Category Certificate Validity: Supreme Court Adjudicates Civil Judge Recruitment in Rajasthan (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 18, 2023
Citation: (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16428 of 2022)
Judges: Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi (Split Verdict)

Can a candidate be denied a position for not having a category certificate before the last date of application, even if they possess the certificate when demanded by the recruiting authority? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a batch of appeals concerning the recruitment of Civil Judges in Rajasthan. This case highlights the conflict between strict adherence to deadlines and ensuring fair opportunities for candidates from reserved categories.

The core issue revolves around whether the cut-off date for submitting category certificates should be the last date of application or the date when the recruiting authority demands the certificates. This has significant implications for candidates from Other Backward Classes (OBC), More Backward Classes (MBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

The bench comprised Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi. However, they delivered a split verdict, with Justice Rastogi allowing the appeals and Justice Trivedi dismissing them. Due to this split, the matter has been referred to a larger bench for final adjudication.

Case Background

The Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement on July 22, 2021, for the recruitment of Civil Judges, with a total of 120 vacancies. The advertisement included provisions for reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), More Backward Classes (MBC), Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), and other categories. The last date for submitting applications was August 31, 2021.

Many candidates from reserved categories (OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL, and EWS) applied for these positions. They successfully cleared the preliminary and main examinations. However, a notice dated August 4, 2022, was issued by the High Court, demanding that candidates produce category certificates issued within one year prior to the last date of application (August 31, 2021). This meant that certificates issued after August 31, 2021, would not be accepted.

The candidates who possessed certificates issued after the cut-off date were deemed ineligible, even though they had secured higher marks than the cut-off for their respective categories. Aggrieved, they filed writ petitions before the High Court, which were subsequently dismissed, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants, who were denied consideration for appointment, filed writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court. The High Court, relying on previous judgments, held that the last date of application (August 31, 2021) was the touchstone for determining eligibility. Since the appellants did not possess the required category certificates by this date, they were deemed ineligible.

The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, citing the judgment in Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others (2007) 4 SCC 54, which states that the last date of application is crucial for determining eligibility.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. Due to the differing opinions of the two-judge bench, the matter has been referred to a larger bench for a final decision.

Legal Framework

The recruitment process was governed by the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Rule 10 of the said Rules provides for reservation of posts for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes/More Backward Classes/Persons with Disabilities and Women Candidates.

The Rules also stipulate that in the event of non-availability of suitable candidates amongst OBC/MBC in a particular year, the vacancies reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and such unfilled vacancies be carried forward to the subsequent recruitment year.

Rule 20 of the Rules, 2010 specifies the scheme of examination for the post of Civil Judge, which includes a preliminary examination followed by a main examination. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination are not counted for determining merit.

The advertisement dated July 22, 2021, issued by the Rajasthan High Court, also mentioned that caste certificates issued as per rules in the prescribed format by the competent authority had to be produced for reservation in the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Class, and Highly Backward Class categories.

Clause 22(3) of the advertisement stated that it would be mandatory for applicants to submit all original documents/certificates on the basis of which they raised any claim, on being demanded by the Rajasthan High Court or concerned appointing authority.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that neither the Rules of 2010 nor the advertisement specified a cut-off date for the category certificate.
• They contended that the demand for certificates with a specific validity period was introduced only in the notice dated August 4, 2022, which was after the application process had concluded.
• They submitted that they possessed valid category certificates when demanded by the recruiting authority.
• The appellants contended that they were wrongly denied the benefit of reservation despite securing higher marks in their respective categories.
• They argued that the judgment relied upon by the High Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) was not applicable to their case, as it pertained to minimum academic qualifications and not to the validity of category certificates.
• They also contended that the circulars issued by the State of Rajasthan regarding the validity of certificates were not accessible to the people at large and the State Government itself had clarified that if the certificate is issued after the last date of application, the candidate could submit an affidavit to that effect.
• They submitted that they belonged to a poor strata in society and had no means to know the advanced technology and they had cracked the competitive examination with minimal facilities.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the eligibility of a candidate must be determined as of the last date of application.
• They contended that the appellants did not possess valid category certificates as of August 31, 2021, and therefore, were not eligible for reservation benefits.
• The respondents relied on the judgment in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) and Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2013) 11 SCC 58, which held that eligibility must be determined on the last date of application.
• The respondents submitted that the circulars issued by the State of Rajasthan specified that the certificate of OBC-NCL is valid for one year and if the candidate continues to remain in the non-creamy layer, the previously issued certificate would be treated as valid for a maximum period of three years on submission of an affidavit.

The innovativeness of the arguments from the appellants side lies in their emphasis on the procedural aspect of certificate submission, arguing that the last date of application should not be the sole criterion for determining eligibility, especially when the recruiting authority demands the certificates at a later stage. They also highlighted the practical difficulties faced by candidates from rural backgrounds in obtaining certificates on time.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for adjudication:

1. Whether the cut-off date for submitting category certificates should be the last date of application, or the date when the recruiting authority demands the certificates?
2. Whether the High Court was right in applying the principle of last date of application for determining the eligibility of the candidates in the instant case?
3. Whether the candidates who possessed the certificates of the respective categories when demanded by the recruiting authority, but not before the last date of application, could be denied the benefit of reservation?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in this case. Justice Ajay Rastogi allowed the appeals, while Justice Bela M. Trivedi dismissed them.

The following table demonstrates as to how each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court:

The following table demonstrates as to how each authority was viewed by the Court:

Justice Rastogi, in his judgment, emphasized that the rules and advertisement were silent on the cut-off date for the category certificate. He also noted that the certificates were produced when demanded by the recruiting authority. He observed that the reservation for MBC (NCL) and EWS categories was introduced for the first time and candidates were not aware of the procedure. He also noted that the State Government had clarified that if the certificate is issued after the last date of application, the candidate could submit an affidavit to that effect.

Justice Rastogi held that the High Court had erred in applying the principle of the last date of application for determining the eligibility for the reserved categories and observed that the judgments relied upon by the High Court were not applicable to the facts of the case.

Justice Rastogi also noted that the scheme of examination and syllabus for the post of Civil Judge was common for all and each of the candidates had to undergo the same process of qualifying the preliminary examination followed by the main examination and interview.

Justice Rastogi observed that the reservation of vacancies was not a condition of eligibility for the candidate to participate in the selection process and the certificate of category for the purpose of claiming reservation would arise not at the stage of filling the application form but at the stage when the select list is to be prepared. He also noted that the applicants had furnished the certificates when demanded by the recruiting authority.

Justice Rastogi, relying on Dolly Chhanda (supra) and Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) held that 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.

Justice Rastogi, in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the respondents to consider the candidature of each of the appellants for appointment, subject to their suitability and also directed that the appellants be given consequential benefits including seniority.

Justice Trivedi, in her dissenting opinion, held that the candidates were required to have a valid certificate of their respective category on the date of making application or on the last date fixed for the submission of applications i.e., 31.08.2021. She also held that such certificates had to be in consonance with the circulars issued by the State Government.

Justice Trivedi observed that the notice dated 04.08.2022 was in consonance with the circulars of the State Government and could not be construed as changing the rules of the game. She also held that the certificates produced by the appellants at the time of interview could not be said to be valid certificates as mandated in the advertisement.

Justice Trivedi held that the judgments relied upon by the appellants were hardly of any help to them and also held that the eligibility criteria should be examined as on the last date of receipt of the application. She also held that in absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement, the last date fixed for submitting the applications would be the date for the scrutiny of the eligibility of the candidates.

Justice Trivedi observed that the appellants had failed to produce the requisite valid certificates and had also failed to produce the affidavits in support thereof in compliance with the circulars of the State Government.

Justice Trivedi, in her dissenting opinion, held that the appeals were devoid of merits and deserved to be dismissed.

Due to the split verdict, the matter has been referred to a larger bench for final adjudication.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

Justice Rastogi’s opinion was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The absence of a clear cut-off date for certificate submission in the rules and advertisement.
• The fact that the candidates possessed valid certificates when demanded by the recruiting authority.
• The practical difficulties faced by candidates from rural backgrounds.
• The State Government’s clarification that an affidavit could be submitted if the certificate was issued after the last date of application.
• The need to provide fair opportunities to candidates from reserved categories.

Justice Trivedi’s opinion was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The principle that eligibility must be determined on the last date of application.
• The circulars issued by the State Government regarding the validity of the certificates.
• The need to maintain consistency and avoid preferential treatment.
• The dynamic nature of the OBC-NCL and EWS categories.

The following table shows the ranking of sentiment analysis of reasons given by the Supreme Court:

The following table shows the sentiment analysis of the Supreme Court to show the ratio of fact:law percentage that influenced the court to decide.

The Court’s reasoning can be illustrated using the following flowchart:

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s split verdict in this case highlights the ongoing tension between strict adherence to deadlines and ensuring fair opportunities for candidates from reserved categories. The case underscores the need for clarity in recruitment advertisements and rules regarding the submission of category certificates.

The matter has now been referred to a larger bench, which will provide a final adjudication on the issue. The decision of the larger bench will have significant implications for future recruitment processes, particularly for candidates from OBC, MBC, and EWS categories.

The case also brings to light the practical difficulties faced by candidates from rural backgrounds in obtaining certificates on time and the need for a more inclusive approach to recruitment.

The key takeaways from this case are:

• Clarity is needed in recruitment rules regarding cut-off dates for submission of category certificates.
• The last date of application may not always be the sole criterion for determining eligibility, especially when certificates are demanded at a later stage.
• A balance needs to be struck between procedural compliance and ensuring fair opportunities for candidates from reserved categories.
• The practical difficulties faced by candidates from rural backgrounds should be taken into consideration.
• The Supreme Court is likely to take a more progressive view on the issue of submission of certificates in the future.