JUDGMENT : ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. 1. Ext.P1 final order dated 13.10.2020 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 718 of 2018, filed by the sole respondent herein, is under challenge before us in this Original Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, at the instance of the Union of India and another/respondents in the O.A. 2. Heard Sri. Shivshankar R. Panicker, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the petitioners in the OP/R1 and R2 in the O.A. and Sri. P. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent in the OP/sole applicant in the O.A. before the Tribunal. 3. The parties will be essentially referred with reference to their status in the Original Application filed before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. The 1st respondent herein will be described as the “original applicant or applicant” and the petitioners herein will be described as the “respondent authorities” for short and convenience. The expression “Other Backward Classes” and “Non Creamy Layer” will be referred for short as “OBC” and “NCL” respectively and “Civil Service Examination” will be referred for short as “CSE.” The paper book of this O.P. will be referred for short as “Paper Book” or “PB.” 4. The question raised in this proceedings is as to whether the original applicant, who belongs to OBC and whose mother and deceased father were appointed by the method of direct recruitment to the clerical cadre services of a State Public Sector Undertaking and the State Government service, respectively, and whose total family income, other than salaried income does not exceed the threshold limit of Rs. 6 lakhs, could be given the benefit of Non Creamy Layer status (NCL status) for the Civil Service Examination (CSE) Selection Notification, 2017, more particularly, for the Indian Police Service? 5. Our answer to this issue is in the affirmative, as already held by the Tribunal in this case. We would now proceed to deal with the factual details of this case and to give our reasonings for reaching the abovesaid conclusion. 6. Though the applicant has raised the disputes in the O.A. with reference to two selection years, viz. the CSE Selection Notification 2016 as well as the CSE Selection Notification 2017, we are confining our consideration mainly for the Selection Notification 2017, as already done by the Tribunal. 7. 6. Though the applicant has raised the disputes in the O.A. with reference to two selection years, viz. the CSE Selection Notification 2016 as well as the CSE Selection Notification 2017, we are confining our consideration mainly for the Selection Notification 2017, as already done by the Tribunal. 7. The original applicant was an applicant for both the CSE Selection Notification 2016 (Ext.P4) as well as the CSE Selection Notification 2017 (Ext.P5). In the 2016 selection process, the applicant had secured All India Rank No. 540 and for the year 2017, he had been duly assigned All India Ranking position of 620. There is no dispute that the applicant belongs to Other Backward Community (OBC). The only dispute raised in this case is as to whether he is entitled to get the benefit of NCL status for the selection year 2017. The applicant has passed MBBS Degree and has also secured Post Graduate Diploma in Anesthesiology. He has been allotted the Indian Defence Accounts Service, by treating him as a general merit candidate for the CSE selection year 2016. The specific contention of the applicant is that if his NCL status had been duly granted by the respondent authorities, then he would have been definitely included in Annexure-A7 service allocation list of CSE 2017, between S. Nos. 567 and 568 and that, consequently would have been eligible and entitled to be allotted the Indian Police Service (IPS) as an OBC candidate for the CSE 2017. 8. For the sake of convenience, we would extract the prayers made by the applicant in Ext.P2 O.A. which read as follows: “(i) To declare that the applicant is eligible for OBC Non-Creamy Layer status and for allocation to the Indian Police Service as per his rank obtained in the Civil Service Examinations for the year 2016 and 2017. (ii) To call for the records leading to Annexure A7 Service Allocation List for Civil Service Examination, 2017 and quash the same to the extent it excludes the name of the applicant. (iii) To direct the 1st respondent reckon the OBC Non-Creamy Layer status of the applicant and to include his name in Annexure A7 Service Allocation List for Civil Service Examination, 2017 in between S. No. 567 and 568. (iii) To direct the 1st respondent reckon the OBC Non-Creamy Layer status of the applicant and to include his name in Annexure A7 Service Allocation List for Civil Service Examination, 2017 in between S. No. 567 and 568. (iv) To direct the 1st respondent to take a final decision with regard to the OBC Non-Creamy Layer status of the applicant and permanently allocate him to the Indian Foreign Service/Indian Police Service as per his ranking in the Civil Service Examination, 2016. (v) To issue such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 9. Some of the essential factual averments made by the applicant in regard to his OBC-NCL status may be relevant and therefore, it will be pertinent to refer to those aspects. The details of employment of the applicant's deceased father, as stated to be given by him while submitting the Detailed Application Form for the main examination, are given at Annexure-A3 dated 11.08.2016 and the tabular column thereof is as follows: [See Page No. 99 of the Paper Book of the OP]: Details of all the posts held by the employee: Name of the post and group of the post and equivalence/comparability of the post Pay Scale of the Post Date of Appointment/Promotion to the Post Age at the time of Appointment/Promotion to the Post L.D. Clerk 950 25.10.1978 27 Years 950-1650 Inspector 1520 1520-2660 23.06.1981 30 Years Inspector (HG) 2000 01.07.1991 40 Years 2000-3200 Senior Inspector 2000 11.03.1998 46 Years 2000-3200 Assistant Controller 7450 11.09.2001 49 Years 7450-11475 It is also stated before us that the father of the applicant had retired from service on 31.05.2006 and later he had died on 14.03.2012, which is about 4 years prior to the issuance of the CSE Selection Notification 2017. 10. The service particulars of the applicant's mother in a State public sector undertaking, viz. 10. The service particulars of the applicant's mother in a State public sector undertaking, viz. M/s. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. (KSFE), which is a Public Sector Undertaking fully owned by the Government of Kerala, are given at Annexure-A2 dated 02.08.2017 and the tabular column thereof is as follows: [See Page No. 98 of the Paper Book of this OP]: Details of all the posts held by the Employee: Name of the Post and Group of the post and Equivalence/comparability of the Post Pay Scale of the Post Date of Appointment/Promotion to the Post Age at the time of Appointment/Promotion to the Post Junior Assistant Group ‘C’ 1050-1850 02.01.1992 30 years Senior Assistant Group ‘C’ 1250-2285 06.06.1994 33 years Assistant Manager Group ‘C’ 4750-12875 26.07.2001 40 years Manager Grade IV Group ‘C’ 9975-28205 27.07.2009 48 years Manager Grade III Group ‘B’ 19010-48235 01.08.2012 51 years Senior Manager Group ‘B’ 43165-122955 01.08.2015 54 years 11. The details of the annual income of the mother of the applicant for the relevant period, as far as CSE Selection Notification 2017 is concerned, are given at Column No. 13 of Annexure-R1(b) and the same are as follows: [See Page No. 157 of the PB]: Annual income of mother (in Rs.) for last three consecutive financial years (year-wise): Financial Year 2016-17 [Assessment Year 2017-2018] Financial Year 2015-16 [Assessment Year 2016-2017] Financial Year 2014-15 [Assessment Year 2015-2016] (a) Income from salary 1705760 1168332 959303 (b) Income from agriculture 0 0 0 (c) Income from other sources 235000 214266 205725 (d) Whether your Mother has filed the ITR? If yes, then upload ITR. YES YES YES 12. Now, it may be pertinent to refer to some of the stipulations in the CSE Selection Notification 2017 regarding submission of documents as per the prescribed format. Ext.P5 is the CSE Selection Notification dated 22.02.2017 issued by the Union Public Service Commission [“UPSC” for short] for the year 2017. Clause 3 on page 1 of Ext.P5 would stipulate that the last date of submission of online applications is upto 17.03.2017 till 6.00 p.m. [See Page 398 of the PB of this O.P.]. The relevant portion of Note 4 to Clause 5 of Ext.P5 provides as follows: “NOTE 4: Candidates are not required to submit along with their applications any certificate in support of their claims regarding Age, Educational Qualifications, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes and Physically disabled, etc. The relevant portion of Note 4 to Clause 5 of Ext.P5 provides as follows: “NOTE 4: Candidates are not required to submit along with their applications any certificate in support of their claims regarding Age, Educational Qualifications, Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes and Physically disabled, etc. which will be verified at the time of the Main examination only. The candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions for admission to the Examination. Their admission at all the stages of examination for which they are admitted by the Commission viz. Preliminary Examination, Main (Written) Examination and Interview Test will be purely provisional, subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions. If on verification at any time before or after the Preliminary Examination, Main (written) Examination and Interview Test, it is found that they do not fulfil any of the eligibility conditions; their candidature for the examination will be cancelled by the Commission. If any of their claims is found to be incorrect, they may render themselves liable to disciplinary action by the Commission in terms of Rule 14 of the Rules for the Civil Services Examination, 2017…............” Clause 10 of Ext.P5 Notification is as follows: “10. Candidates seeking reservation/relaxation benefits available for SC/ST/OBC/PH/ Ex-servicemen must ensure that they are entitled to such reservation/relaxation as per eligibility prescribed in the Rules/Notice. They should also be in possession of all the requisite certificates in the prescribed format in support of their claim as stipulated in the Rules/Notice for such benefits, and these certificates should be dated earlier than the due date (closing date) of the application for Civil Services (Prelims) Examination, 2017.” 13. A reading of Note 4 to Clause 5 of Ext.P5 would make it clear that the candidates are not required to submit, along with their applications, any certificate in support of their claims regarding age, educational qualifications, SC/ST/OBC and physically disabled, etc. which will be verified at the time of the main examination only. That the candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfill all the eligibility conditions for admission to the examination and that their admission at all the stages of examination for which they are admitted by the Commission, viz. preliminary examination, main written examination and interview test will be purely provisional and subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions, etc. 14. preliminary examination, main written examination and interview test will be purely provisional and subject to their satisfying the prescribed eligibility conditions, etc. 14. Clause 10 of Ext.P5 would clearly stipulate that candidates seeking reservation/ relaxation benefits available for SC/ST/OBC/PH/Ex-servicemen must ensure that they are entitled to such reservation/relaxation as per the eligibility conditions prescribed in the rules/notifications. Further that, they should be in possession of all requisite certificates in the prescribed format in support of their claims as stipulated in the rules/notifications for such benefits and these certificates should be dated earlier than the due date (closing date) for submission of the application for CSE (Prelims) Examination 2017 [emphasis supplied]. There is a common ground between the parties that the abovesaid selection notification at Ext.P5 has been issued in consonance with the provisions contained in the “CSE Rules” given at Ext.R1(d) [See Page 166 of the PB]. It may also be pertinent to refer to Rule 25 of Ext.R1(d) CSE Rules, which is as follows [See Page 167 of the Paper Book]: “Rule 25. The closing date fixed for receipt of application will be treated as the date for determining the OBC status (including that of creamy layer) of the candidates.” 15. The CSE Preliminary Examination 2017 was conducted on 18.06.2017. The applicant was successful in that attempt and the Preliminary Examination result was accordingly published. Thereafter, the successful applicants in the Preliminary Examination were notified to submit their Detailed Application Form [“DAF” for short] in the prescribed format, for appearing in the Main Written Examination 2017 for the above examination in August 2017. The last date of submission of DAF for 2017 was upto 28.10.2017. There is no dispute that the applicant had duly submitted Annexure-A11 certificate dated 27.09.2016 issued by the authorised Tahsildar concerned in Proforma No. II format, as prescribed in the CSE Selection Notification, meant for OBC and NCL status, wherein it has been clearly certified by the competent original authority that the applicant belongs to OBC with NCL status. Annexure-A11 OBC-NCL certificate dated 27.09.2016 has been secured by the applicant well before the last date of submission of application for the Preliminary Examination, viz. 17.03.2017. Annexure-A11 OBC-NCL certificate dated 27.09.2016 has been secured by the applicant well before the last date of submission of application for the Preliminary Examination, viz. 17.03.2017. It is the specific case of the applicant that in contradistinction to the CSE 2016, the requirement to submit documents, including Government Orders for classification of post in State Public Sector Undertaking, was, for the first time, required only in 2017, when the candidates were notified to submit their DAF in August 2017, as can be seen from Clause No. 8(b)(v) of Annexure-R1(b) DAF 2017 submitted by the applicant [See Page 155 of the PB]. It is the specific case of the applicant that the said requirement has never been made previously, not even in the DAF 2016 to which the applicant had applied previously, as can be seen from Ext.R1(a), DAF 2016, more particularly Clause No. 8(b)(iv) thereof [see page 140 of the PB]. Further that, the applicant, on being required to submit such details as required in Annexure-R1(b) [given on page 155 of the Paper Book], had duly submitted Annexure-A2 dated 02.08.2017 issued by the State Public Sector Undertaking concerned. Further that, there was some delay for getting the details from the State Government regarding the classification of posts in the above State Public Sector Undertaking, which was later secured as per Annexure-A4 G.O. (Rt) No. 381/2018/Taxes dated 31.05.2018 issued by the State Government [see pages 100-101 of the Paper Book]. It is the specific case of the applicant that he had duly secured Annexure-A11 NCL-OBC certificate dated 27.09.2016 and Annexure-A3 dated 11.08.2016 regarding his deceased father's service details, even before the last date of submission of the application for Preliminary Examination 2017 and further that, Annexure-A2 certificate dated 02.08.2017 was also secured by him before the last date of submission of DAF 2017, etc. 16. Now, it may be pertinent to refer to the norms insisted by the respondent Union Government authorities and the UPSC for OBC-NCL status. Annexure-A8 O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) dated 08.09.1993, issued by the competent authority of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training)-DoPT, is one of the cardinal norms in the matter pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court in the celebrated Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, rendered on 16.11.1992. (SCT) dated 08.09.1993, issued by the competent authority of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training)-DoPT, is one of the cardinal norms in the matter pursuant to the directions issued by the Apex Court in the celebrated Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, rendered on 16.11.1992. Sub-Clauses (a) and (b) of Para 2 of Annexure-A8 O.M. dated 08.09.1993 deal with the setting apart of 27% of the vacancies in civil posts and services under the Union Government, to be filled up through direct recruitment, for OBC reservation. Clause (c)(i) of Para 2 of Annexure-A8 O.M. stipulates that the aforesaid reservation shall not apply to persons/sections mentioned in column 3 of the Schedule to that O.M. [See Page 109 of the Paper Book]. The relevant Clauses in the Schedule to Annexure-A8 O.M. are those in Category II, having 3 sub-categories as well as Category VI [given on Pages 110-111 and 113-114 of the Paper Book]. Category II thereof deals with the respective Categories and Subcategories excluded from the benefit of OBC reservation. Category-I thereof is regarding constitutional posts, with which we are not concerned. Category-II is the Service Category and it has 3 distinct Sub-categories, viz. (A) Group A/Class I officers of the All India, Central and State Services (Direct Recruits); (B) Group B/Class II officers of the Central and State Services (Direct Recruitment) and (C) Employees in Public Sector Undertakings. Category II(A) and Category II(B) broadly would stipulate that the sons and daughters of personnel who had secured Class A/Class I appointments in All India, Central and State Services by the method of direct recruitment as well as Group B/Class II officers of the Union Government and State Services, by the method of direct recruitment, would be excluded from the benefit of OBC reservation. In other words, the abovesaid Sub-categories included in Category II of the Schedule would stand automatically excluded from the benefit of OBC reservation, which would mean that such categories of persons are treated as falling within the Creamy Layer, even though they belonged to the OBC community. In other words, the abovesaid Sub-categories included in Category II of the Schedule would stand automatically excluded from the benefit of OBC reservation, which would mean that such categories of persons are treated as falling within the Creamy Layer, even though they belonged to the OBC community. In other words, wards/children of personnel, who belong to OBC but who had secured appointments by direct recruitment to posts in Union Government services/State Government services, below the rank of the abovesaid Sub-categories, would certainly be within the class of Non Creamy Layer and are entitled for the benefit of OBC reservation. 17. Sub-category (C) of Category II would be relevant in this case and the same is as follows: [See Internal Page 2 of Annexure-A8 O.M. given on Page 111 of the Paper Book]: “C. Employees in Public Sector Undertakings, etc. The criteria enumerated in A and B above in this Category will apply mutatis mutandi to officers holding equivalent or comparable posts in PSUs, Banks, Insurance Organisations, Universities, etc. and also to equivalent or comparable posts and positions under private employment. Pending the evaluation of the posts on equivalent or comparable basis in these institutions, the criteria specified in Category VI below will apply to the officers in these institutions.” It is also pertinent to refer to Category VI of the Schedule to Annexure-A8 O.M. which deals with the “Income/Wealth Test” and the same is as follows [See Internal Pages 4 and 5 of Annexure-A8 O.M. given on Pages 113-114 of the Paper Book]: “VI. INCOME/WEALTH TEST Sons and daughters of: (a) Persons having gross annual income of Rs. 1 lakh or above or possessing wealth above the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three consecutive years. (b) Persons in Categories I, II, III and V A who are not disentitled to the benefit of reservation but have income from other sources of wealth which will bring them within the income/wealth criteria mentioned in (a) above. Explanation: (i) Income from salaries or agricultural land shall not be clubbed. (ii) The income criteria in terms of rupee will be modified taking into account the change in its value every three years. Explanation: (i) Income from salaries or agricultural land shall not be clubbed. (ii) The income criteria in terms of rupee will be modified taking into account the change in its value every three years. If the situation, however, so demands, the interregnum may be less.” In the instant case, there is no dispute that the petitioner's deceased father had entered service of a State Government Department as LD Clerk by the method of direct recruitment to the post of LD Clerk, which is indisputably a Group ‘C’ post. Further, his father had retired from service and had died much prior to the closing date of application for CSE (Prelims) Examination 2017. So, what is more pertinent is regarding the mother's employment status. The mother of the applicant is a regular employee of a State Public Sector Undertaking, viz. M/s. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. which is an undertaking fully owned by the Government of Kerala. So, in this case, sub-category (C) of Category II would be more relevant and pertinent. A reading of the said provision would indicate that the Union Government has clearly mandated therein that the criteria enumerated in Sub-categories (A) and (B) of Category II will mutatis mutandis apply to officers holding equivalent or comparable posts in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs), Banks, Insurance Organizations, Universities, etc. and also to equivalent or comparable posts and positions under the private employment. So the wards of employees of PSUs. etc. who have initially entered into that service by direct recruitment to Group C, Group D posts will have to be treated as entitled for OBC-NCL status, in view of the mutatis mutandis clause. However, it is further stipulated in the said O.M. issued as early as on 08.09.1993 that, pending evaluation of the posts on equivalent or comparable basis in these institutions (Central/State Public Sector Undertakings, Banks, etc.), the criteria specified in Category VI of the Schedule to Annexure-A8 O.M. will apply to the officers in the said institutions. So, the clear and plain mandate of the stipulation made by the Union Government in Category II(C) is that the simple criteria enumerated for Sub-categories (A) and (B) of Category II shall straight away mutatis mutandis apply to officers holding equivalent or comparable posts in Public Sector Undertakings, Banks, etc. So, the clear and plain mandate of the stipulation made by the Union Government in Category II(C) is that the simple criteria enumerated for Sub-categories (A) and (B) of Category II shall straight away mutatis mutandis apply to officers holding equivalent or comparable posts in Public Sector Undertakings, Banks, etc. However, pending evaluation of the posts on equivalent or comparable basis in the said institutions, the specific criteria in Category VI will apply, etc. So, if the exception carved out in the latter part of the criteria, stipulated in Column (3) appended to Category II(C), is to apply, then alone, the income/means criteria, as per Category VI, would apply. Category VI deals with the “Income/Wealth Test” wherein it is stipulated that sons and daughters of (a) persons having gross annual income of Rs.1 lakh or above or possessing wealth above the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three consecutive years, etc. Clause (b) of the criteria, appended under Column (3) relatable to Category VI, would stipulate that persons in Categories I, II, III and V-A, who are not disentitled to the benefit of reservation, but have income from other sources of wealth, will bring them within the income/wealth criteria mentioned in (a) above. In other words, if children of personnel of All India Services, Central Services and State Government Services, who were initially appointed by direct recruitment to posts below the high ranking posts mentioned above, would be treated as eligible for the benefit of reservation, subject to the condition that if they have any other income, i.e. non-salaried income and if the non-salaried income exceeds the above minimum threshold mentioned in criteria (a) of Category VI, then such persons would also be disentitled for reservation and will be treated as Creamy Layer. In the instant case, as per the above O.M. the income limit of Rs. 1 lakh or above stipulated as per criteria (a) of Category VI of Annexure-A8 O.M. issued as early as on 08.09.1993, has been enhanced from time to time and it is common ground that at the relevant time for the CSE Selection Notification 2017, the said upper income limit was upto Rs.6 lakhs. It is also a common ground that the salaried income of the applicant's mother exceeded the said limit of Rs.6 lakhs for 2017 in this case. It is also a common ground that the salaried income of the applicant's mother exceeded the said limit of Rs.6 lakhs for 2017 in this case. However, it is also a common ground that her non-salaried income does not in any manner exceed the said upper limit. So, in other words, the applicant's case is that since the applicant's mother, who is treated as an employee of a State Public Sector Undertaking, was initially appointed on direct recruitment basis to a Group ‘C’ post and since the applicant’s father was indisputably appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in the State Government Service by the method of direct recruitment and as the non-salaried income of the applicant’s family at the relevant time had not exceeded the abovesaid upper limit, the applicant is entitled to get the benefit of OBC-NCL status. In that regard, it is pertinent to note that the agricultural income of the mother is “zero” and the non-salaried income of the mother is Rs. 2,14,266/-. 18. Now, the main objection raised by the respondent authorities in not granting the OBC-NCL status to the applicant for selection in the CSE 2017 is that, some of the crucial documents, like Annexure-A2 dated 02.08.2017, issued by the State Public Sector Undertaking and Annexure-A4 G.O. dated 31.05.2018 have been admittedly secured by the applicant much after the prescribed last date/closing date for submission of the Preliminary Examination application, viz. 17.03.2017 and therefore the same cannot be looked into. Yet another contention is also raised that the process of evaluation of the comparability and equivalence of posts in various Central and State Public Sector Undertakings has not been duly completed by the Union Government, after due consultation with the various State Governments, etc. and that therefore, what has been relied on by the applicant as per Annexure-A4 G.O. dated 31.05.2018, is one that has been issued by the Government of Kerala only for one Public Sector Undertaking, viz. M/s. Kerala State Financial Enterprises, where the applicant’s mother is employed and that too, the said Government Order has been issued only at the request of the applicant and the same cannot be treated as a comprehensive evaluation of the comparability and equivalence of the posts. M/s. Kerala State Financial Enterprises, where the applicant’s mother is employed and that too, the said Government Order has been issued only at the request of the applicant and the same cannot be treated as a comprehensive evaluation of the comparability and equivalence of the posts. Further that, the latter part of the criteria, appended to Column (3) of Category II(C), dealing with employees in the PSUs, can only be done at the instance of the Union Government as a final authority and the final verdict in that regard is not of the State Government. Therefore, reliance placed on Annexure-A4 G.O. dated 31.05.2018 is not tenable in any view of the matter even if it is assumed that it is to be looked into. That such adhoc decisions by individual State Governments and that too confined only to a few PSUs or a single PSU, like in the instant case, will not amount to fulfillment of the comprehensive norm of evaluation and since the evaluation process, as per the abovesaid criteria, is not over, it is pending the evaluation process and hence the exception to the criteria appended to Clause (3) of Category II(C) would apply and not the operative portion. That being so, the employment status of the applicant’s mother in the State PSU, as per the operative portion of the criteria, cannot be looked into and as the exception thereto applies, what is to be looked into is only Category VI of income and wealth limit and since the total income of the applicant’s mother exceeds the threshold limit of Rs.6 lakhs and as the said total income, in such a case, would also be inclusive of the salaried income, the applicant cannot be granted the status of OBC-NCL. That, this is the consistent approach that has been taken by the respondent Union Government authorities and hence the adhoc allowing of the request for grant of OBC-NCL status of individual personnel of State PSUs or Central PSUs cannot be done or permitted by the Union Government. That, this is the consistent approach that has been taken by the respondent Union Government authorities and hence the adhoc allowing of the request for grant of OBC-NCL status of individual personnel of State PSUs or Central PSUs cannot be done or permitted by the Union Government. As otherwise, it would be showing discrimination to the children of other employees of Central/State PSUs, all being denied the benefit of the criteria, as per the operative portion of Category II(C) and in all such cases, the Union Government has taken the considered stand and the exception thereto would apply, in which case the income/wealth criteria in terms of Category VI(a) would apply and in such a case, the total income, inclusive of the salaried income of the parents, should be taken into account and so long as the said total income exceeds the minimum threshold limit of Rs.6 lakhs for 2017, the decision taken by the Union Government is the only reasonable and legally permissible decision in this case. 19. In that regard, it is also pertinent to note that Sri. Shivshankar R. Panicker, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners in the O.P./Union Government authorities, has also brought our attention to various case laws on the subject, more particularly, with reference to the stipulation that the condition regarding adherence to the closing date norms should be treated as sacrosanct and no deviance is possible and such condition to possess all the necessary certificates in the prescribed format on or before the closing date for submission of the application for Preliminary Examination is sacrosanct and mandatory. That, in the instant case the Tribunal, by allowing the pleas of the applicant, has transgressed the said sacrosanct and mandatory condition and therefore, the verdict of the Tribunal is illegal. Various case laws on the said subject have been cited before us, including the decision of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court rendered on 25.01.2022 in W.P. (C) No. 6932 of 2021, wherein it was held that the time line for submission of certificates to prove the Economically Weaker Section status [EWS status] for claiming the benefit of EWS reservation quota, is sacrosanct and cannot be deviated in exercise of judicial review. 20. Per contra, the contentions of Sri. 20. Per contra, the contentions of Sri. P. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the original applicant/1st respondent in the O.P. are as follows: It is argued that the norms contained in Ext.P5 CSE Selection Notification 2017 and Annexure-R1(d) CSE Rules stipulate that the applicants need not submit any of the requisite certificates in the prescribed proforma along with their online applications to be submitted for the Preliminary Examination. On the other hand, what is stipulated, as per Note 4 to Clause 5 and Clause 10 of Ext.P5 and the corresponding provision in the Rules is that, the candidates should be in possession of all the requisite certificates for claiming the benefits, like reservation/relaxation benefits for SC/ST/OBC, etc. and they should be in possession of all the requisite certificates in the prescribed proforma in support of their claim, as stipulated in the Rules/Notifications, and that these certificates should be dated earlier than the closing date of the application for CSE Preliminary Examination 2017 [emphasis supplied]. That, as regards the claim for OBC-NCL status, the only certificate that has been insisted in the prescribed proforma is the one for OBC-NCL status certificate, to be issued by the competent Revenue authorities of the States concerned and there is no dispute that Annexure-A11 is the OBC-NCL certificate dated 27.09.2016 issued by the authorized Revenue officials of the State Government and that too in the prescribed proforma as prescribed by the Union Government authorities, as per the various O.Ms and the various O.Ms of the Union Government are also recited in the preamble portion of Annexure-A11 certificate. That Annexure-A11 certificate dated 27.09.2016 has been secured and possessed by the applicant well before the last date for submission of the application for CSE Preliminary Examination 2017. Further that, certificates regarding classification of posts, where the parents of the candidates are employed, etc. are not stipulated to be submitted in the prescribed proforma as per the CSE Notification and the Rules and therefore, it is only those certificates, which are to be submitted in the prescribed proforma, as prescribed by the Union Government, should necessarily be possessed before the last date. That, in the instant case, Annexure-A11 is the crucial document regarding the NCL-OBC status issued by the competent Revenue authority as early as on 27.09.2016 and that too in the prescribed proforma. That, in the instant case, Annexure-A11 is the crucial document regarding the NCL-OBC status issued by the competent Revenue authority as early as on 27.09.2016 and that too in the prescribed proforma. Further that, Annexure-A3 would show the details of the employment status of the deceased father of the applicant and the same has been secured on 11.08.2016, which is also within the abovesaid time line, even if it is assumed that such a certificate should also be obtained before the last date of submission of the application for CSE Preliminary Examination. More crucially, it is stated that documents regarding classification of the posts of employees in Public Sector Undertakings have been insisted for the first time only while notifying the candidates to submit their DAF for the main examination in 2017, which was notified only in August 2017 and Annexure-A2 certificate regarding the employment status of the applicant’s mother has been thus obtained on 02.08.2017, which is well before the last date of submission of DAF 2017 application, which was upto 28.10.2018. It is the specific case of the applicant that the abovesaid documents, as per Annexures-A11, A3 and A2 alone, would be essential to clinchingly establish the OBC-NCL status of the applicant and further that, Annexure-A4 is only a clarification of the said aspects issued by the State Government on 31.05.2018, etc. 21. Even though various other contentions have also been urged by both sides, we need not recite all those contentions. 22. After hearing both sides, we are of the view that the applicant has put forward a clear claim for OBC-NCL status, as per Annexure-A11 certificate issued on 27.09.2016 in the prescribed proforma by the Revenue officials of the State of Kerala. A perusal of Annexure-A11 would make it clear that the same is issued in the proforma as prescribed by the Union Government authorities. No objection whatsoever has been raised before us that Annexure-A11 has not been issued in the prescribed proforma. The only dispute raised by the Union Government is that the certification therein, that the applicant is entitled for the benefit of OBC-NCL status, cannot be relied on. We will get into the above aspects later. 23. Further, Annexure-A3 is a certification issued on 11.08.2016 by the State Government authorities, showing the details of the employment status of the deceased father of the applicant. We will get into the above aspects later. 23. Further, Annexure-A3 is a certification issued on 11.08.2016 by the State Government authorities, showing the details of the employment status of the deceased father of the applicant. Even if it is assumed that a document as per Annexure-A3, was really required to be possessed before the closing date of the preliminary application, the said norm is fulfilled. Moreover, the applicant’s father had retired and had also later died about 5 years prior to the last date of submission of the application for CSE Preliminary Examination 2017. No serious dispute is raised regarding the acceptability of Annexure-A3 certification, regarding the deceased father’s employment status, that he had initially entered into the service of the State Government by the method of direct recruitment as LD Clerk and thereafter secured various promotions. Thus, it can be seen that the applicant’s deceased father had entered the service of the State Government as a Clerk, which is indisputably a Group ‘C’ post. 24. As regards the time line of submission of Annexure-A2 certificate dated 02.08.2017, the following aspects should be relevant. The applicant had submitted the application for CSE 2016 as well as CSE 2017. The applicant had qualified in the Preliminary Examination on both the years. Annexure-R1(a) is the DAF for 2016 submitted by the applicant. Therein the applicant has clearly stated that his mother is an employee of a State Public Sector Undertaking, viz. M/s. Kerala State Financial Enterprises and that she had initially entered service of that State Public Sector Undertaking as a Junior Assistant, which is a Group ‘C’ post. Clause No. 8(b)(iv) of Annexure-R1(a) [given on page 140 of the PB], would be relevant and the same is as follows: “8 (a).................. (b)(i) xxx xxx xxx (iv) If post the organization are not classified as Group A, B, C or D, whether the post to which the mother was appointed by direct recruitment is comparable or equivalent to any group A, B, C or D post in Govt. If yes, to Which it is comparable” GROUP C 25. In contradistinction to Clause No. 8(b)(iv) of Annexure-R1(a), DAF for 2016, the corresponding Clause in DAF for 2017 submitted by the applicant, as per Annexure-R1(b), will have to be examined. If yes, to Which it is comparable” GROUP C 25. In contradistinction to Clause No. 8(b)(iv) of Annexure-R1(a), DAF for 2016, the corresponding Clause in DAF for 2017 submitted by the applicant, as per Annexure-R1(b), will have to be examined. In Annexure-R1(b), DAF for 2017 also, the applicant has clearly stated that his mother is an employee of a State Public Sector Undertaking and that she had entered service as a Junior Assistant, which is a Group ‘C’ post. Clause No. 8(b)(v) of Annexure-R1(b) [given on page 155 of the Paper Book] is as follows: “8 (a).................. (b)(i) xxx xxx xxx (v) If post of the organization is not classified as Group A, B, C or D, whether the post to which the Mother was appointed by direct recruitment is comparable or equivalent to any Group A, B, C or D post in Government as per DOPT OM No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT), dated 8.9.1993. If yes, to which it is comparable and please upload the relevant Government order/notification establishing such equivalence/comparability of post if available.” YES (GROUP C) 26. A mere perusal and comparison of Clause No. 8(b)(iv) of Annexure-R1(a), DAF for 2016 [given on page 140 of the Paper Book] with Clause No. 8(b)(v) of Annexure-R1(b), DAF for 2017 [given on page 155 of the Paper Book] would make it clear that, if the answer to the first part of the query therein is in the affirmative, then the candidate concerned should upload the relevant Government Orders/Notifications establishing the comparability/equivalence of the post, if available. So, it can be seen that the insistence for uploading the relevant Government Orders/Notifications establishing such equivalence/ comparability of post, if available, has been made for the first time for DAF for 2017. It is all the more so, in contradistinction to Annexure-R1(a), DAF for 2016. Moreover, the respondent authorities have no case that such an insistence, as in the latter part of Clause No. 8(b)(v) of Annexure-R1(b), DAF for 2017, has been made either in the basic CSE Notification 2017 or in the CSE Rules. Therefore, the contention of the respondent authorities that, the applicant has violated the guidelines for submission of documents, like Annexures-A2 and A4, as having been secured before the closing date of the application for CSE Preliminary Examination 2017, cannot be countenanced by us. Therefore, the contention of the respondent authorities that, the applicant has violated the guidelines for submission of documents, like Annexures-A2 and A4, as having been secured before the closing date of the application for CSE Preliminary Examination 2017, cannot be countenanced by us. Of course, then the respondent authorities could contend that the time line of submission of such documents, like Annexures-A2 and A4, should be before the last date of submission of DAF for 2017, which was only upto 28.10.2017. That being so, the time line of submission of Annexure-A2 cannot be disputed, as the same was possessed on 02.08.2017 and has also been duly submitted before the abovesaid last date in question. Of course, Annexure-A4 G.O., which was issued only on 31.05.2018 has been secured and given after 28.10.2017, which is the last date of submission of DAF Main Examination 2017. 27. In the instant case, there is no serious dispute regarding the factual aspects stated in Annexure-R1(b) DAF for 2017 as well as Annexure-A2 dated 02.08.2017 that the applicant’s mother was initially appointed by direct recruitment to the State Public Sector Undertaking concerned to the post of Junior Assistant. It does not require any in-depth analytical process of evaluation or comparison to know that the post of Junior Assistant in a Public Sector Undertaking is only a clerical cadre post. For that purpose, it does not require any in-depth analysis either by the State Government or by the Union Government. It is well-known that the post of “Assistants” like “Section Assistant” in Union Government Services, State Government Services or in Universities, or post of “Clerks” like “LD Clerk, UD Clerk, Head Clerk, etc.” are posts in the clerical cadre. To hold that the post of Junior Assistant in a State Public Sector Undertaking is a clerical cadre post, is a very simple and straight process. When the facts of this case are so simple and clear, like “day light” there cannot be any dispute that the post to which the applicant’s mother was initially appointed, by the method of direct recruitment to the State Public Sector Undertaking concerned, is a clerical cadre post. As mentioned herein above, there is no dispute whatsoever that the applicant’s deceased father was initially appointed by the method of direct recruitment to the State Government Service as a Lower Division Clerk. As mentioned herein above, there is no dispute whatsoever that the applicant’s deceased father was initially appointed by the method of direct recruitment to the State Government Service as a Lower Division Clerk. As far as the said post is in State Government Service, there is no dispute raised before us by the respondent authorities that the applicant’s deceased father was initially appointed by the method of direct recruitment to a clerical post, which is a Group ‘C’ post. At any rate, the only reasonable conclusion that can be arrived at by any reasonable person, instructed on law and facts, is that the applicant’s mother and deceased father were appointed by the method of direct recruitment to the State Public Sector Undertaking concerned and the State Government Service respectively to a post below Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’. Hence, there cannot be any doubt, for any reasonable person properly instructed on the elementary aspects of the matter and who is having an elementary knowledge about the various post hierarchy in Central Services, State Services, Public Sector Undertakings, etc. that the parents of the present applicant were appointed by direct recruitment to a State Public Sector Undertaking and the State Government Service, respectively, to a Group ‘C’ post or at least to a post which is below Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’. When such is the simple and clear factual aspect of this case, we need not get into any complex or complicated issues. Fortunately, for the present applicant, the facts of this case are so simple and clear that no other conclusion can be arrived at. 28. Hence, we are of the view that even on the basis of Annexure-A11 certificate dated 27.09.2016, Annexure-A2 dated 02.08.2017 and Annexure-A3 dated 11.08.2016, it is only to be held that the applicant, who indisputably belongs to an OBC Community, is entitled to get the benefit of NCL status. It is true that the salaried income of the applicant’s mother is above the threshold limit of Rs. 6 lakhs for the relevant year. That being so, the exception cannot be said to apply in this case and since the non-salaried income of the applicant’s mother does not exceed the upper cap, the applicant has to be granted the NCL status as OBCNCL status, as far as his claims for the selection year 2017 is concerned. 29. 6 lakhs for the relevant year. That being so, the exception cannot be said to apply in this case and since the non-salaried income of the applicant’s mother does not exceed the upper cap, the applicant has to be granted the NCL status as OBCNCL status, as far as his claims for the selection year 2017 is concerned. 29. Further, we are also of the view that fresh instances, as per Clause No. 8(b)(v) of Annexure-R1(b) DAF for 2017 regarding Government Orders, can only be orders of the State Government. If what is envisaged is the orders of the Union Government and if the same is available, then it is available with the respondent authorities. So, what is insisted, as per Clause No. 8(b)(v) of Annexure-R1(b) DAF for 2017, is an order or notification from the State Government concerned regarding the classification of posts in the State Public Sector Undertaking concerned. We have already held that the said instances were made as per the latter portion of the abovesaid Clause for the first time only in 2017 and therefore, a strict understanding of the time line would be that such Government Order should have been secured on or before the last date of submission of DAF Main Application 2017, which was only upto 28.10.2017. However, there is an important aspect in the matter. Even going by the admitted case of the respondent authorities, it is stated in Annexure-A9 dated 21.08.2017, issued by the Union Government, the stand of the UPSC regarding reservation claims, as can be seen from Para 6 thereof, is as follows: “6(i).................. (ii) OBC Candidates: While forwarding the dossiers of the successful candidates of the Civil Services Examination, 2016, the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) has stated that: “There may be some cases where though the OBC certificates have been issued to the candidates, the “creamy layer” status may be doubtful keeping in view the income/status of the parents of the candidates as per the declaration of the candidates vide column 13(k) and (l) in the Detailed Application Form. It is, therefore, requested that the Government may, in such cases, like to ensure that such candidates do not attract “creamy layer” provision and offers of appointment to these candidates may be made after the Government satisfy themselves in this respect also. Based on the information supplied by the candidates the Govt. It is, therefore, requested that the Government may, in such cases, like to ensure that such candidates do not attract “creamy layer” provision and offers of appointment to these candidates may be made after the Government satisfy themselves in this respect also. Based on the information supplied by the candidates the Govt. may satisfy themselves about the genuineness of their OBC claims. These candidates have been provisionally treated as OBC candidates subject to the Govt. satisfying themselves about the genuineness of their OBC claims.” This Department has issued OM No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT), dated 8th September, 1993 and letter No. 36033/5/2004-Estt(Res) dated 14th October, 2004 and other extant instructions in this regard from time to time. In accordance with these instructions, only Non-Creamy Layer OBC candidates are entitled to get the benefits of reservation earmarked for Other Backward Classes (OBC). The allocation is, therefore, provisional to this extent and is subject to further verification of Non-Creamy Layer status by the Cadre Controlling Authority.” 30. Thus, it is the admitted case that the stand of the Union Government authorities and the UPSC is that there may be some cases where the OBC certificates have been issued to candidates and Creamy Layer status may be doubtful and that in such cases their claims may be treated only provisionally, subject to the Union Government satisfying themselves about the genuineness of their OBC claims and that allocation to service is provisional to that extent and subject to further verification of Non-Creamy Layer status by the cadre controlling authority, etc. Therefore, in a case like this, where the applicant has submitted the basic certificate, as per Annexure-A11 OBC-NCL status issued by the competent Revenue authority, as early as on 27.09.2016, in the prescribed proforma and where the Union Government doubts the said claim, then the said claim will have to be ascertained through a due process and the claim has to be treated as provisional and all prudent steps will have to be taken to ascertain the correctness of the said claim. That being so, when documents like Annexures-A11 and A2 are doubted by the Union Government, even at the time of allocation, the claims have to be treated as provisional, subject to a meticulous verification and determination of the claim by the Union Government. That being so, when documents like Annexures-A11 and A2 are doubted by the Union Government, even at the time of allocation, the claims have to be treated as provisional, subject to a meticulous verification and determination of the claim by the Union Government. Therefore, in such a case, going by the admitted stand in Para No. 6(ii) of Annexure-A9, the scenario is that, instead of straightaway rejecting such claims, as in the instant case, it should have been meticulously examined and determined and since the said process involves the determination of a constitutionally conferred or recognized right or at least a civil right, the same should have been done only after providing due opportunity to the affected party to prove his claim. That being so, the respondent authorities were obliged to call upon the applicant to prove the said claim made out in Annexures-A11, A2, etc. and for that purpose, reasonable opportunity should have been given, in which case, certain documents, in the nature of Annexure-A4 G.O. dated 31.05.2018 should have been examined by the Union Government. There is no doubt that the abovesaid simple facts stated by us herein above has also been certified by none other than the State Government as per Annexure-A4 G.O. issued on 31.05.2018 wherein it is clearly stated and certified that the applicant’s mother was directly recruited to a clerical cadre post (Group C) in the abovesaid State Public Sector Undertaking. Therefore, there cannot be any serious dispute regarding the genuineness of the said stand taken by the State Government in Annexure-A4 G.O., in as much as there cannot be any two views that the post of Junior Assistant in the above State Public Sector Undertaking can only be a clerical cadre post and therefore, it can only be in Group C. 31. Looking from this crucial perspective, two things flow (i) the argument regarding violation of time line in submission of Annexure-A4 certificate will pale into insignificance and will have to be rejected, and more importantly, (ii) the same should have been examined by the Union Government and if it was examined, there are no reasons to reject the said certification made by the State Government as per Annexure-A4 G.O. dated 31.05.2018. Things would have been different if the nature of the post involved was a little bit complicated. Things would have been different if the nature of the post involved was a little bit complicated. Here is a case where the applicant's mother was appointed by direct recruitment to a clerical cadre post in a State Public Sector Undertaking, which can only be in Group ‘C’ or at any rate, can only be in a post or category which is well below both Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ of Central services or State services. So, the conclusion is irreversible that the applicant should have been granted the NCL status, on this account as well. 32. Since the learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Union Government has made various other contentions on the larger issue, regarding the pendency of the evaluation comparability process, we are constrained to get into that aspect as well. In that regard, it has been noted that the celebrated verdict in Indra Sawhney's case supra has been rendered by the Apex Court as early as on 16.11.1992. The basic norms in that regard for OBC-NCL criteria have been laid down by Annexure-A8 O.M. issued by the Union Government as early as on 08.09.1993. More than 2½ long decades had elapsed, at the time of closure of the preliminary application for CSE 2017. Now, about three long decades have elapsed since then. If, even at this stage, even after such long elapse of time, the Union Government authorities and other State Governments, etc. have not completed the process of evaluation comparability of posts in the Public Sector Undertakings, Banks, etc. the present applicant cannot be penalized for that. It is all the more so, since the facts of this case are so simple, clear and straight forward, that the argument of the respondent authorities that if individual case of this nature is allowed, then it would amount to discrimination of other similarly situated wards of public sector employees, in whose cases the said process of evaluation is not over, etc. cannot be countenanced by us. That, to us, appears to be an argument just for the sake of raising an objection. cannot be countenanced by us. That, to us, appears to be an argument just for the sake of raising an objection. The whole official machinery was available for the respondent authorities and the various State Government authorities, and if the said official machinery could not complete the due process of comparability and evaluation, as envisaged in the exception clause of the criteria to category II(C) supra, the child of OBC parents, who had entered into Government service and Public Sector Service in the clerical cadre (Group 'C') and who had worked their way up, cannot be denied the benefits. Indisputably, the applicant belongs to an OBC community. Merely because of the long delay on the part of the official machinery in completing the process, if the exception clause is allowed to operate in the facts of this case, it will be nothing but rank injustice and illegality in denying the claim for a constitutionally conferred right. Moreover, the crucial aspect of the matter is that, the exception of the criteria envisaged in the latter part of the criteria in category II(C) is only the exception and not a general law and more importantly, the said exception is only allowed to operate for a transient period after the issuance of Annexure-A8 O.M. dated 08.09.1993. If a transient exception is allowed to have its strangle-hold in this manner, and that too in a simple and straight forward case, and if we, as a constitutional court, accept such a contention, this constitutional court would also be committing an egregious error. 33. Moreover, the most important aspect in this case is not the scenario of discrimination interse among wards of Public Sector Undertakings, but a clear case of discrimination, as held by the Tribunal, of wards of personnel of Public Sector Undertakings, covered by category II(C), in contradistinction to wards of personnel of Central Government services/State Government services. 33. Moreover, the most important aspect in this case is not the scenario of discrimination interse among wards of Public Sector Undertakings, but a clear case of discrimination, as held by the Tribunal, of wards of personnel of Public Sector Undertakings, covered by category II(C), in contradistinction to wards of personnel of Central Government services/State Government services. If the objection of the respondent authorities is allowed in a case of this nature, the inevitable fall out is that lower ranking candidates, who happened to be wards of personnel of Central Government services/State Government services, covered by category II(A) and category II(B), who were directly recruited to the post below Group ‘A’ and Group ‘B’ etc, would get the benefits that would have been otherwise eligible to a candidate, like the applicant, whose mother is in the Public Sector Undertaking, even though the applicant is having higher rank. For all these reasons, we are not prepared to countenance the above said technical contentions raised before us. We are compelled to say this because we are constrained to meet with the abovesaid arguments strongly urged before us by the respondent authorities. Our considered opinion is that there is no necessity to get into those complications and the simple and clear fact of the matter is as above that the applicant happens to be an OBC candidate whose parents have been directly recruited to a clerical cadre post in the State Government service and State Public Sector Undertaking concerned respectively, and the inevitable fall out of the simple and straight forward case is that both the parents were appointed initially by direct recruitment only to Group ‘C’ post or at any rate, to posts below Group ‘A’ or Group ‘B’ of Central/State services. Hence, the abovesaid complex issues posed before us need not be really examined and we are constrained to get into those aspects only since it was consistently and strongly urged before us, etc. 34. As regards the applicability of the time line for submission of OBC certificates, the learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, 2016 (4) SCC 754 . A copy of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in that case was also made available to us for perusal by the learned counsel appearing for the original applicant. A copy of the judgment of the Delhi High Court in that case was also made available to us for perusal by the learned counsel appearing for the original applicant. It appears, in the facts of the case, that the OBC certificate, along with the application, was to be submitted on or before the prescribed last date in that regard. The prescribed last date in that regard was 21.01.2008, pursuant to the selection notification issued in that regard on 30.08.2007. The appellants therein had submitted their applications within the last date, but without the OBC certificates. The OBC certificates were issued to them only later on 06.02.2008, 23.06.2008, 02.12.2008, 08.12.2008 and 01.02.2008 respectively. The Apex Court has held in Paras 14, 15 and 18 of the decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case supra, as follows: “14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in the case of Pushpa (supra). In that case, the learned single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The learned single judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India as well as Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University and Others. The learned single Judge in the case of Pushpa (supra) also considered another judgment of Delhi High Court, in the case of Tej Pal Singh vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC Online Del. 1092 : ILR 2000 (1) Del. 298, wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the S.C. and S.T. categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate. 15. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp. 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 has been extracted in Pushpa vs. Government NCT of Delhi and Others, 2009 (2) Laws (Delhi) 278 along with the speech delivered by Dr. 15. The relevant paragraph from the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp. 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385 has been extracted in Pushpa vs. Government NCT of Delhi and Others, 2009 (2) Laws (Delhi) 278 along with the speech delivered by Dr. Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly and reads thus: “9........251. Referring to the concept of equality of opportunity in public employment, as embodied in Article 10 of the Draft Constitution, which finally emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution, and the conflicting claims of various communities for representation in public administration, Dr. Ambedkar emphatically declared that reservation should be confined to “a minority of seats” least the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it. Dr.Ambedkar stated: “....firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly, that there shall be reservations in favour of certain communities which have not so far had a “proper look-in” so to say W.A. No. 2029/2018 26 into the administration...Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity. Therefore, the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minority of seats. It is then only that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation....we have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State......” [Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol.7, pp.701-702 (1948-1949)] These words embody the raison d'etre of reservation and its limitations. Reservation is one of the measures adopted by the Constitution to remedy the continuing evil effects of prior inequities stemming from discriminatory practices against various classes of people which have resulted in their social, educational and economic backwardness. Reservation is one of the measures adopted by the Constitution to remedy the continuing evil effects of prior inequities stemming from discriminatory practices against various classes of people which have resulted in their social, educational and economic backwardness. Reservation is meant to be addressed to the present social, educational and economic backwardness caused by purposeful societal discrimination. To attack the continuing effects and perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such measure, in so far as one group is preferred to the exclusion of another, must necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the fundamental constitutional goal. Sawhney case (supra). xxx xxx xxx 18. In our considered view, the decision rendered in Pushpa (supra) is in conformity with the position of law laid down by this Court, which have been referred to supra. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, without noticing the binding precedent on the question laid down by the Constitution Benches of this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) and Valsamma Paul vs. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the directive principles of State policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity. The constitutional concept of reservation envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39A of the directive principles of State policy is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters W.A. No. 2029/2018 27 Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) and Valsamma Paul (supra). Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters W.A. No. 2029/2018 27 Patent Appeal No. 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) and Valsamma Paul (supra). Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. The judgment and order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) is hereby restored.” (Emphasis supplied) 35. We are also apprised by both sides that the correctness of the view taken by the Two Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case supra has been doubted subsequently by another Two Judge Bench of the Apex Court as per Exts.P11 order dated 06.11.2017 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 25622-25624 of 2017, etc. [which has been produced at pages 531 to 535 of the Paper Book of this O.P.] We are also told by both sides that, till date, no further interim order or final order has been passed by the Apex Court in Ext.P11 S.L.P. 36. Sri. P. Nandakumar, learned counsel appearing for the original applicant would urge that, though what is stated in the judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case supra is regarding submission of OBC certificate, the same would have been only in relation to OBC-NCL status certificate, in as much as a simpliciter OBC certificate by itself will not enure any reservation benefit to the applicants, as only those OBCs who also satisfy the NCL status alone can get OBC reservation and that therefore, the OBC certificates dealt with in the abovesaid decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case supra can only be OBC-NCL certificate, etc. Hence, it is urged that the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case supra should be considered and relied on by this Court, etc. Hence, it is urged that the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case supra should be considered and relied on by this Court, etc. Further that, since the ratio decidendi of the abovesaid decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case supra has not been disturbed, in any manner known to law, subsequently by the Apex Court, and mere pendency of an order of reference, will not have the effect of disturbing the ratio decidendi therein, this Court as a High Court is obliged to follow the said dictum. 37. We have to seriously consider the said plea made by learned counsel for the original applicant. But we would hasten to add that we have already made our findings regarding the time line and at best, the technical time line that was not observed in this case was only the matter relating to the issuance of Annexure-A4 G.O. dated 31.05.2018, as the same has been secured beyond the last date of submission of Annexure-R1(b) DAF Main Application 2017, which was only up to 28.10.2017. We have already held that, even without Annexure-A4 certificate, a simple conclusion could have been easily arrived at in the facts of this particular case. Moreover, we have also held that, in view of the admitted stand of the respondent authorities, as made out in paragraph No. 6(ii) of Annexure-A9 allocation proceedings dated 21.08.2017, a document, in the nature of Annexure-A4 dated 31.05.2018, should have been examined by the State Government, since it is a matter pertaining to OBC-NCL status, etc. Hence, even de hors the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case supra, we have already held that the only reasonable conclusion that has been arrived at in the facts of the simple and straight forward case is as above. However, we would also hold that, since it is admitted by both sides that the ratio decidendi of the decision of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya's case supra has not been disturbed in any manner known to law by the Apex Court subsequently, we are bound by the same. Hence, from a slightly different perspective, we are arriving at the same conclusion as arrived at by the Tribunal in the instant case. Hence, from a slightly different perspective, we are arriving at the same conclusion as arrived at by the Tribunal in the instant case. We are of the view that in the light of the reasonings given by us hereinabove, the applicant is entitled for the reliefs in the facts and circumstances of this case, even without placing reliance on Ram Kumar Gijroya's case supra. 38. Hence, we are of the firm view that no effective grounds in public law are made available to disturb the well considered conclusions of the Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of this case. However, we note that the allocation process for the CSE selection notification 2017 has elapsed some time in 2018 itself, and it is the case of the applicant that even OBC-NCL candidates having much lower ranks than the applicant have been allotted to the IPS 2017, etc. Further, we also note that the Tribunal has rendered the impugned verdict in this case as early as on 13.10.2020. The present O.P. has been filed belatedly only on 20.12.2021. We are told that the O.P. has been filed only after the applicant had filed an application before the Tribunal for enforcement of the verdict of the Tribunal, and the said proceedings are pending as MA No. 199 of 2021 filed by the applicant herein in O.A. No. 718 of 2017 on the file of CAT, Ernakulam Bench, which was filed on 12.03.2021. Hence, we would order that the petitioners herein/respondents in the O.A. will immediately comply with the directions of the Tribunal, to grant OBC-NCL status to the applicant for the CSE selection notification 2017 and duly consider his placement in the correct manner, based on his OBC-NCL status in the allocation process and to make the correct allocation in that regard, without any further delay, at any rate, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 39. With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition will stand dismissed.