AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA)
Date : 27-08-2026 Heard Mr. Ashish Giri, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned G.P.-4 for the State.
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.11.2025 passed in CWJC No. 16991 of 2022 by which the writ application filed by the appellants/petitioners has been dismissed.
The case of the petitioners/appellants, in brief, is that pursuant to an Advertisement No. 01/2017 for appointment on the post of Chaukidar, the petitioners/appellants, who belong to Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category applied for the post in question. The name of the petitioners/appellants did not find place in the merit list of the category of EBC, which the petitioners/appellants claim to belong.
Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submits that after applying for the same, the petitioners/appellants had enclosed all the relevant documents and testimonials as were required to be enclosed in terms of the Advertisement No. 01/2017 dated 18.10.2017, they had also enclosed their individual caste certificates as well as non-creamy layer certificates issued in their favour by the designated competent authorities.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the reason for rejection of the applications of the petitioners/appellants is clear from the contents of Annexure-P/8 of the writ application where the objections filed by the petitioners/appellants were dealt with. Petitioner/appellant No.1 had not enclosed the non-creamy layer certificate alongwith his application and as far as petitioner/appellant No.2 is concerned, the non-creamy layer certificate enclosed was one which was issued subsequent to the last date of the application.
The only point for consideration in the present case is that on the last date of submission of application i.e. 20.11.2017, whether the petitioners/appellants were under obligation in light of the advertisement to submit the non-creamy layer certificates alongwith the application. The relevant portion of the application is reproduced herein below:
“ vkosnu djus dk 'krZ%&
¼d½ vkosnu djrs le; fu;e izfof’V ds v/khu bafxr vkj{k.k dk nkok ugha djus ij fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa vkj{k.k dk ykHk ns; ugha gksxk ,oa mUgsa lkekU; ¼vukjf{kr½ Js.kh esa j[kk tk;sxkA vkosnu i= esa nkok fd;s x;s vkj{k.k Js.kh esa fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa ifjorZu ugha fd;k tk;sxk rFkk bl laca/k esa fdlh Hkh vkosnu ij fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA
¼[k½ fiN³k oxZ rFkk vR;ar fiN³k oxZ ds vkjf{kr mEehnokjksa ds fy, jkT; ljdkj }kjk vf/klwfpr vapykf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr tkfr izek.k i=] ftlesa dzhfeys;j esa ugha gksus dk mYys[k gks ekU; gksxkA vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr Jsf.k;ksa ds fy, vapykf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr tkfr izek.k i= ekU; gksxk”A
As per Clause (d) and ([k) of the advertisement, the applicants were required to submit their certificates in respect to not belonging to creamy layer. Further paragraph-5 and 7 of the impugned judgment is also reproduced hereinbelow:
“ 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that inspite of having produced all the relevant certificates, the names of the petitioners did not find place in the merit list of the EBC category candidates. Objections were invited. On account of exclusion of their names, the petitioners filed their individual objections. The respondent authorities formed a Committee, which not having properly appreciated the objections filed by the petitioners, by order dated 6.10.2022 (Annexure-P-8) rejected the application/objection of both the petitioners. The consequential order was passed by the District Magistrate which has been challenged by the petitioners in the instant case.
7.The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the respondents who submits that the reason for rejection of the applications of the petitioners is clear from the contents of Annexure-P-8, where the objections filed by the petitioners were dealt with. So far as the petitioner no.1 is concerned, he had not enclosed the creamy layer certificate along with his application and so far as the petitioner no.2 is concerned, the creamy layer certificate enclosed was one which had been issued subsequent to the last dated of application which was to be filed pursuant to Advertisement no.1 of 2017. It is thus submitted that the application in case of both the petitioners was rightly rejected. They have no case and the application is fit to be rejected.”
The aforesaid contents of paragraph No.5 and 7 of the impugned judgment suggests that it is admitted position that on the last date of the submission, the petitioner/appellant no.1 had not submitted his non-creamy layer certificate and the Writ Court has rightly pointed out that the non-creamy layer certificate was enclosed with the original application or not is disputed question of fact which cannot be dealt with and decided by the Court under the writ jurisdiction. The Committee has rightly dealt with the objection and has observed that the last date for filling an application against the Advertisement was 20.11.2017, whereas the certificate enclosed by the petitioner/ appellant No.2 of his not belonging to creamy layer was issued on 24.05.2018. As such, he was not considered under the EBC category but under the General/Unreserved category.
Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another, reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 which suggests that there is no requirement to submit non-creamy layer certificate alongwith original application form. However, the same does not advance their case as it is distinguishable on facts.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the contents of the memo of appeal, it transpires that the appellant/petitioner No.1 had not enclosed non-creamy layer certificate alongwith the application and so far as appellant/petitioner No.2 is concerned the non-creamy layer certificate was furnished after the cut-off date, which was issued subsequent to the last date of the application.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that no case is made out for interference with the order of the Writ Court. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
Pending application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.