Observing that the OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificates were issued beyond the prescribed period, the Delhi High Court dismissed the petition filed by two candidates challenging the rejection of their candidature for the post of Security-cum-Fire Guard Grade-II at the All-India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi.
The Court upheld the rejection of the candidature and clarified that candidates cannot feign ignorance of explicit recruitment terms. Reference was made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court [2025 SCC OnLine SC 757], wherein it was held that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and the advertisement required production of a valid certificate as per prescribed rules and instructions.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain, therefore, held that the advertisement’s stipulation regarding the validity of certificates between April 01, 2022, and March 31, 2023, was mandatory, and any deviation from it would amount to unjustified relaxation, and affirmed the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order, which had refused to interfere with AIIMS’s decision.
The Bench underscored that recruitment advertisements are legally binding and must be strictly complied with. Reference was made to the decision in the case of Mohit Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1125], where it was reiterated that eligibility must exist as of the cut-off date, and the appointing authority is the best judge of its requirements. Once recruitment rules are public, no candidate can later seek relaxation, and non-compliance triggers automatic disqualification.
In the present case, the Bench noted that the AIIMS had clearly prescribed the validity period for OBC-NCL certificates; the petitioners did not possess certificates issued within that window; there was no evidence of delay attributable to AIIMS or any authority; and thus, the claim of arbitrariness was untenable.
The Bench pointed out that the petitioners had adequate opportunity to obtain valid certificates during the stipulated period and that failure to do so was solely attributable to them, not to administrative delay. Accordingly, the Bench refused to accept the certificates issued after the cut-off date, on the ground that their acceptance would amount to unfair relaxation, breaching Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution.
Briefly, in this case, AIIMS had issued a recruitment notification for multiple posts, including 35 posts of Security-cum-Fire Guard Grade-II. The petitioners applied under the OBC-NCL category, appeared in the written examination, and secured 32nd rank in the OBC merit list. However, as per the notification, OBC candidates were required to produce valid NCL certificates, following the Department of Personnel Training’s format prescribed in the Office Memorandum.
Since the certificates submitted by the petitioners were issued after the stipulated cut-off date, their candidature was rejected by AIIMS. When the matter reached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), it was held that the delay in the issuance of certificates was not attributable to AIIMS.
Appearances:
Advocates A.K. Trivedi, Dhruv Kothari, and Yash Jangra, for the Petitioner
NA, for the Respondent
