Isabella Mariam

The Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh comprising Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a candidate's claim under the BC-E non-creamy layer category. The court found that failure to submit a valid certificate within the notified period rendered the petitioner eligible only under the open merit category.

A recruitment notification dated 10 November 2022 was issued by the Registrar (Recruitment), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, inviting applications for 31 Civil Judge (Junior Division) positions under the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service. Of the total posts, 25 were earmarked for direct recruitment, including one post reserved for candidates belonging to the BC-E category.

Also Read: Supreme Court Publishes Judges Appointment Process | Collegium Data Since November 2022 And Relations With Judges Included

The petitioner applied for the said post, initially under the BC-E creamy layer category. She later attempted to be considered under the BC-E non-creamy layer category after obtaining the requisite certificate. However, her case was treated under the open category, as she failed to upload a valid non-creamy layer certificate along with her application, in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the recruitment notification.

The petitioner had applied for the non-creamy layer certificate on 15 November 2022, five days after the notification was issued, and received it only on 19 August 2023, after the entire selection process had concluded on 8 August 2023. A representation dated 11 September 2023, requesting consideration under the BC-E non-creamy layer category, was rejected by the Administrative Committee for non-compliance with the notification conditions.

Counsel for the petitioner argued that mere delay in submission of proof of eligibility should not deprive a candidate of reservation benefits. Citing Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, the petitioner submitted that substance should prevail over form, and late submission of an otherwise valid certificate should not nullify a rightful claim.

Further reliance was placed on Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, where the Supreme Court held that delayed submission of caste certificates should not result in rejection of candidacy.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had applied under the creamy layer category and failed to furnish the requisite certificate for non-creamy layer status within the prescribed time. The notification clearly mandated that applicants claiming reservation must upload a certificate issued in 2021 or 2022 in the prescribed format under G.O.Ms.No.3 dated 4 April 2006 and G.O.Ms.No.26 dated 9 December 2013.

Clause IV of the advertisement notification stated:

"The applicants who intend to avail/claim reservation under Backward Classes (A, B, C, D & E) shall submit a copy of the latest certificate issued either in the year 2021 or 2022 to the effect that they belong to non-creamy layer in terms of G.O.Ms.No.3...and G.O.Ms.No.26...In case of non-submission of the latest certificate, his/her candidature will be considered against Open Category only."

Clause V further required: "The applicant...shall upload latest community and also certificate of non-creamy layer as per law. In case of failure to upload the latest certificate, his/her candidature will be considered against Open Competition."

The State's criteria for determining creamy layer status were revised through G.O.Ms.No.26, raising the annual income threshold from Rs. 4,00,000 to Rs. 6,00,000.

The Division Bench held that the petitioner had clearly applied under the creamy layer category and failed to upload a valid non-creamy layer certificate within the stipulated period.

"The petitioner had clearly applied not under the non-creamy layer category, but under the creamy layer category. She could, therefore, not have been considered under the non-creamy layer at all."

The certificate was obtained in 2023, while the notification required it to be issued in 2021 or 2022. The court observed:

"The certificate in question which has been relied upon by the petitioner has been issued in the year 2023 and therefore does not at all satisfy the requirement of the advertisement notification."

Rejecting reliance on Ram Kumar Gijroya, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Divya v. Union of India, which held that eligibility documentation must be in place by the specified cut-off date.

"Any candidate not in possession of the I and AC in the prescribed format as mentioned hereinabove cannot claim the benefit of EWS category."

Also Read: Gauhati High Court Rejects Compassionate Appointment Plea | Delay Of 9 Years Defeats Immediacy | Compassionate Appointment Not A Vested Right

Applying the same reasoning to the OBC non-creamy layer criteria, the court reiterated that eligibility must be established within the deadline: "Failure to do the needful within the time prescribed as per the notification would render her to be considered only under the open category and not under the non-creamy layer category of BC-E."

The writ petition was dismissed. The court held: "The case of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondents for consideration under the non-creamy layer category of BC-E. We find no merit in the present petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

All pending miscellaneous applications were also declared closed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. K B Ramanna Dora

For the Respondents: Mr. N. V. Sumanth

Case Title: Bepari Shaik Arshiya Anjum v. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh and Others

Neutral Citation: APHC010510012023

Case Number: W.P. No. 26386 of 2023

Bench: Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Chief Justice and Justice Ravi Cheemalapati

[Read/Download order]