Civil Judges' Appointment | Supreme Court Takes Divergent View On Granting Relief To Candidates Who Submitted Category Certificates After Cut-Off Date

A Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi expressed divergent view on the issue. Justice Rastogi quashed the order of the Rajasthan High Court and allowed the appeal. He was of the opinion that to do complete justice, Article 142 of the Constitution of India is to be invoked to direct the respondents to consider each of the appellants for appointment who could not be adjusted against the advertised vacancies. However, Justice Trivedi concluded that the appellants who are the 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.

Factual Background

Candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes, More Backward Class and Economically Weaker Section qualified for the post of Civil Judge, but were not considered in their respective category because they furnished their certificates after the last date indicated on the job advertisement. These candidates did not qualify in the open category. Subsequently, they moved the Rajasthan High Court seeking relief. However, their writ petition was dismissed.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

Justice Rastogi: He noted that it is not the respondents’ case that the concerned candidates do not hold the eligibility of the respective categories, but their only fault is that their certificate is of a later date than the one mentioned in the job advertisement. It was taken note of that it was the first time that the reservation to MBC and EWC category was introduced and the candidates were completely alien to the procedure and the format in which the certificate ought to be furnished. Moreover, the candidates got to know that they have to furnish their category certificate prior to 31st August, 2021 only on 4th August, 2022 and not on 22th July, 2021 when the availability of the posts was notified.

Placing reliance on a catena of judgments, the judge noted that when the rules are silent and no date is notified to satisfy the eligibility requirement under the advertisement, the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date of application by which the applications are to be received by the recruiting authority.

It was also noted that the general rule is that when one participates in the recruitment process, they must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for the purpose unless there is express provision to the contrary or there is some relaxation. In the present case, the rules are silent that the certificate of the category has to be produced of the period on or before the last date of application, the candidates had furnished their certificate at the time of advertisement and had participated in the process of selection.

Justice Trivedi: She noted that in the notice dated 4th August, 2022, the candidates were directed to bring all the original documents along with the attested/certified photocopies at the time of interview. It was taken into consideration that the OBC/MBC/EWS depends on social and economic status of the is dynamic. Therefore, the date of issuance of certificate assumes significance to ascertain that the candidate belonged to the said category on the date of application or on the date prescribed in the advertisement. In 2015, the Rajasthan Government had issued a circular stating the validity period of caste certificates for OBC would be issued once that of the non-creamy layer will be valid for one year. Later, the circular was clarified and the caste certificate of OBC was said to be valid for one year, but if the applicant had been issued a certificate of ‘not falling in the creamy layer’ category and if they did not fall within the ‘creamy layer’ in the subsequent year, then the previously issued certificate of ‘falling within the non-creamy layer’ would be valid, on them furnishing affidavit, for a maximum period of three years. She noted that the candidates in the present case were required to furnish valid certificates, which were in consonance with the Government circulars. She added -

“It is needless to say that when a candidate applies under a particular reserved category, he or she is required to have the certificate of that particular category on the date on which he or she makes the application to show his or her eligibility to apply under the said category. If such certificates are obtained subsequent to date of their application or subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications mentioned in the advertisement, such certificates could not be said to be valid certificates, more particularly in cases where the candidate applies under OBC-NCL or EWS, which category is highly dynamic and not static, as the economic status of the candidate would keep on changing depending on the income of the candidate.”

Justice Trivedi concluded that it is trite law that in absence of fixed date indicated in the advertisement inviting applications, with respect to which the requisite eligibility criteria is to be judged, and if the rules are silent, the only certain date for scrutiny of the eligibility would be the last date for making the applications.

Case details

Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court And Ors.| 2023 LiveLaw SC 460  |SLP(C) No. 16428 of 2022| 18th May, 2023| Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi