Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Yashpal Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. Petitioner was applicant in the category of other backward class (OBC) for the post of Sub Inspector in Civil Police pursuant to the advertisement no. PRPB-nsk-2 (3 of/2020) dated 25.2.2021, however at the time of submission of his online application form, he furnished the certificate issued by the competent authority of the State, of the backward caste meant for the post under the Central Government. He was permitted to appear in the written examination and having been successful as such and also qualifying the other physical standard and efficiency test, deserved to be considered in the merit list of the OBC category. At the time of document verification on 17th May, 2022, he furnished a notary affidavit alongwith certificate issued by the competent authority of the OBC caste but this time issued on the format meant for the post under the State Government. The certificate that was furnished by the petitioner was issued on 26.11.2018, which was available to him at the time of filling up the form but was not issued during the period required for i.e. between 01.4.2021 and 30th April, 2021.

3. In view of the fact that petitioner did not furnish requisite certificate issued on the format meant for the posts under the State Government of the relevant period and had submitted certificate on the format meant for the posts under the Central Government, the respondent seems to have considered the petitioner in open category instead of OBC and that is how petitioner having not qualified the merit in the open category, could not make it successful to find place in merit list. It is submitted that last cut-off marks for the selected candidate in OBC is 305.54 for the post of Sub Inspector, whereas petitioner's marks are 305.84.

4. Two fold arguments have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner:

"(a). The controversy regarding irreconcilable the difference of repugnancy between norms fixed for issuing caste certificate for the posts under the Central Government and that for the posts under the State Government is no more res integra as format has been issued for the both the purposes by the same State Government for the Court which recognized as OBC in the state and both the certificates are issued by the competent authority assigned for such purpose by the State Government; and

(b) The purpose of the cast certificate being to make an acknowledgement that a person (candidate) is belonging to a particular caste and such an evidence of this fact and unless and until there is dispute with respect to a candidates falling under the non creamy layer a certificate issued and recognized by the State Government cannot be denied by the selecting body merely being on a different format."

5. Per contra, the argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is to the effect that requisite document is required to be filed alongwith application form filled up online upto the last date and if one is not possessed of the requisite document as required for, till the last date of the submission of form, a candidate cannot be permitted to rectify shortcomings subsequently.

6. The other argument advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is that a caste certificate was required to be issued on a format prescribed for the posts under the State Government vide Clause 5.4(4) of the advertisement and there was specific rider to the effect that in the event the cast certificate issued on a required format is not filed or cast certificate meant for the posts under the Central Government is filed then candidature of such candidate in the reserved category shall be cancelled.

7. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has also sought to urge that in view of the answer given to third issue framed by the full bench of this Court in the case of Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P. and Other, 2017 (2) ESC 877 (All) (FB), vide Paragraph 28, despite there being no repugnancy in the norms fixed by the Union and State Government, it would not absolve a candidate of liability to furnish a requisite document evidencing his cast status of to a particular reserved category as recognized and identified by the State.

8. In rejoinder to the counter submissions advanced by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterated his argument and further added that even previously petitioner had been selected as constable by the police department on the basis of certificate issued in the year 2018, and therefore, there could be no doubt that petitioner did belong to OBC category and fell under non creamy layer.

9. It is also argued by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in the State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home (Police) Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others v. Rinki Yadav passed in Special Appeal (Def.) No. 274 of 2022 on 11.02.2009, a division bench has addressed all these issues and also referred to the judgment of the full bench in the case of Gaurav Sharma (supra) and has thus dismissed the appeal of the State Government against the order passed by the learned Single Judge who had permitted for consideration of candidature of that petitioner against the same recruitment examination conducted despite the fact that in that case also the caste certificate issued on the format meant for the posts under the Central Government, issued by the competent authority of the State, was filed initially.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar, I find there to be the only issue that requires consideration as to whether merely because the petitioner did not get the requisite document in the form of certificate on the format of the State Government of the relevant period, would make any difference even if he had furnished caste certificate on the format meant for the post under the Central Government issued by the competent authority during period prescribed for under the advertisement.

11. In view of findings returned by the division bench of this Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Rinki Yadav (supra) vide paragraph 15 and 16, I do not consider it appropriate to go again into the controversy as to whether a candidate filing a certificate on the format meant for the post under the Central Government of the required period issued by the competent authority, would be considerable or not.

12. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the judgment of the division bench are reproduced hereunder:

"15. One of the issues which was considered by the Full Bench in the case of Gaurav Sharma (Supra) was as to whether there exists any irreconcilable difference or repugnancy between the norms fixed by the Union and State Governments with regard to certification of creamy layer If not, its effect. It is also relevant to point out that petitioner in the Gaurav Sharma case had also submitted the certificate certifying that he belonged to the O.B.C, category in the same format in which the respondent-petitioner obtained the caste certificate and submitted the same for seeking benefit of the reservation available to O.B.C category candidates. The format in which the respondent-petitioner obtained the certificate is prescribed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. This fact is not in dispute, however, as stated by the learned counsel for the appellant-State authorities, the said format is for claiming benefit of reservation available to O.B.C, category candidates in relation to employment under the Government of India and not in relation to employment under the State of Uttar Pradesh. The caste certificate relied upon by the candidate in the case of Gaurav Sharma has been extracted in para-5 of the said judgement which is the same in which the respondent-petitioner was issued the certificate by the Tehsildar. The Full Bench in the case of Gaurav Sharma (Supra) has opined that, "while it is true that a caste certificate is only a recognition of an existing status, an O.B.C. candidate necessarily must establish the twin conditions of belonging to an O.B.C. group recognized by the State and also that he does not fall within the creamy layer. In paragraph-26 of the judgment in the case of Gaurav Sharma, the Full Bench has further observed that, "while it is true that an O.B.C. candidate even he produces a certificate which evidences that he does not stand excluded from the benefits of reservation in terms of office memorandum dated 14th October, 2008, that issue still remain as to whether he is an O.B.C, as specified and identified by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The Full Bench further observes that, "although the certificate initially submitted by the O.B.C, candidates before the court did not stand excluded by virtue of standards fixed by the office memorandum dated 14th October, 2008, the certificate did not evidence them belonging to an O.B.C, as identified in the State of Uttar Pradesh". The court further goes on to observe that, "for the purposes of seeking the benefit of reservation it is imperative for a candidate to establish that he belongs to O.B.C, as recognized and identified by the State concerned and further that he/she does not fall within the field of exclusion".

16. Finally answering the issue (C), it has been said by the Full Bench in para-27 of the report that:

"27. We accordingly answer Question No. 1 in the negative and hold that an OBC candidate is not exempt from the rigours of a cut off or last date prescribed in an advertisement or recruitment notice. We further declare that Arvind Kumar Yadav correctly articulates the law on the issue and overrule Pravesh Kumar and Shubham Gupta. Insofar as Question No. 3 is concerned, we hold that although there is no repugnancy in the norms fixed by the Union and State Government, the same would have no favourable impact upon the eligibility of a candidate unless he also furnishes a certificate evidencing him as belonging to the OBC category as recognised and identified by the State."

(emphasis added)

13. The Court vide paragraph 20 discussed the OBC caste Ahir belonging to OBC category which is given in the scheduled-1 as appended to the Reservation Act of 1994 and in that regard has also discussed and has also referred to notification issued in the Gazette of India, extraordinary dated 13th September, 1993. Paragraph 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment are reproduced hereunder:

"20. The Schedule-1 appended to Reservation Act 1994 is referable to Section-2 (b) of the said Act. Section 2(b) of the Reservation Act defines other backward classes of citizens to mean the backward classes of citizens specified in Schedule-1. Schedule-1 appended to the Reservation Act 1994 is extracted herein below:-

[SCHEDULE-I]

[See Section 2(b)]

1. Ahir, Yadav, Gwala, Yaduvanshiya

41. Bhurji, Bharbhunja, Bhooj, Kandu, Kashaudhan

2. Sonar, Sunar, Swarnkar

42. Bhathiara

3. Jat

43. Mali, Saini

4. Kurmi, Chanau, Patel, Patanwar, Kurmi-Mall, Kurmi-Seinthwar

44. Sweeper (Those not included in Scheduled Caste Category), Halalkhor

5. Giri

45. Lohar, Lohar-Saifi

6. Gujar

46. Lonia, Nonia, Gole-Thakur, Lonia-Chauhan

7.Gosain

47. Rangrez, Rangwa

8. Lodh, Lodha, Lodhi, Lot, Lodhi-Rajput

48. Marchcha

9. Kamboj

49. Halwai, Modanwal

10.Arakh, Arakvanshiya

50. Hajjam, nai, Salmani, Savita, Sriwas

11.Kachchi, Kachchi-Kushwaha, Shakya

51. Rai Sikh

12.[xxx]

52. Sakka-Bhisti, Bhisti-Abbasi

13.[xxx]

53. Dhobi (Those not included in the scheduled castes or scheduled tribes category

14.Kisan

54. Kasera, Thathera, Tamrakar

15.Koeri

55. Nanbai

16[xxx]

56. Mirshikar

17.Kasgar

57. Shekh Sarwari (Pirai), Peerahi

18.Kunjra or Raeen

58. Mev, Mewati

19.Gareria, Pal, Vaghel

59. Koshta/Koshti

20.Gaddi, Ghoshi

60. Ror

21.Chikwa, Qassab Qureshi, Chak

61. Khumra, Sangatarash, Hanseri

22.Chhippi, Chipa

62 Mochi

23.Jogi

63. Khagi

24.Jhoja

64. Tanwar Singharia

25.Dhafali

65. Katuwa

26.Taraoli, Barai, Chaurasia

66. Maheegeer

27.Teli, Samani, Rogangar, Sahu, Rauniar, Guandhi, Arrak

67. Dangi

28.Darji, Idrisi, Kakutstha

68. Dhakar

29. [x x x]

69. Gada

30.Naqqal

70. Tantawa

31. Nat (Those not included in Scheduled Castes category)

71.Joria

32. Naik

72. Patwa, Patahra, Patehara, Deovanshi

33. Faqir

73. Kalal, Kalwar, Kalar

34. Banjara, Ranki, Mukeri, Mukerani

74. Manihar, Kacher Lakhara

35. Barhai, Saifi, Vishwakarma Panchal, Ramgadhiya, Jangir, Dhiman

75. Murao, Murai, Maurya

36.Bari

76. Momin (Ansar)

37. Beragi

77. Muslim Kayastha

38.[x x x]

78. Mirasi

39.Biyar

79. Naddaf (Dhuniya), Mansoori, Kandere, Kadera, Karan (Karn)].

40.[x x x]

21. A perusal of afore quoted Schedule-1 appended to 1994 Reservation Act clearly reveals that entry-1 therein mentions the community "Ahir". Accordingly as per the identification and recognition made by the State of Uttar Pradesh for a particular community belonging to other backward class, the entries in Schedule-1 is the only source for determination of such an issue. Admittedly "Ahir" community is included in the Schedule-1 at entry-1 and hence in terms of the identification made by the State of Uttar Pradesh for providing reservation available to O.B.C category candidates, persons belonging to "Ahir" community are identified and recognized for the said purpose.

22. If we examine the notification published in the Gazette of India, extraordinary dated 13th September, 1993 which publishes the resolution of the Government of India dated 10th September, 1993 what we find is that in the State of Uttar Pradesh Ahir community is listed at Serial No. 1. Accordingly, on examination of the identification made by the Government of India as also by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the purposes of inclusion of a particular group or community amongst the Other Backward Classes or citizens entitle to seek benefit of reservation available to them, we find that there does not exist any repugnancy as far as "Ahir" community is concerned. The reason for us to observe that there is no such repugnancy is that "Ahir" community finds mentioned in the notification of the Government of India dated 13th September 1993 which published the resolution of the Government of India dated 10th September 1993 and it is also included at Entry-1 of Schedule-1 appended to 1994 Reservation Act passed by the Legislature of State of Uttar Pradesh. "

14. The Court also referred to both the formats framed by the State Government vide paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment, which run as under:

"7. Learned counsel for the appellant-State Authorities has vehemently argued that as per the Notes appended to Clause 5.4 of the advertisement, the benefit of reservation to those candidates who belong to Other Backward Classes but fall in the creamy layer will not be available. Drawing out attention to Note 3 appended to clause 5.4 of the advertisement, it has been argued by learned State Counsel that the said provision in the advertisement clearly provides that the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes as mentioned in Schedule-I of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Reservation Act 1994) will not be entitled to the benefit of reservation if they fall in the creamy layer category. He has also stated that as per the stipulation made in Note 3, the caste certificate to be submitted by the candidates claiming the benefit of reservation available to Other Backward Classes shall be in a format (Praroop-1) and should have been issued on or after 01st April, 2020 but till the last date of making the application. That is to say, the caste certificate to be submitted by the candidate concerned should have been issued between 01st April, 2020 and 30the April, 2021 for the reason that 30th April, 2021 was the last date as per the advertisement to make the application. Note 3 appended to Clause 5.4 to the advertisement is extracted hereunder :-

8. Praroop-1 as per the advertisement is also extracted hereunder:-

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

15. I have perused the caste certificate of the petitioner issued on format meant for the post of Central Government filed as Annexure 1 at page 25-b and find that petitioner has been certified to be belonging to 'Ahir' community and also not falling in category and persons belonging to 'creamy layer' and the certificate which was earlier issued to the petitioner on 26.11.2018, the petitioner has been declared certified to be belonging to 'Ahir' community and also within the financial status, which would fall out of 'creamy layer'.

16. In view of above, therefore, in my considered view as petitioner belongs to the same selection and recruitment in respect of which judgment was passed in the case of State of U.P. and Rinki Yadav (supra) the petitioner is entitled to the same relief.

17. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others 2014:INSC:735 : (2015) 1 SCC 347, [LQ/SC/2014/1123] vide paragraph 22.1, Supreme Court has held thus:

" The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently"

18. Now, there could be a question here, as has been argued by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, regarding distinguishing facts between the two cases. In the case of State of U.P. v. Rinki Yadav (supra), the certificate on the formant meant for the posts under State Government was furnished of the requisite period later on whereas in the present case, petitioner has never furnished the certificate on the format meant for the posts under the State Government. This argument though appears to be quite impressive looking to the conditions laid down under the advertisement but one must not forget that in the event two certificates are being issued by same Government authority, and purpose/object in two different formats is the same, furnishing requisite information, the State selecting body under the circumstances cannot just reject the candidature on the ground that certificate has not been furnished on a particular format required for under the advertisement of the requisite period even though certificate of requisite period was submitted.

19. It is necessary here at this stage also to go through the clause 5.4(4) of the advertisement dated 25.2.2021 is reproduced hereunder:

"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."

20. The language of clause 5.4(4) though in so many words prescribes that certificate should not be on the format meant for the posts under the Government of India but looking to the object with which the clause has been framed that the candidate must furnish a certificate evidencing the caste meant to make him eligible for the particular category under reservation in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

21. There could be cases where a caste recognized as falling in particular reserved category as per notification of Central Government but not in the State and vice versa, in as much as since posts under Central Government are applied at the country land from different states and so Union of India/Central Government has prescribed a common format for all states. Hence, therefore, we should have a pragmatic approach. The format whether of Central Government or State Government, if has all the requisites to identify a person belonging to a particular caste so as to ascertain his/her eligibility for reservation, it should be acceptable provided, of course both the certificates are issued by the same authority and of the same State where posts are under State Government and are subject to selection and recruitment.

22. Here, I would like to refer to paragraph 29 of the judgment of the division bench, in which reservation has been taken to be an affirmative action on the part of the State Government to reach out to most defined section of the society in giving proper representation in government service with an object to bringing them in the main stream of the country. Paragraph 29 of the judgment in the division bench of State of U.P. v. Rinki Yadav (supra) is reproduced hereunder:

"29. Before parting with this case, we may observe that benefit of reservation in public employment to different disadvantaged sections of Society is permissible under the Constitution of India as an affirmative action. It is not in dispute that the respondent-petitioner was given appointment while she claimed the benefit of reservation available to O.B.C. candidates in her selection to the post of Constable (Civil Police). Merely because the certificate produced by her was not in Praroop-1, though the certificate produced by her clearly evidences that she belongs to an O.B.C, group as identified by the State of Uttar Pradesh and also that she does not get excluded as a person belonging to creamy layer in terms of the criteria laid down by the State of Uttar Pradesh for the said purpose, it should not be taken aid of by the State authorities for denying her otherwise constitutionally guaranteed right of affirmative action. "

23. It is also necessary here to refer to last paragraph 5 of the judgment of the full bench in the case of Gaurav Sharma (supra) wherein question no. 3 has been answered and which was heavily relied upon by the Additional Chief Standing Counsel in support of his argument. The answer given by the full bench in question no. 3 in paragraph 28 is reproduced hereunder:

"28. Applying the reasoning as given by the Full Bench in the case of Gaurav Sharma (supra), we, accordingly, are of the opinion that the certificate relied upon and submitted by the respondent-petitioner, dated 15th April 2021 which was issued by Tehsildar, Unnao sufficiently certifies and evidences that the respondent-petitioner belongs to an O.B.C, group identified and recognized by the State of Uttar Pradesh and further that she as per the criteria prescribed by the State of Uttar Pradesh for exclusion under creamy layer does not fall in the creamy layer and hence she is eligible and entitle to claim reservation available to O.B.C. category candidate. "

24. Upon reading of the aforesaid paragraph of the judgment, it is clear that a candidate is required to furnish certificate evidencing him to be belonging to OBC category as recognized and identified by the State so the ratio behind the answer by the full bench appears to be very clear that a candidate is required to furnish certificate which certifies him belonging to the caste of particular category under which he/she claims reservation benefit.

25. I would also observe here that the object behind reservation being to bring into mainstream of the nation the most oppressed class both socially and financially and castes in the state and at the nation level are identified and notified of such category to offer them reservation in government service, so if there is no quarrel about the cast of a person as notified by the state deserving benefit of regularization in that state, it should not matter on which format certificate has been issued. Both the posts under Union of India and the State if are reserved for such category and the state is issuing certificates one meant for posts under Central Government and other for post under State Government, if requisite information is available, it would be hypothetical approach to reject a certificate just for it being on a format prescribed for the posts under Central Government. To this extent the relevant clause in the advertisement should be construed liberally.

26. In the present case whether it is upon format meant for the posts under Government of India or upon format meant for posts the State Government both the certificates having been issued by the State Government certifying the petitioner to be belonging to Ahir cast , the OBC caste and also not belong to creamy layer, respondents are not justified in rejecting candidature of the petitioner as far as his eligibility for OBC category is concerned.

27. In view of above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner as candidate of other backward caste, in the selection held for the recruitment against the post of Sub Inspector under the advertisement PRPB-nsk-2 (3 of/2020) dated 25.2.2021. The petitioner shall be placed in the merit list of OBC category as per marks obtained and if is at par or above the last cut off, shall be offered appointment.