioner had submitted a certificate dated 1 June 2021, which fell outside the prescribed period, and was therefore declared unfit during verification and later age‑barred under the general category. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya, arguing that a later‑issued certificate should be considered, but the court noted that the later certificate was never tendered during the selection process. Citing Indira Sawhney and Valsamma Paul, the court held that the advertisement’s conditions were valid and that the respondents acted lawfully in rejecting the out‑of‑time certificate, resulting in the dismissal of the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a caste certificate issued outside the period prescribed in the recruitment advertisement can be considered for OBC reservation.
- Whether the exclusion of creamy‑layer OBC candidates under the advertisement is constitutionally valid.
- Whether the respondents committed any procedural illegality in declaring the petitioner unfit and age‑barred.
Subjects
- OBC reservation
- creamy layer
- caste certificate
- document verification
- direct recruitment
- Uttar Pradesh Police
- age bar
- reservation policy
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 2052 of 2026
Km Ritu Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajai Kumar Srivastava, Juhi Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 39
Sl. No. 10
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Shri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the
State respondents.
2. The instant petition has been filed seeking quashing of the document
verification dated 29th January 2026, whereby the petitioner was declared
unfit being appointed on the post of Computer Operator Grade A 2023 in
U.P. Police. Subsequently, by amendment to the petition, he has prayed
for quashing of the final result of UP Police Computer Operator Grade A
Direct Recruitment 2023 in so far as it relates to the petitioner.
3. Briefly stated facts of the case are the respondents have issued an
advertisement for the selection on the post of Computer Operator Grade A
in UP Police Department through direct recruitment on 29th December
2023. The aforesaid advertisement in order to oust the candidate
belonging to the creamy layer has prescribed the specific condition that
the persons who are claiming the benefit under the OBC category they
must produce their cast certificate issued between 1st April 2023 till the
last date of the application, that is 30th January 2024. The petitioner
herein had applied for the said post, and alongwith the application has
annexed cast certificate issued on 1.6.2021 which was not within the
prescribed period and was issued before the prescribed period. The
petitioner has qualified in the written examination as well as the computer
WRIA No. 2052 of 2026
2
test. However, at the time of document verification, when it was found
that the cast certificate submitted by the petitioner was not issued within
the prescribed period and was issued prior to it, the petitioner was
declared unfit. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondent declaring
her to be unfit, the instant petition has been filed by her. Subsequently,
selection process was completed and the final result was declared on 7th
February 2026. Thereupon the petitioner has amended the writ petition
and has relied upon the caste certificate dated 28/8/2025, which was not
the part of the application. Thus the petitioner claims that still she is
belonging to the OBC category, therefore the respondents are required to
consider the claim of the petitioner under the OBC category. In support of
this submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the
judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate
Services Selection Board, (2016) 4 SCC 754 and submits that in that case
the candidate has failed to submit the OBC certificate before the last date
of submission of the application and subsequently the same was tendered,
on the basis of which the direction was issued by learned single judge of
the High Court to consider the claim of such candidate. The said order
was reversed by the Division Bench in letters patent appeal. On further
appeal being preferred to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has
upheld the order passed by the learned single judge. Thus learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that similar direction be also issued in favor of
the petitioner.
4. Per contra, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State
respondents relied upon the relevant provisions of the advertisement in
the instant case, which read as under :
" (5) उ र देश लोक सेवा (अनुसू त जा , अनुसू त जन जा और अ
छ व के ए आर ण) अ यम-1994 (समय-समय पर यथा संशो त)
अनुसूची-दो के अनुसार मीलेयर के अ त आने वाले उ र देश के अ छ व
के अ को आर ण का लाभ अनुम न अ छ व के ए जा माण-
प ( प-2) 01 अ ल, 2023 या उसके बाद का इस भ हेतु त
आवेदन करने अ म तक का त होना चा ए।"
5. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents has
also relied upon Clause 6.3 of the advertisement with regard to the last
त्त
प्र
चि
ति
यों
चि
ति
यों
न्य
पि
ड़े
र्गों
लि
क्ष
धि
नि
धि
की
की
न्त
र्ग
त्त
प्र
न्य
पि
ड़े
र्ग
भ्य
र्थि
यों
क्ष
न्य
हीं
न्य
पि
ड़े
र्ग
लि
ति
प्र
त्र
प्रा
रू
प्रै
कि
न्तु
र्ती
नि
र्धा
रि
की
न्ति
ति
थि
नि
र्ग
हि
WRIA No. 2052 of 2026
3
date of the application in the instant case. Thus learned Addl. Chief
Standing Counsel submits that the persons belonging to the OBC category
who are in the creamy layer are not entitled for the benefit under the OBC
category with intent to oust such candidates who had attained the creamy
layer and the period within which the cast certificate of OBC category is
to be issued that has been prescribed in the advertisement itself.
Admittedly the petitioner has not submitted the cast certificate issued
within the said period. The cast certificate issued previously, which has
been annexed by the petitioner alongwith the application form cannot be
considered for the reason that the creamy layer of the petitioner could not
be ascertained. In such circumstances the claim of the petitioner was
considered under the general category and since the petitioner was age
barred under the general category, she was declared unfit. Therefore,
learned Addl. C.S.C. submits that there is no illegality in the procedure
adopted by the respondents. Therefore, she seeks dismissal of the instant
petitioner. Clause 6(3)and (4) read as under:
"6.(3)-इसके बाद अ को आवेदन शु का भुगतान ऑनलाइन- डे ट का /के ट
का /इ रनेट ग/यूपीआई के मा म से करना होगा।
(4) हे लाइन आवेदन प भरने आ रही सी भी सम के राकरण हेतु
हे लाइन नंबर 044-47749010 जा या जा रहा है, जो आवेदन करने अ म
30-01-2024 तक याशील रहेगा ।"
6. Having considered the rival submission of the learned counsel for the
parties this Court has carefully gone through the record of the case. It is
settled position of law from the judgements of the Apex Court in the case
of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, as well as
Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 that OBC
candidate belonging to the creamy layer are not entitled for the benefit
under the OBC category and with intent to oust such candidate in the
advertisement specifically a provision has been made with regard to the
cast certificate of OBC category to be issued within a particular period,
just before the advertisement and till the last date of submission of the
application. Admittedly the petitioner has failed to provide that cast
certificate issued within the prescribed period rather she has provided a
certificate of OBC category which was issued in the year 2021. In such
भ्य
र्थी
ल्क
बि
र्ड
डि
र्ड
ण्ट
बैं
किं
ध्य
ल्प
त्र
में
कि
स्या
नि
ल्प
री
कि
की
न्ति
ति
थि
क्रि
WRIA No. 2052 of 2026
4
circumstances respondents have rightly did not take into consideration the
said certificate in the case of the petitioner while verifying the documents
and thus she was rightly declared unfit being age barred under the general
category. It is admitted position that subsequent OBC certificate which
has been annexed alongwith the writ petition has never been produced
during the selection process before the respondents. Judgment relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply in the
instant case, as the said cast certificate which has been subsequently
issued has never been tendered by the petitioner prior to the declaration of
result to the respondents.
7. In such view of the matter, this court do not find any illegality in the
action on the part of the respondents while declaring the petitioner unfit.
8. The instant petition has no merit and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
March 19, 2026
o.k.
Digitally signed by :-
OM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…