Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 03.02.2026
BHARATH SINGARAPPA.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shivesh Kaushik, Mr. A. Abhiraj and Mr. Aamir Abbas Naqvi, Advs.
Through: Mr Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Mr. Vasu Agarwal and
Mr. Lekh Raj Singh, Advs. for R1.
Mr. R. V. Sinha, SPC, Mr. Raj Kumar, Mr. A. S. Singh, and Ms. Shriya Sharma, Advs. and Inspector
Athurv.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
2. In effect, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to forthwith offer him a seat in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in accordance with the merit position in Central Armed Police Forces (Assistant Commandants) Examination, 2023 [CAPF Examination 2023].
3. The facts to be noted are that the petitioner is challenging the final result of CAPE Examination 2023 conducted by the respondent no.1, i.e. Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). According to the petitioner, despite successfully clearing all stages of examination with an All India rank of 208, he was denied a seat in his choice of service, i.e., CRPF due to a mere technical requirement related to the submission of a Other Backward Classes Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) certificate.
4. Mr Shivesh Kaushik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that CAPF Examination 2023 notification stipulated that the OBC NCL certificate must be issued within a specific period, i.e., between 01.04.2023 to 16.05.2023; however, the petitioner had a valid OBC NCL certificate dated 16.02.2023 issued by the competent authority at Bengaluru and also another that was issued to him in the month of February 2024. According to him, due to prevailing government policy in Karnataka at that time, he was unable to obtain a fresh NCL certificate within the specified period as the policy did not allow for the issuance of the multiple NCL certificates within a period of a year. He submits that the petitioner made diligent efforts to address the issue by communicating with the UPSC and CRPF through email and letters explaining the circumstances, and requested them to consider his existing NCL certificate as a valid one. However, his candidature was kept provisional and he was denied the seat in the CRPF. He submits that even though, the petitioner had NCL certificates for the financial year 2022-23 and 2023-24, but the respondents insisted upon the petitioner having an NCL certificate only between the period 01.04.2023 to 16.05.2023. Admittedly, the petitioner does not have such a certificate and despite being in merit, he has been denied the appointment.
5. Mr Ravinder Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the UPSC though would justify the impugned action of the respondents, he also state that the issue is no more res integra as the very advertisement became the subject matter of challenge in Raghvendra Singh & Another v. UPSC & Another, 2025:DHC:11105-DB wherein this Court in paragraph no.58-59 held as under:-
59. We further find that to cancel the candidature of otherwise eligible candidates, on sole grounds of issuance date, deprives the petitioners of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and actually runs contrary to the object sought to be achieved by providing reservations in public employment as per the reasoning laid down in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), Anil Kumar (supra) and Pushpa (supra) discussed in the foregoing paragraphs.”
6. Mr Agarwal submits that the UPSC intends to challenge the judgment of this Court in Raghvendra Singh & Another (supra) before the Supreme Court. However, as there is no stay on the operation of the said judgment, we are of the view that the issue which has been raised by the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court in Raghvendra Singh & Another (supra) and for parity of reasons, we hold and direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner at the relevant stage of the selection process, subject to verification of the OBC NCL certificate furnished by him whereby the cut off date shall not be a factor for disqualification. The respondents shall be at liberty to test and/or examine other criteria of eligibility and/or qualification required in respect of appointment of the petitioner. The petitioner shall be granted his due seniority as per the final result, but shall not be paid any financial benefits.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in the above terms.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J FEBRUARY 03, 2026 M