1. Petitioners in both these writ petitions challenge the communication issued to them informing that the certificate submitted by those petitioners cannot be considered for treating them under the Other Backward Classes belonging to Non-Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) category, due to their failure to submit the relevant documents within the time prescribed. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26238 of 2026 also challenges the Note to Clause 6 of the Information Brochure published by the respondents. Since the main issue in both these writ petitions are the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Petitioners were applicants for admission to the courses offered by the Indian Institute of Science, Education and Research (for short, 'IISER') and participated in the Aptitude Test 2026. Pursuant to the Information Brochure for admission, petitioners submitted the application along with the Non-Creamy Layer certificate (for short 'NCL certificate'). The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26238 of 2026 submitted along with the application an NCL certificate dated 09.02.2026, while the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27028 of 2026 submitted an NCL certificate dated 13.01.2026 and claimed reservation under the category OBC-NCL. Pursuant to the examination, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.26238 of 2026 was allotted an overall rank of 4281 and category rank of 955, as evident from Ext.P4, while petitioner in W.P. (C) No.27028 of 2026 was allotted the rank 7117 and category rank 1701, as evident from Ext.P8.

3. According to the petitioners, their category rank is not being reckoned with, since the NCL certificate uploaded by them were issued prior to 01.04.2026. The petitioners have pleaded that the Note to Clause 6 of Information Brochure Ext.P1 insists that the certificate should be valid for the financial year 2026-27 and must be issued on or after 01.04.2026, which according to the petitioners is arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioners contend that the certificates obtained by them, though issued prior to April 2026, are specifically stipulated as valid for a period of one year from its date of issue and therefore the same ought to be treated as sufficient. The petitioners have also stated that immediately after the last date for submitting the NCL certificate, they had submitted such certificates, despite which, the petitioners were not considered under the OBC-NCL category. The above circumstances have compelled the petitioners to approach this Court seeking directions including a declaration that Note to Clause 6 of Ext.P1 Information Brochure to the extent it insists on OBC-NCL certificate to be issued on or after 01.04.2026 as illegal and to consider their candidature under OBC-NCL category.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent stating that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the entire process of scrutiny and evaluation of the application was carried out outside the territorial jurisdiction of Kerala and further that the Information Brochure itself stipulated that all disputes will be subject to the jurisdiction of the courts at Odisha. It was also stated that the terms of the Information Brochure have not been subject to any challenge in the writ petition and therefore since there is a violation of the terms and conditions of the Information Brochure, the writ petition itself is not maintainable. The respondents further alleged that the certificates submitted by the respective petitioners along with their application, had expired and was in violation of the Notification issued by the Government of India which requires the certificate to be valid only till 31st of March following the date of issue of the certificate and as the certificate submitted by her was issued prior to April 2026, the same cannot be considered. It is further stated that the certificates submitted by the petitioners was in violation of the terms and conditions of the Information Brochure and that the petitioners did not possess a valid NCL certificate before the cut-off date of 21.06.2026 and the subsequent certificate obtained by the petitioners cannot be reckoned to be considered in the said category. It was also stated that there are numerous cases where the applicants had failed to submit valid certificates within time and the process of scrutiny of documents has also been completed and successful applicants have been issued with offer letters. It was stated that in the background of such circumstances, this Court ought not to interfere. According to the respondents, petitioners' failure to read the contents of the Information Brochure will result in rejection of their application and such a decision is necessary in the interest of the larger student community. Further, extending the cut off date is not a proper procedure to be resorted to especially when the respondent is working in an extremely tight and strict timeline and classes are required to be started as early as possible. It is also stated that any concession granted would create huge hurdles and would also create an extremely harmful precedent for all times to come.

5. I have heard Sri.D.Kishore and Sri. Mohammed Jameel, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri.Shireesh Gupta on behalf of 2nd respondent in W.P.(C) No.27028 of 2026 and Sri.S.Vishnu on behalf of the 3rd respondent in W.P.(C) No.26238 of 2026 apart from Sri.Suvin R.Menon, the learned Senior Panel Counsel on behalf of the first respondent.

6. The main question that arises for consideration is whether the Note and other stipulations in the Information Brochure for the IISER Aptitude Test which requires the OBC Non Creamy Layer Certificate to be issued on or after 01.04.2026 is legally justified and whether certificate produced by the petitioners can be reckoned for treating them under the category of OBC-NCL. The question of jurisdiction of this court has also been raised.

7. As far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioners had applied for admission to the course from Kerala and were informed of rejection of their NCL certificate, by communication addressed to them in Kerala. The commencement of their right arose in Kerala while enforcement of that not only when it was rejected but also when it was communicated in Kerala. Though there is a distinction between a right of action and a cause of action, with the former arising as soon as there is an invasion of right, and the latter being the right to enforce the said right, the term cause of action cannot be interpreted narrowly. A person residing anywhere in the country being aggrieved by an order of an authority, including a State, may have a right of action in law, while the jurisdiction of a High Court under Article 226 can be invoked even when the cause of action arises partly within the territorial jurisdiction. It is elementary that ‘cause of action’ is a bundle of facts or a set of facts giving rise to the right to sue.

8. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the decision in Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India and Another [(2004) 6 SCC 254], wherein it was observed as follows:

                  “Keeping in view the expressions used in clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, indisputably even if a small fraction of cause of action accrues within the jurisdiction of the court, the court will have jurisdiction in the matter.”

9. In the instant writ petitions, since the applications were submitted from Kerala and the rejection was received by the petitioners in Kerala and the documents claiming the benefit of OBC-NCL category were also submitted from Kerala, certainly a fraction of the cause of action has arisen in Kerala entitling this Court to consider these writ petitions.

10. There is yet another contention raised on jurisdiction, as the Information Brochure contains a printed clause that only courts in Odisha will have jurisdiction. However, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be limited by a stipulation in an Information Brochure conferring a forum for disputes. The writ jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be excluded even by a statute and hence the right of judicial review under Article 226 cannot in all circumstances be curtailed by a clause in the Information Booklet. The decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India and Others [(2020) 13 SCC 285] is relevant in this context. In view of the above, this Court has the jurisdiction to consider this writ petition.

11. Adverting to the merits of the contentions raised, it needs to be noticed that note to clause 6 of the Information Brochure refers to the OBC-NCL certificate in bold letters, as follows:

                  ”Note that the EWS/OBC-NCL certificate should be issued by the Government of India, valid for the financial year 2026-27 and issued on or after April 01 2026.”

12. There is a further stipulation in clause 13 regarding documents required for the application and in respect of candidates seeking admission under the OBC-NCL category, the following has also been stipulated:

                  “* As per the latest guidelines of the Government of India, the OBC-NCL certificate should have been issued on or after April 01, 2026.

                  * If any OBC-NCL candidates fail to submit the OBC-NCL certificate (issued on or after April 01, 2026) at the time of online application, the candidate must upload a signed declaration form - “declaration by the candidate in lieu of OBC-NCL certificate” (see annexure). The candidate has to upload the certificate (issued on or after April 01, 2026) on or before June 21, 2026, failing which the candidate will not be considered for admission under the OBC-NCL category. Such candidates will be considered for admission only under the unreserved category.”

13. A reading of the above two clauses in the Information Brochure issued by the respondent reveals that the requirement of a certificate issued on or after April 01, 2026 has been specifically detailed not only in bold letters in the note, but again in the clause relating to documents required for the application. The above stipulations have been followed by numerous students who all would have submitted their applications. Similarly there would be several other applicants who would not have been able to submit their applications as stipulated and would have been refused to be considered by the respondents, under the reserved category of OBC-NCL. Nevertheless, the petitioners assert that they had subsequently submitted certificates issued after 01.04.2026 certifying them as falling within the OBC-NCL category. However, those certificates were issued and submitted after 21.06.2026 - the cut-off date for production of those certificates.

14. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to the decision in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Others [(2005) 9 SCC 779], wherein the Supreme Court had observed as follows:

                  “The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard, i.e., in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Simillary, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc., necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains to the domain of procedure. Every infraction of rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.”

15. The above principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court indicates that in the matter of submission of proof of eligibility based on qualification, there can be no relaxation while in the matter of claim of reservation, there can be some relaxation, depending on the facts of each case, as it is a matter of submission of proof and hence falls in the domain of procedure.

16. In the instant writ petitions, both petitioners had, along with their application, submitted documents showing that they belonged to the OBC-NCL category, but those certificates, as mentioned earlier, were issued prior to the date fixed in the Information Brochure, i.e., 01.04.2026. By the stipulation in the information brochure, they should have submitted certificates issued on or after 01.04.2026. Later both petitioners had submitted such certificates as well. However those certificates were issued and submitted beyond the cut off date of 21.06.2026.

17. Apart from the above, the decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another [(2016) 4 SCC 754] is also a useful reference, as the Supreme Court had laid down the principle that certificates for claiming reservation can be submitted even after the last date for filing applications but before publication of provisional results. Of course the facts are different but the principle can be adopted to the instant facts as at the time of publishing the results, petitioners were categorized as falling in the OBC-NCL category and therefore all that remains is a cross verification as to whether they continue to remain in the OBC-NCL category, as stipulated in the information brochure on the date of admission.

18. It is evident from the rank certificates issued, that both petitioners have been considered and included in the OBC-NCL category. The inclusion is of course, subject to verification of documents. Certainly, it is a matter that falls in the domain of procedure as to whether the claim of eligibility and the categorisation of the petitioners by IISER itself, as falling in the OBC-NCL category, is justified or not. The rigid stipulation of production of the NCL certificate on or before 21.06.2026 is, according to me, in the circumstances, required to be relaxed, as observed in Dolly Chhanda’s case (supra).

19. Further, the initial certificates submitted by both the petitioners reveal that those certificates were stated as valid for a period of one year from the date of issue. Obviously, the validity period mentioned in those certificates covered the date fixed in the information brochure as well as the cut off date - 21.06.2026. Subsequently, on being informed of the stipulation of producing a certificate issued on or after 01.04.2026, petitioners have submitted such certificates as well, though beyond the cut off date. Thus, the claim of the petitioners’ to be included in the category of OBC-NCL continues to remain valid at the time of submitting the applications as well as at the time of admission process. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that a rigid adherence to the stipulation of a certificate to be submitted on or before 21.06.2026, in the case of the petitioners, is arbitrary and unreasonable. Thus, the petitioners ought to be considered as falling in the category of OBC-NCL, based on certificates produced as Ext.P2 and Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.26238 of 2026 and Ext.P1 and Ext.P5 in W.P.(C) No.27028 of 2026.

Hence, Ext.P10 communication in W.P.(C) No.27028 of 2026 and Ext.P9 communication in W.P.(C) No.26238 of 2026 are quashed and there will be a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners as falling in the category of OBC-NCL, based on the certificates already produced by them.

The writ petitions are allowed to the above extent.