# SAKSHI ARHA v. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** 2023 INSC 559
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2023-05-18
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajay Rastogi, Bela M. Trivedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/sakshi-arha-v-the-rajasthan-high-court-and-others-37888
- **Pages:** 54

## Headnote

Judicial Service - Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 - r.
10 - Selection for the post of Civil Judge - Submission of caste
certificate - Certificate not accepted - Benefit of Reservation not
given - An advertisement issued by respondent dated 22.07.2021,
selection process held for the post of Civil Judge - Appellants being
members of Other backward Classes (Non-creamy layer), More
Backward Class (NCL) and from the Economically weaker Section
(EWS), applied for the post in their respective reserved category -
Exam conducted - Appellants scored higher marks in their category,
however, their certificate relating to category was somewhere later
to 31.08.2021 i.e last date of application form, the benefit of
reservation not extended to appellant - Writ filed before the High
Court was dismissed - Held: (Per Ajay Rastogi, J.): In the given facts
and circumstances, when the rules are silent and there is no such
instruction that the certificate of the category has to be produced of
the period on or before the last date of the application under the
advertisement and each of the applicants has produced the certificate
relating to category on being demanded by the recruiting authority
when the list came to be published of the candidates who were
provisionally called for interview on 04.08.2022, each of the
applicants indisputedly has furnished their certificate of the category
to which they belong at the time of advertisement and had
participated in the process of selection - High Court had gone wrong
and was influenced with the condition of eligibility to be looked into
on the last date of application - Respondents directed to consider
candidature of each of the appellant for appointment with
consequential benefits - Held (Per Bela M. Trivedi, J.) (Dissenting)
: It is no more res integra that in absence of a fixed date indicated
in the advertisement inviting applications, with reference to which
the requisite eligibility is to be judged, and when the rules are silent,
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 583 : 2023 INSC 559
583
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
the only certain date for the scrutiny of the eligibility of a candidate
would be the last date for making the applications - Hence, this
Court found no error having been committed by the High Court
while passing the impugned judgments and orders.
Placing the matter before Hon'ble CJI for constitution of
appropriate Bench, the Court
Per AJAY RASTOGI, J.
HELD : 1. It is true that the general rule is that while
participating in the recruitment process, the person must possess
the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose
unless there is any express provision to the contrary and there
can be no relaxation in the matter of holding requisite eligibility
qualification by the date fixed and this has to be established by
producing necessary certificate or degree, as the case may be.
But, at the same time, in order to avail the benefit of reservation
or weightage, necessary certificates have to be produced but they
are in the nature of proof for the purpose of seeking entitlement
to claim the benefit of reservation, but it has no nexus with the
last date of the application and, it may not be proper to apply any
rigid principle in the absence of any rule to the contrary. As a
matter of caution, every infraction of the rule relating to submission
of proof in availing the benefit of reservation may not necessarily
result in rejection of the candidature.[Para 32][606-F-H; 607-A]
2. The reservation of vacancies of various categories as
referred to in Rule 10 is not a condition of eligibility for the
candidate to participate in the selection process as the certificate
of category for the purpose of claiming reservation will arise not
at the stage when the application form is filled making selfdeclaration by the individual candidate to participate in the
selection process but at the stage when the select list is to be
prepared of the candidates who have participat

## Text

_Characters 0–39,762 of 117,101. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39762 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
583
SAKSHI ARHA
v.
THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 16428 of 2022)
MAY 18, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Judicial Service - Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 - r.
10 - Selection for the post of Civil Judge - Submission of caste
certificate - Certificate not accepted - Benefit of Reservation not
given - An advertisement issued by respondent dated 22.07.2021,
selection process held for the post of Civil Judge - Appellants being
members of Other backward Classes (Non-creamy layer), More
Backward Class (NCL) and from the Economically weaker Section
(EWS), applied for the post in their respective reserved category -
Exam conducted - Appellants scored higher marks in their category,
however, their certificate relating to category was somewhere later
to 31.08.2021 i.e last date of application form, the benefit of
reservation not extended to appellant - Writ filed before the High
Court was dismissed - Held: (Per Ajay Rastogi, J.): In the given facts
and circumstances, when the rules are silent and there is no such
instruction that the certificate of the category has to be produced of
the period on or before the last date of the application under the
advertisement and each of the applicants has produced the certificate
relating to category on being demanded by the recruiting authority
when the list came to be published of the candidates who were
provisionally called for interview on 04.08.2022, each of the
applicants indisputedly has furnished their certificate of the category
to which they belong at the time of advertisement and had
participated in the process of selection - High Court had gone wrong
and was influenced with the condition of eligibility to be looked into
on the last date of application - Respondents directed to consider
candidature of each of the appellant for appointment with
consequential benefits - Held (Per Bela M. Trivedi, J.) (Dissenting)
: It is no more res integra that in absence of a fixed date indicated
in the advertisement inviting applications, with reference to which
the requisite eligibility is to be judged, and when the rules are silent,
[2023] 9 S.C.R. 583 : 2023 INSC 559
583
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
584
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
the only certain date for the scrutiny of the eligibility of a candidate
would be the last date for making the applications - Hence, this
Court found no error having been committed by the High Court
while passing the impugned judgments and orders.
Placing the matter before Hon'ble CJI for constitution of
appropriate Bench, the Court
Per AJAY RASTOGI, J.
HELD : 1. It is true that the general rule is that while
participating in the recruitment process, the person must possess
the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose
unless there is any express provision to the contrary and there
can be no relaxation in the matter of holding requisite eligibility
qualification by the date fixed and this has to be established by
producing necessary certificate or degree, as the case may be.
But, at the same time, in order to avail the benefit of reservation
or weightage, necessary certificates have to be produced but they
are in the nature of proof for the purpose of seeking entitlement
to claim the benefit of reservation, but it has no nexus with the
last date of the application and, it may not be proper to apply any
rigid principle in the absence of any rule to the contrary. As a
matter of caution, every infraction of the rule relating to submission
of proof in availing the benefit of reservation may not necessarily
result in rejection of the candidature.[Para 32][606-F-H; 607-A]
2. The reservation of vacancies of various categories as
referred to in Rule 10 is not a condition of eligibility for the
candidate to participate in the selection process as the certificate
of category for the purpose of claiming reservation will arise not
at the stage when the application form is filled making selfdeclaration by the individual candidate to participate in the
selection process but at the stage when the select list is to be
prepared of the candidates who have participated in the selection
process since the final select list has to be published categorywise by giving the benefit of reservation to the candidates who
have participated in the process of selection and for no other
purpose and when the respondent has demanded from the applicant
to furnish their respective certificate of the category to which
one had participated in the selection process under its notice
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
585
dated 04th August, 2022, indisputedly each of the applicant had
furnished the certificate of their category to which one belong at
the time of advertisement when demanded by the recruiting
authority in terms of Clause 6(i) & (iii) read with Clause 22(3) of
the advertisement dated 22nd July, 2021. [Para 34][607-E-H]
3. That apart, taking into consideration the Scheme of Rules,
2010, which is indisputedly, silent on the subject issue and the
advertisement dated 22nd July, 2021 nowhere indicates that the
caste certificate/certificate of category has to be produced of the
period prior to the last date of the application (31st August, 2021)
in the instant case. To the contrary, Clause 6(i) & (iii) read with
Clause 22(3) of the advertisement, such certificate of category
which one claimed for seeking the benefit of reservation, has to
be produced on demand by the recruiting authority. [Para 38][610B-C]
4. In the given facts and circumstances, when the rules are
silent and there is no such instruction that the certificate of the
category has to be produced of the period on or before the last
date of the application under the advertisement and each of the
applicants has produced the certificate relating to category on
being demanded by the recruiting authority when the list came
to be published of the candidates who were provisionally called
for interview on 04th August, 2022, each of the applicants
indisputedly has furnished their certificate of the category to which
they belong at the time of advertisement and had participated in
the process of selection. At this stage, the High Court had gone
wrong and was influenced with the condition of eligibility to be
looked into on the last date of application, while examining the
production of certificate of the category to which the candidate
belong and participated in the selection process is in no manner
co-related with the conditions of eligibility and the judgments
relied upon to non-suite the claim of the appellants has no
application in the facts of the instant case. [Para 39][610-D-F]
5. The appeals succeed and are accordingly allowed. The
impugned judgment of the High Court is hereby quashed and set
SAKSHI ARHA v. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
586
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
aside and the respondents are directed to consider candidature
of each of the appellant for appointment with consequential
benefits including seniority to the post of Civil Judge on their
participation in the selection process held pursuant to
advertisement dated 22nd July, 2021.[Para 43][612-C-D]
Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others
(2007) 4 SCC 54 : [2007] 3 SCR 95; Jyoti Beniwal v.
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Its
Registrar General and Another (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.11784/2022); Rakesh Kumar Sharma v.
State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2013) 11 SCC 58;
Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) v. University of Rajasthan and
Others (1993) 3 Supp SCC 168 : [1993] 1 SCR 186;
Bhupinderpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and
Others (2000) 5 SCC 262; Jasbir Rani and Others v.
State of Punjab and Another (2002) 1 SCC 124 : [2001]
4 Suppl. SCR 494; Shankar K. Mandal and Others v.
State of Bihar and Others (2003) 9 SCC 519 : [2003]
3 SCR 796; Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, Jee & Others
(2005) 9 SCC 779 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 79; Ram
Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection
Board and Another (2016) 4 SCC 754; Karn Singh
Yadav v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 1341 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 3 SCR 95
referred to
para 14
(2013) 11 SCC 58
referred to
para 20
[1993] 1 SCR 186
referred to
para 26
(2000) 5 SCC 262
referred to
para 26
[2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 494
referred to
para 26
[2003] 3 SCR 796
referred to
para 26
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 79
referred to
para 35
(2016) 4 SCC 754
referred to
para 36
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
587
Per BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. (Dissenting)
HELD : 1. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the
certificates to the persons belonging to the reserved categories
like SC/ST/OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS are being issued by the
competent authorities of the respective State Governments
keeping in view the provisions contained in the Constitution of
India and the guidelines/principles laid down by this Court from
time to time. The status of a person whether he belongs to SC or
ST category depends on the caste which he belongs to by birth,
and such status would remain unchanged and would be static,
however, the status of a person whether he belongs to OBCNCL/MBC-NCL/EWS would depend upon his/her social and
economic status, and such status would keep on changing
depending on his/her income and therefore would be dynamic. It
is very well settled position of law that the persons belonging to
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were and are treated
as a separate category, and the principle of "creamy layer" does
not apply to the said categories. It applies only to the persons
belonging to the socially and the economically backward classes.
Ergo, the date of issuance of certificate to the persons belonging
to OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS categories assumes significance
for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the candidate
claiming to belong to a particular reserved category on the date
when he/she applied for the post in question under such category,
in fact belonged to the said category on the date on which such
application was made or on the date prescribed in the
advertisement. [Para 14][625-D-G]
2. Having regard to the said instructions contained in the
said advertisement dated 22.07.2021, there remains no shadow
of doubt that if a candidate had applied under any of the reserved
categories, he or she was expected to have a valid certificate
issued by the competent authority as per rules in the prescribed
format, to show his or her eligibility to apply under such category.
The time limit for making such application as stated in Clause 17
of the said advertisement was upto 5 PM on 31.08.2021. Under
the circumstances, the candidate was expected to have the
SAKSHI ARHA v. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
requisite certificate to show that he or she belonged to the
concerned reserved category, on the date of making application
or on the last date fixed for the submission of applications i.e.
31.08.2021. Such certificate to be produced by the concerned
candidate had to be a valid certificate issued by the competent
authority in consonance with the circulars issued by the State
Government dated 09.09.2015 and as clarified in the Circular
dated 08.08.2019, which governed the issue with regard to the
validity of such certificates. [Para 22][630-C-E]
3. All the appellants had produced their respective
certificates which were obtained by them after the last date fixed
for the submission of the application i.e., 31.08.2021, and had also
not produced the documents/affidavits in support thereof, in
compliance with the circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019.
Therefore, the certificates produced by the appellants at the time
of interview could not said to be valid certificates as mandated in
the advertisement dated 22.07.2021 by the respondents. [Para
23][630-H; 631-A]
4. It was sought to be submitted by counsel for the
appellants that there was no specific date mentioned in the
advertisement dated 22.07.2021 as to the validity period of the
certificates to be furnished by the appellants, and subsequent
notice dated 04.08.2022 directing the appellants to produce the
certificates as mentioned therein was highly unreasonable, and
tantamount to changing the rules of game after the process of
selection had started. The Court does not find any substance in
the said argument. As stated earlier, there were specific
instructions given in the advertisement that the candidates
applying under the reserved categories had to submit the valid
certificates issued by the competent authority, and therefore such
certificates had to be in consonance with the circulars of the State
Government dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019 which governed
the validity period of such certificates. The subsequent notice
dated 04.08.2022 given by the respondent High Court requiring
the candidates belonging to OBC/MBC(NCL) to produce the
certificates issued not prior to one year from the last date fixed
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
589
for the submission of application form i.e., 31.08.2021, was
absolutely in consonance with the said circulars issued by the State
Government. It was also mentioned in the said notice dated
04.08.2022 that in case the OBC/MBC(NCL) certificate was
issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020, an affidavit in
prescribed format along with the caste certificate had to be
produced. For the EWS category, it was stated that the Income
and Asset certificate required for seeking reservation in EWS
category must not have been issued prior to 01.04.2021 and in
case the Income and Asset certificate was issued between
01.04.2019 and 31.03.2021, then an affidavit in the prescribed
format along with the certificate had to be produced. It was
specifically mentioned therein that SC/ST/OBC/MBC/EWS
certificate, as the case may be, must not have been issued after
the last date of submission of the application form i.e., 31.08.2021.
Such instructions requiring the reserved category candidates to
produce the requisite certificates could neither be said to be
unreasonable nor could be construed as changing the rules of
game after selection process was started, they being in consonance
with the important instructions given in the advertisement dated
22.07.2021, and in consonance with the circulars issued by the
State Government with regard to the validity period of caste
certificates. [Para 24][631-B-H; 632-A]
5. 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. [Para 25][632B-C]
6. It is no more res integra that in absence of a fixed date
indicated in the advertisement inviting applications, with reference
SAKSHI ARHA v. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
590
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
to which the requisite eligibility is to be judged, and when the
rules are silent, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the
eligibility of a candidate would be the last date for making the
applications. It cannot be gain said that the date of interview or
selection would always be uncertain and the uncertainty of the
date may lead to an anomalous situation in as much as even those
candidates who were not eligible to apply under the reserved
category on the date of making application, may apply under the
reserved category and subsequently obtain the certificate by the
time the interviews are held. In such circumstance, the possibility
of playing mischief also cannot be ruled out. In the instant case,
the last date for the submission of applications was 31.08.2021
and the interviews were fixed in August 2022. So, there was a
gap of one full year between the last date for submission of the
applications and the date of interview, during which period the
economic status and resultant status of "creamy layer/non-creamy
layer/EWS" of the candidates might have also changed. Therefore,
the exposition of law settled by this Court is that in absence of a
fixed date indicated in the advertisement, and when the rules are
also silent, the last date fixed for submitting the applications would
be the date for the scrutiny of the eligibility of the candidates.
[Para 29][633-F-H; 634-A-B]
7. It is also pertinent to note that if the appellants were
allowed to produce the certificates issued after the last date fixed
for the submission of applications mentioned in the advertisement
i.e. 31.08.2021, the other candidates similarly situated as the
appellants might raise a grievance for not giving them such
opportunity. 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. The said certificates were also not
supported by the requisite affidavits as per the Government
circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019. [Para 33][635-H; 636A-B]
8. In view of the afore-stated factual and legal aspects of
the matter, the Court does not find any error having been
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
591
committed by the High Court while passing the impugned
judgments and orders. [Para 34][636-C]
Dr. M.V. Nair v. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC
429; Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Chander Shekhar
& Anr. (1997) 4 SCC 18 : [1997] 2 SCR 896 - relied
on.
Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE & Ors. (2005) 9 SCC
779 : [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 79; Ram Kumar Gijroya v.
Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Anr.
(2016) 4 SCC 754; Karn Singh Yadav v. Government
of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1341;
Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India & Ors. (2007)
4 SCC 54 : [2007] 3 SCR 95; Rakesh Kumar Sharma
v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. (2013) 11 SCC 58; Indra
Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. 1992 Supp
(3) 217 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454; M. Nagaraj & Ors.
v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212 : [2006] 7
Suppl. SCR 336; Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of
India & Ors. (2008) 6 SCC 1 : [2008] 4 SCR 1; Janhit
Abhiyan v. Union of India W.P. (C) 55/2019; Rekha
Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan and Others
(1993) 3 Supp SCC 168 : [1993] 1 SCR 186 - referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 79
referred to
para 12
(2016) 4 SCC 754
referred to
para 12
[2007] 3 SCR 95
referred to
para 12
(2013) 11 SCC 58
referred to
para 12
[1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454
referred to
para 15
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 336
referred to
para 16
[2008] 4 SCR 1
referred to
para 17
(1993) 2 SCC 429
relied on
para 30
SAKSHI ARHA v. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND
OTHERS
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
592
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
[1993] 1 SCR 186
referred to
para 31
[1997] 2 SCR 896
relied on
para 32
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3957
of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2022 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCWP No. 12374 of 2022.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 3958-3961, 3963, 3962, 3908 and 3909 of 2023.
Rishabh Sancheti, Ms. Padma Priya, Anchit Bhandari, Suyash
Jain, Chirag Kalani, Zeeshan Ali, K. Paari Vendhan, Abhisar Bhanu,
Prince, Archit Upadhyay, Shubham Mishra, Vaibhav Shahi, Mrs. Prashita
Mishra, Anvesh Soni, Pallav Mongia, Ankush Mangal, Tushar Srivastava,
Advs. for the Appellant.
Gopal Jha, Ajay Choudhary, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgments of the Court were delivered by
RASTOGI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present batch of appellants before us are the members of
Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer i.e., NCL); More
Backward Class (NCL) and from the category of Economically Weaker
Section (EWS), finally qualified in the selection process held for the post
of Civil Judge pursuant to an advertisement issued by the respondent
dated 22nd July, 2021 but they have not been considered in the category
to which they belong for the reason that the certificate of the category
which was furnished by each of the appellant is subsequent to the last
date indicated in the advertisement, i.e., 31st August, 2021 and each of
them unfortunately could not qualify in open category, filed writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution that came to be dismissed by the
Division Bench of the High Court, which is the subject matter of challenge
before this Court.
3. The brief facts of the case emanate from the record are that
the post of Civil Judge to which we are concerned is included in the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
593
Schedule appended to Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter
being referred to as the "Rules, 2010") and is to be filled up only by
direct recruitment based on the result of competitive examination
conducted by the recruiting authority as provided under Part IV of the
Rules, 2010.
4. Apart from the method of recruitment, it may be noticed that
the reservation is being provided to the members of Scheduled Castes/
Schedule Tribes/Other Backward Classes/More Backward Classes/
Persons with Disabilities and Women Candidates under Rule 10 of the
Rules, 2010. With the stipulation under Rule 10(2) & (5) that in the event
of non-availability of suitable candidates amongst OBC/MBC in a
particular year of recruitment, the vacancies so reserved for them shall
be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and such of the unfilled
vacancies be carried forward to the subsequent recruitment year.
5. That as per the Scheme of examination referred to under Rule
20 of the Rules, 2010, the competitive examination for recruitment to the
post of Civil Judge shall be conducted by the recruiting authority in two
stages i.e. preliminary examination followed with Main examination as
per the Scheme specified in Part-IV of the Rules, 2010. With the
stipulation that the marks obtained in the preliminary examination by the
candidates who are declared qualified for admission to the Main
examination shall not be counted for determining their merit and those
who qualified in the Main examination will be called for interview and
the marks secured in the Main examination and interview shall be the
governing factor in determining merit and those who finally placed in the
merit list, their names will be recommended by the recruiting authority
for appointment under Rule 24 and the appointments will be made by the
appointing authority in consultation with the Court in terms of Rule 26 of
Rules, 2010.
6. Around 120 vacancies of the year 2020-21 of Civil Judge came
to be advertised by the respondent pursuant to advertisement dated 22nd
July, 2021 and category-wise reservation was indicated in the tabulation
chart as referred to under Clause 4 of the advertisement, which is
reproduced as under:-
SAKSHI ARHA v. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND
OTHERS [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
594
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
*Out of 05 posts reserved for persons with Benchmark Disabilities, 01(one)
post is reserved for blindness and low vision, 01 (one) for deaf and hard of
hearing, 01 (one) for locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy
cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy and 02 (two) for
autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness and
multiple disabilities from the amongst persons under Clauses (a) to (d) including
deaf-blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities.
7. Under Clause 5 of the advertisement, it is indicated that in the
absence of vacancies reserved of various categories remained unfilled,
what method has to be adopted in filling those unfilled vacancies with a
note appended thereto that the applicants who are from the State of
Rajasthan and members of Other Backward Class (Creamy Layer)/
More Backward Class (Creamy Layer) and applicants from other than
the State of Rajasthan and members of SC/ST/OBC (Creamy Layer/
Non-Creamy Layer) and More Backward Class (Creamy Layer/NonCreamy Layer) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) shall be
considered in general category and as referred to under Clause 6(i) and
(iii) of the advertisement, caste certificate issued as per Rules in the
prescribed format by the competent authority has to be produced for
seeking reservation and under Clause 22(3) (Other Important
Instructions), it was indicated that the applicant has to produce on demand
of the recruiting authority all such documents/certificates while claiming
benefit of reservation required by the Rajasthan High Court or the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
concerned recruiting authority. The extract of Clause 6(i) and (iii) read
with Clause 22(3) of the advertisement are reproduced hereunder:
"6. In the context of Certificate of various categories
(i) Caste Certificate issued as per rules in the prescribed format
by the Competent Authority will have to be produced for
reservation in the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other
Backward Class and Highly Backward Class.
(ii) ......
(iii) Certificate issued as per rules in the prescribed format by the
Competent Authority shall have to produce in the event of applicant
belongs to Economic Weaker Section.
....
"22. Other Important Instructions :-
(1)-(2)
..........
(3) It would be mandatory for the applicants to submit all concerning
original documents/certificates, on the basis of which they raise
any claim on being demanded by the Rajasthan High Court or
concerned Appointing authority.
(4) ......."
8. The instructions indicated that in terms of Clause 6(i) & (iii)
read with Clause 22(3), the applicants who claim the benefit of reservation,
such certificate/document has to be produced on demand by the High
Court or concerned Appointing authority. Thus, it is clear that there is no
requirement to furnish the caste certificate of the category claiming
benefit of reservation either at the stage of filling the application form or
at any lager stage, however, it has to be produced on demand by the
recruiting authority. It may be noticed that the reservation for MBC
(NCL) and EWC are for the first time introduced in the instant selection
process held pursuant to an advertisement dated 22nd July, 2021.
9. The relevant requirement was notified by the respondent to be
furnished by the applicant claiming reservation against reserved vacancies
OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL or EWS category as the case may be, with the
stipulation that the certificate must be of the period not prior to one year
of the last date of submission of application i.e. 31st August, 2021 for the
SAKSHI ARHA v. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND
OTHERS [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
first time by its notice dated 04th August, 2022 of which reference has
been made. The extract of the documents demanded by the respondent
in reference to the certificate relating to category, is reproduced as under:-
"(iii) Certificate relating to category
a.
OBC/MBC (Non Creamy Layer) certificate issued not prior
to one year from the last date of submission of the application
form i.e. 31.08.2021.
b.
In case OBC/MBC (Non Creamy Layer) certificate is
issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020, an affidavit in
prescribed format along with caste certificate has to be
produced.
c.
In case of EWS category - Income & Asset required for
seeking reservation in EWS category must not be issued
prior to 01.04.2021.
In case Income & Asset Certificate issued between
01.04.2020 and 31.03.2021, an affidavit in prescribed format
along with certificate has to be produced.
d.
SC/ST/OBC/MBC/EWS certificate, as the case may be
must not have been issued after the last date of submission
of the application form i.e. 31.08.2021."
(emphasis supplied)
10. It is not the case of the respondent that either of the appellant
does not belong to the respective reserved category i.e. OBC-NCL,
MBC-NCL or EWS but their certificate relating to category is of the
date later to the cut-off date i.e. 31st August, 2021 but each of the applicant
although was permitted to appear in the interview under the interim order
of the High Court but were not permitted to claim the benefit of their
certificate relating to category which was furnished and were treated to
be in the open category.
11. When the result came to be finally published, indisputedly,
each of the applicant secured higher marks in their respective category
i.e. OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL or EWS as the case may be, and the
candidates lower in merit have been selected by the respondent but
since their certificate relating to category is somewhere later to the cutoff date i.e. 31st August, 2021 (the last date of application form), the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
597
benefit of reservation has not been extended and since each of the
applicant failed to qualify in the open category, they were finally denied
from being considered for appointment to the post of Civil Judge and this
fact can be further supported from the result of recruitment of Civil
Judge Cadre 2021 published by respondent by notice dated 30th August,
2022 that indicates that the present appellants have secured higher marks
in their respective category qua those who have been finally
recommended for appointment in the category of OBC-NCL, MBCNCL or EWS category to which the present appellants are concerned
and for convenience, comparative statement prepared by the respondent,
in the tabulation form is reproduced as under:-
"OBC-NCL category - SLP(C) No.5654/2023, SLP(C) No.16428/
2022, SLP(C) Nos.18296-18299/2022
"MBC-NCL category - Sunil Gurjar SLP(C) No.19179/22 &
Kuldeep Bhatia SLP(C) No.21644/22
S.No.
Name
of
the
Petitioner
Marks
Obtained
Cut
off
General
Cut
Off
Marks
MBC-NCL
Date
of
MBC-NCL
Certificates
Date
of
MBC-NCL
Certificate
required
as
per
Respondents
1.
Sunil
Singh
Gurjar
172
179.5
141
18.06.2018
&
16.06.2022
31.08.2018
to
31.08.2021
2.
Kuldeep
Bhatia
141.5
179.5
141
03.08.2012
&
09.03.2022
"-do-"
"EWS category - Parul Jain SLP(C) Diary No.1581 of 2023
SAKSHI ARHA v. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND
OTHERS [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
598
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
12. It is not disputed by the respondent that each of the applicant
is holding the certificate of their respective category and it is of prior
date when demanded by the respondent under its notice dated 04th August,
2022.
13. This has come on record that circulars are issued by the State
of Rajasthan for the purpose of obtaining the certificate relating to
category in reference to seeking employment issued by the Department
of Social Justice and Empowerment, Jaipur dated 09th September, 2015
followed with 08th October, 2019 indicating the validity of certificate of
OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL or EBC and since there was a lot of confusion
and the circulars were not accessible to the people at large and litigation
was pending before the Courts, the State Government stepped in and in
furtherance thereof, issued its directive dated 17th October, 2022 and
came with the clarification that if for any reason, the candidate has not
produced a certificate issued till the last date of application form and
produces a certificate after the last date of filling up of application then
in that case, candidate should submit an affidavit that he was having the
eligibility of respective category and if the information is found incorrect,
then appointment can be cancelled. The extract of the clarification made
by the Government in meeting out the exigencies as demanded and to
streamline the on-going litigation, under its directive dated 17th October,
2022 is reproduced as under:-
"If for any reason a candidate has not produced a certificate issued
till the last date of application form and produces a certificate
which is issued after the last date of filling application form then
in that case candidate should write an affidavit to this aspect that
he was having the qualification of respective class and if the
information is found incorrect then the appointment shall be
cancelled."
14. For the sake of repetition, it may be noticed that it is not the
case of the respondent that either the appellant is not holding eligibility of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
599
the respective category of which he/she belongs in terms of advertisement
dated 22nd July, 2021 and their only fault is that their certificate relating
to category is of a date later to the last date of application (i.e. 31st
August, 2021) in terms of notice dated 04th October, 2022 demanding
for furnishing the certificate relating to category to which they were
provisionally called for interview.
15. On a writ petition being filed by the appellants assailing the
action of the respondent in not permitting them of claiming benefit of
reservation to which they belong and each of them have qualified after
securing more marks over the cut-off of respective category, the Division
Bench of the High Court has non-suited their claim on the premise that
each of them had failed to furnish certificate of their category as required
on the last date of application i.e. 31st August, 2021 by placing reliance
on the judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of
India and Others (2007) 4 SCC 54 held that the last date of application
is a touchstone for determining the eligibility and since each of them had
failed to furnish their respective certificate relating to category on or
before 31st August, 2021, they are held ineligible from being considered
in the respective category and since each of them had not been able to
qualify in the open category considered unsuitable for appointment to
the post of Civil Judge, under the impugned judgment dated 18th August,
2022 in the case of Jyoti Beniwal vs. The Rajasthan High Court,
Jodhpur Through Its Registrar General and Another (D.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.11784/2022) and that was referred to in the subsequent
writ petitions filed and all were disposed of placing reliance on the
judgment of Jyoti Beniwal (Supra) by subsequent impugned judgment
dated 06th September, 2022 and in the case of appellant Parul Jain,
separate judgment was passed on 18th November, 2022 relying on the
same judgment of High Court in Jyoti Beniwal (Supra) and that became
the subject matter of challenge in appeal before us.
16. Learned counsel for the appellants jointly submit that it was
nowhere indicated at any stage that certificate of the category upto
which date is to be furnished by the applicants/candidates while claiming
reservation and each of the appellant holds the certificate of their
respective category and accordingly, each of them mentioned in their
application form with regard to the category they intend to participate in
the selection process and although the permission granted to appear in
the preliminary examination was provisional but no one has examined at
SAKSHI ARHA v. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND
OTHERS [AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 9 S.C.R.
any stage that what is the requirement and since there is no reference
made either in the Scheme of Rules, 2010 or in the advertisement dated
22nd July, 2021 to the certificate of category to which the appellant claim
has to be furnished is of which date or year. Each of them had bona
fidely pleaded that the certificate of the category which is being obtained
is issued by the competent authority after due compliance for all practical
purposes and in the given facts and circumstances, the rigor which has
been put by the Division Bench of the High Court under the impugned
judgment taking 31st August, 2021 as a sacrosanct date for furnishing
the certificate relating to category is nowhere prescribed either under
the Rules of 2010 or in the advertisement to which we are concerned
hence, the premise on which the High Court has proceeded is completely
misconceived.
17. Learned counsel further submits that the judgment on which
reliance has been placed is not at all applicable on the facts of the instant
case for the reason that the judgments relied upon are related to the
minimum academic qualification and in the cases where rules are silent
or there is no administrative instruction issued by the competent authority/
recruiting authority before the selection process being initiated are in
place, this Court has stepped in and laid down a principle that in the
absence of rules indicating the requirement of holding academic
qualification, the last date of filling application is considered to be a
benchmark for the applicant to possess the minimum academic
qualification.
18. But we are not dealing in this case with minimum academic
qualification or the date of birth which is defined under the Scheme of
Rules, 2010. In the given facts and circumstances, the premise on which
the claim of the present appellants has been non-suited by the High
Court that they failed to furnish the certificate of category on or before
31st August, 2021 is completely without basis/foundation having no nexus
and they all have been put to surprise while it was notified to them
demanding to furnish the certificate relating to category on or before
31st August, 2021, which was the last date of submission of application
but it was, for the first time, notified when the provisional list of candidates
calling for interview was published on 04th August, 2022.
19. Learned counsel further submits that they all are coming from
rural background and belonging to a poor strata in society, having no
means to know the advanced technology which is available in the urban
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
601
cities and with the minimal facilities available at their end, still they are
able to crack the competitive examination and when this is not the case
of the respondents that either of the appellant is not a member of a
category which was indicated by him/her in application form originally
filed to non-suite them at the stage when they finally qualified the
competitive test and as informed that vacancies are available because
of non-joining by the candidates, they can easily be adjusted against the
unfilled advertised vacancies without disturbing or taking away the rights
of the persons/candidates who have been appointed on being declared
successful by this authority.
20. Per contra, while supporting the finding recorded by the High
Court, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this being settled
by this Court in a catena of judgments that eligibility is to be looked into
on the last date of submission of application or the cut-off date indicated
in the relevant rules. In the instant case, when the rules are silent in such
circumstances, what being laid down by this Court is the law on the
subject and the eligibility of the applicant is to be looked into on the last
date of application which in the instant case is 31st August, 2021 and
admittedly, each of the applicant was not holding their certificate related
to category as demanded of the period prior to 31st August, 2021 and
accordingly, no error was committed by the respondent and have rightly
been treated in open category and it is not the case of the appellant that
any candidate who has been recommended and appointed in open
category is lower in the order of merit in the selection process held by
the respondent pursuant to advertisement dated 21st July, 2021 and in
support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the
judgment of this Court reported in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (Supra)
followed with Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs.