After Split Verdict, Supreme Court Rejects Rajasthan Civil Judge Candidates' Plea To Submit Caste Certificates Beyond Cut-Off Date
After a split verdict in the matter, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court today dismissed appeals filed by certain candidates to the post of Civil Judge, who were denied appointment by Rajasthan High Court on the ground that they submitted category certificates beyond the cut-off date.A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih delivered the decision, upholding...
After a split verdict in the matter, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court today dismissed appeals filed by certain candidates to the post of Civil Judge, who were denied appointment by Rajasthan High Court on the ground that they submitted category certificates beyond the cut-off date.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and AG Masih delivered the decision, upholding the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. It observed:
"The Subsequent Notice, which was issued by the Rajasthan High Court on 04.08.2022, cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any basis. It specified that the certificate belonging to the concerned reserved category should have been issued prior or upto 31.08.2021 i.e. the last date of receipt of the application in pursuance to the Advertisement. This was because the Advertisement required a candidate to possess eligibility upto the cut-off date.
Thus, the Subsequent Notice issued was in consonance with law and as per the Advertisement, applicable Rules, instructions and circulars issued by the competent authority. The plea of the appellants is unsustainable and deserves to be rejected. No relaxation can be granted in the given facts and circumstances of the case nor can it be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of any such discretionary clause in the Advertisement/Rules/Instructions."
Briefly put, the appellants were candidates who sought appointment to the post of Civil Judge in Rajasthan Judicial Services. They appeared in the Civil Judge Examination 2021 and successfully cleared the preliminary examination, followed by mains examination, as per the requirements of marks in their respective reserved categories. However, as none of them had category certificates as per the date specified in a Subsequent Notice issued after the Advertisement, their names were not included in the list of candidates called for interview.
Admittedly, the Advertisement did not clearly mention the date with regard to issuance of category certificate. Rather, it came from the Subsequent Notice, which required candidates under the reserved category to submit a certificate issued within one year of the application deadline i.e. 31.08.2021 or a certificate issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020, along with an affidavit.
Initially, the appellants approached the High Court, claiming that no deadline for submitting the category certificate was specified in the Advertisement, and therefore, the late imposition of this condition was arbitrary and unjust. However, the High Court rejected their petitions observing that OBC-NCL status is determined annually and requires a valid certificate at the time of the application submission. In taking the view, the High Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India to further note that where no specific date is provided for document submission, the cut-off date for application submission is applicable.
Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. They contended that the High Court erred in not considering that the condition introduced by the Subsequent Notice arbitrarily limited their chances of selection, despite their having an Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) (OBC-NCL)/Most Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) (MBC-NCL) certificate since 2016, which was valid as per the Advertisement.
The condition, it was claimed, violated the appellants' fundamental rights. Moreover, there was no such requirement in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 as was introduced by the Subsequent Notice.
After hearing the parties and going through relevant material, the Supreme Court noted that the Advertisement required the appellants to produce a valid certificate to their claim as per rules and instructions, and in the prescribed format.
"The Advertisement appears to be silent on the aspect of last date of issuance of valid category certificate, however, clause (i) and (iii) of paragraph 06 explicitly provide that the candidates from concerned categories therein were to furnish certificate issued by the competent authority as per rules. Thereafter, a collective reference to clauses 1 and 2 of paragraph 18 attracts our attention as it clarified that candidates should only apply under a said category if they meet all the eligibility conditions as per the Advertisement."
Further, as per relevant law, rules and instructions, a certificate of a claim, as put forth by the appellants, was valid for 1 year from the date of issuance, and subsequently, extendable up to 3 years, provided an affidavit to the said effect was also produced along with the originally issued certificate.
From judicial precedents on the point, the Court also noted, a claim made by a candidate, while filling their application as per the concerned advertisement, was to hold good as on the date of his or her application or as per the last date of submission of applications prescribed by the concerned advertisement.
Thereupon, considering the date of issuance of the category certificates in the appellants' case, it was concluded that none of them had a valid certificate and/or accompanied by the affidavit as per the proforma at the relevant time as per requirement.
Split Verdict
In May, 2023, a bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi delivered a split verdict in the matter. While Justice Rastogi opined that the candidates were entitled to relief, Justice Trivedi disagreed.
Justice Rastogi was of the opinion that to do complete justice, Article 142 of the Constitution of India was to be invoked to direct the respondents to consider each of the appellants for appointment who could not be adjusted against the advertised vacancies. On the other hand, Justice Trivedi opined that the appellants, who were defaulters, could not be given preferential treatment by accepting the certificates produced by them as valid, though the same were obtained by them after the last date for the submission of applications fixed in the advertisement.
In view of the split verdict, the matter was placed before a three-judge bench.
Case Title: SAKSHI ARHA Versus THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND ORS., C.A. No. 3957/2023 (and connected cases)
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 405
