LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the validity of category certificates (OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL, EWS) submitted by candidates for the Civil Judge post in Rajasthan, specifically whether these certificates must be valid as of the last date of application or a later date.
CASE TYPE: This case falls under service law, concerning recruitment and eligibility criteria for judicial posts.
Case Name: Sakshi Arha vs. The Rajasthan High Court & Others
[Judgment Date]: 18 May 2023
Introduction
Date of the Judgment: 18 May 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 559
Judges: The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi. There was a split in the verdict. Justice Rastogi allowed the appeals, while Justice Trivedi dismissed the appeals.
Can a candidate be disqualified for a government job if their caste certificate is dated after the application deadline, even if they belong to the correct category? The Supreme Court of India recently grappled with this question in a batch of appeals concerning the recruitment of Civil Judges in Rajasthan. The core issue was whether the candidates’ category certificates (OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL, and EWS) had to be valid as of the last date for application or could be considered if issued later. This case highlights the tension between strict adherence to deadlines and ensuring fair opportunities for candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Case Background
The Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement on 22nd July 2021, for the recruitment of Civil Judges, with a total of 120 vacancies for the year 2020-21. The advertisement specified category-wise reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), More Backward Classes (MBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). The last date for online applications was 31st August 2021.
Several candidates belonging to OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL, and EWS categories applied for the posts. They successfully cleared the preliminary and main examinations and were called for interviews. However, the Rajasthan High Court issued a notice on 4th August 2022, stipulating that candidates had to produce category certificates issued within one year prior to the last date of application (31st August 2021) and not after the said date.
Many candidates, including the appellants, possessed category certificates issued after 31st August 2021. Consequently, the High Court deemed them ineligible for the reserved category posts, and since they did not qualify under the general category, their candidatures were rejected. The candidates then filed writ petitions before the High Court, which were subsequently dismissed, leading to the current appeals before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 22nd July 2021 | Advertisement for Civil Judge posts issued by Rajasthan High Court. |
| 31st August 2021 | Last date for submitting online applications. |
| 4th August 2022 | Notice issued by Rajasthan High Court requiring category certificates to be issued within one year prior to 31st August 2021. |
| 18th August 2022 | High Court dismisses writ petition of Jyoti Beniwal, upholding the requirement for certificates to be dated before 31st August 2021. |
| 6th September 2022 | High Court dismisses writ petition of Kuldeep Bhatia, relying on the judgment in Jyoti Beniwal’s case. |
| 18th November 2022 | High Court passes separate judgment for Parul Jain, relying on the judgment in Jyoti Beniwal’s case. |
| 18th May 2023 | Supreme Court issues split verdict. Justice Rastogi allows the appeals, while Justice Trivedi dismisses them. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants, who were not considered for selection due to the date of their category certificates, filed writ petitions before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The High Court, relying on the judgment in Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others (2007) 4 SCC 54, held that the last date of application was the cut-off date for determining eligibility. Since the appellants did not possess valid certificates as of 31st August 2021, they were deemed ineligible for the reserved category posts.
The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, leading the candidates to appeal to the Supreme Court. The primary contention of the appellants was that the requirement of having a certificate issued before the last date of application was not mentioned in the original advertisement or the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, and that it was introduced arbitrarily through the notice dated 4th August 2022.
Legal Framework
The primary legal framework for this case is the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, which govern the recruitment of Civil Judges. Rule 10 of the Rules provides for reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, More Backward Classes, Persons with Disabilities, and Women candidates. Rule 20 outlines the scheme of examination, which includes a preliminary examination, main examination, and interview.
The advertisement dated 22nd July 2021, also plays a crucial role, specifically:
- Clause 4: Specifies the number of vacancies and category-wise reservation.
- Clause 6: States that caste certificates issued as per rules in the prescribed format by the competent authority must be produced for reservation in the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, Other Backward Class, and Highly Backward Class categories. It also states that a certificate issued as per rules in the prescribed format by the competent authority shall have to be produced in the event of the applicant belonging to the Economically Weaker Section.
- Clause 22(3): Indicates that it is 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.
The judgment also refers to circulars issued by the State of Rajasthan regarding the validity of category certificates, particularly the circulars dated 9th September 2015 and 8th October 2019, which specify the validity period of OBC-NCL certificates.
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- ✓ The appellants argued that neither the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, nor the advertisement dated 22nd July 2021, specified a cut-off date for the validity of category certificates.
- ✓ They contended that the requirement to produce certificates issued before 31st August 2021, was arbitrarily introduced by the notice dated 4th August 2022, after the selection process had commenced.
- ✓ The appellants submitted that they possessed valid certificates of their respective categories and that the certificates were issued by the competent authority after due compliance.
- ✓ They argued that the judgment in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), relied upon by the High Court, was not applicable as it pertained to minimum academic qualifications and not to the validity of category certificates.
- ✓ They cited the judgments in Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & Others (2005) 9 SCC 779 and Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another (2016) 4 SCC 754, to argue that there could be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof, and that the submission of a certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement was valid for selection.
- ✓ The appellants also highlighted their rural backgrounds and lack of access to advanced technology, emphasizing that they had still managed to qualify the competitive examination.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- ✓ The respondents argued that the eligibility of candidates must be determined based on the last date of application, which was 31st August 2021, as per the principle established in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra).
- ✓ They contended that the circulars issued by the State of Rajasthan, particularly the circulars dated 9th September 2015 and 8th October 2019, stipulated that OBC-NCL certificates were valid for a limited period and had to be issued by the competent authority.
- ✓ The respondents argued that since the appellants did not possess valid certificates issued before 31st August 2021, they were rightly treated as general category candidates and were not eligible for the reserved category posts.
- ✓ They also relied on Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2013) 11 SCC 58 to support their claim that eligibility should be looked at on the last date of application.
- ✓ The respondents emphasized that the reservation for OBC-NCL and EWS is based on the current economic status of the candidates, which is dynamic, unlike the caste status of SC/ST candidates, which is static.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions by Appellants | Sub-Submissions by Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of Category Certificates |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:
- Whether the High Court was correct in holding that the last date of application was the cut-off date for the validity of category certificates.
- Whether the notice dated 4th August 2022, stipulating that category certificates must be issued before 31st August 2021, was valid and reasonable.
- Whether the judgment in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) was applicable to the facts of the case.
- Whether the candidates who had secured higher marks in their respective categories but were not considered due to the date of their certificates, should be given any relief.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Cut-off date for certificate validity | The court had a split view. Justice Rastogi opined that the High Court was incorrect in applying the last date of application as the cut-off date for the certificate validity, while Justice Trivedi upheld the High Court’s view. |
| Validity of notice dated 4th August 2022 | Justice Rastogi held that the notice was arbitrary as it introduced a new condition not mentioned in the original advertisement. Justice Trivedi found the notice valid and in consonance with the State’s circulars. |
| Applicability of Ashok Kumar Sonkar | Justice Rastogi opined that the judgment was not applicable to the facts of the case. Justice Trivedi upheld the High Court’s reliance on the judgment. |
| Relief for candidates with higher marks | Justice Rastogi directed that the candidates be considered for appointment, while Justice Trivedi did not grant any relief. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
Cases:
| Case Name | Court | Legal Point | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) vs. University of Rajasthan and Others 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off date for eligibility | Cited to establish that in the absence of a specified date, the last date of application is considered for eligibility. |
| Bhupinderpal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others (2000) 5 SCC 262 | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off date for eligibility | Followed the principle that the cut-off date for eligibility is the last date of application. |
| Jasbir Rani and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another (2002) 1 SCC 124 | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off date for eligibility | Reiterated the principle that the cut-off date for eligibility is the last date of application. |
| Shankar K. Mandal and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others (2003) 9 SCC 519 | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off date for eligibility | Reiterated the principle that the cut-off date for eligibility is the last date of application. |
| Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others (2007) 4 SCC 54 | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off date for eligibility | Cited by the High Court to support the view that the last date of application is the cut-off date for eligibility. Justice Rastogi held that this case was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. Justice Trivedi upheld the High Court’s view. |
| Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2013) 11 SCC 58 | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off date for eligibility | Cited by the respondents to support the view that eligibility should be determined based on the last date of application. |
| Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & Others (2005) 9 SCC 779 | Supreme Court of India | Relaxation in submission of proof | Cited by the appellants to argue that there could be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof of certificates. |
| Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another (2016) 4 SCC 754 | Supreme Court of India | Validity of certificates submitted after the deadline | Cited by the appellants to argue that the submission of a certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement was valid for selection. |
| Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (SLP(C) No.14948/2016) | Supreme Court of India | Validity of certificates submitted after the deadline | Cited to show that a reference was made to a larger bench regarding the decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). |
| Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 1992 Supp (3) 217 | Supreme Court of India | Concept of Creamy Layer | Cited by Justice Trivedi to explain the concept of “creamy layer” and its relevance to OBC reservations. |
| M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 212 | Supreme Court of India | Concept of Creamy Layer | Cited by Justice Trivedi to explain the concepts of “formal equality” and “proportional equality” and their relation to creamy layer. |
| Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2008) 6 SCC 1 | Supreme Court of India | Concept of Creamy Layer | Cited by Justice Trivedi to explain the importance of excluding “creamy layer” for proper identification of backward classes. |
| Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India W.P. (C) 55/2019 | Supreme Court of India | Economically Weaker Section | Cited by Justice Trivedi to explain the background of the Economically Weaker Section category. |
| Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 429 | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off date for eligibility | Cited by Justice Trivedi to reiterate that the cut-off date for eligibility is the last date for receiving applications. |
| Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Chander Shekhar & Anr. (1997) 4 SCC 18 | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off date for eligibility | Cited by Justice Trivedi to reiterate that the cut-off date for eligibility is the last date for receiving applications. |
Legal Provisions:
- Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010: Governs the recruitment of Civil Judges.
- Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010: Provides for reservation for various categories.
- Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010: Outlines the scheme of examination.
- Clause 4 of the advertisement dated 22nd July 2021: Specifies the number of vacancies and category-wise reservation.
- Clause 6 of the advertisement dated 22nd July 2021: Specifies the requirement of valid certificates for claiming reservation.
- Clause 22(3) of the advertisement dated 22nd July 2021: Specifies that applicants must submit original documents/certificates when demanded.
- Circulars dated 9th September 2015 and 8th October 2019: Issued by the State of Rajasthan regarding the validity of category certificates.
- Article 15(6) of the Constitution of India: Provides for reservation for Economically Weaker Sections.
- Article 16(6) of the Constitution of India: Provides for reservation for Economically Weaker Sections.
Judgment
The Supreme Court delivered a split verdict in this case. Justice Ajay Rastogi allowed the appeals, while Justice Bela M. Trivedi dismissed the appeals.
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission (Justice Rastogi) | How the Court Treated the Submission (Justice Trivedi) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of certificates issued after the last date of application. | Justice Rastogi held that the certificates should be considered valid if they were issued before the date of interview, as long as the candidate belonged to the correct category at the time of application. He held that the cut-off date for the certificate was not the last date of application. | Justice Trivedi held that the certificates issued after the last date of application were not valid, as the eligibility of the candidate had to be determined on the last date of application. |
| Requirement of certificates as per the notice dated 4th August 2022. | Justice Rastogi held that the notice was arbitrary, as it introduced a new condition not mentioned in the original advertisement or rules. | Justice Trivedi held that the notice was valid and in consonance with the State’s circulars regarding the validity of category certificates. |
| Applicability of Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra). | Justice Rastogi held that the judgment was not applicable to the facts of the case, as it pertained to academic qualifications and not to the validity of category certificates. | Justice Trivedi upheld the High Court’s reliance on the judgment, stating that the last date of application was the cut-off date for determining eligibility. |
| Relaxation in the matter of submission of proof. | Justice Rastogi relied on Dolly Chhanda (supra), to argue that there could be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof of certificates. | Justice Trivedi held that there could be no relaxation in the matter of holding the eligibility qualification by the date fixed. |
| Validity of certificates submitted after the deadline. | Justice Rastogi relied on Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) to argue that the submission of a certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement was valid for selection. | Justice Trivedi distinguished the judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) and held that the said judgment was not applicable to the facts of the instant case. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt.) vs. University of Rajasthan and Others [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168]: Justice Rastogi did not specifically discuss this case, while Justice Trivedi relied upon it to reiterate that the last date of application is the cut-off date for eligibility.
- Bhupinderpal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Others [(2000) 5 SCC 262]: Justice Rastogi did not specifically discuss this case, while Justice Trivedi relied upon it to reiterate that the last date of application is the cut-off date for eligibility.
- Jasbir Rani and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another [(2002) 1 SCC 124]: Justice Rastogi did not specifically discuss this case, while Justice Trivedi relied upon it to reiterate that the last date of application is the cut-off date for eligibility.
- Shankar K. Mandal and Others vs. State of Bihar and Others [(2003) 9 SCC 519]: Justice Rastogi did not specifically discuss this case, while Justice Trivedi relied upon it to reiterate that the last date of application is the cut-off date for eligibility.
- Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India and Others [(2007) 4 SCC 54]: Justice Rastogi held that this case was not applicable to the facts of the instant case, while Justice Trivedi upheld the High Court’s reliance on the judgment, stating that the last date of application was the cut-off date for determining eligibility.
- Rakesh Kumar Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others [(2013) 11 SCC 58]: Justice Rastogi did not specifically discuss this case, while Justice Trivedi relied upon it to support the view that eligibility should be determined based on the last date of application.
- Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE & Others [(2005) 9 SCC 779]: Justice Rastogi relied on this judgment to argue that there could be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof of certificates. Justice Trivedi, while referring to this case, emphasized that there could be no relaxation in the matter of holding the eligibility qualification by the date fixed.
- Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another [(2016) 4 SCC 754]: Justice Rastogi relied on this judgment to argue that the submission of a certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement was valid for selection. Justice Trivedi distinguished the judgment and held that the said judgment was not applicable to the facts of the instant case.
- Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (SLP(C) No.14948/2016): Justice Rastogi referred to this case to show that a reference was made to a larger bench regarding the decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). Justice Trivedi also referred to this case to show that a reference was made to a larger bench regarding the decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra).
- Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [1992 Supp (3) 217]: Justice Trivedi cited this case to explain the concept of “creamy layer” and its relevance to OBC reservations.
- M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2006) 8 SCC 212]: Justice Trivedi cited this case to explain the concepts of “formal equality” and “proportional equality” and their relation to creamy layer.
- Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(2008) 6 SCC 1]: Justice Trivedi cited this case to explain the importance of excluding “creamy layer” for proper identification of backward classes.
- Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India [W.P. (C) 55/2019]: Justice Trivedi cited this case to explain the background of the Economically Weaker Section category.
- Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1993) 2 SCC 429]: Justice Trivedi cited this case to reiterate that the cut-off date for eligibility is the last date for receiving applications.
- Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Chander Shekhar & Anr. [(1997) 4 SCC 18]: Justice Trivedi cited this case to reiterate that the cut-off date for eligibility is the last date for receiving applications.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
Justice Rastogi’s Reasoning: Justice Rastogi emphasized that the candidates possessed the required category status at the time of application and that the procedural requirement of producing the certificate before a specific date was not a condition of eligibility. He highlighted the fact that the candidates had successfully cleared the competitive exams and were being denied their rightful appointments due to a technicality. He also took into account the rural backgrounds of the candidates and the lack of clear guidelines at the time of application.
Justice Trivedi’s Reasoning: Justice Trivedi focused on the importance of adhering to the rules and regulations, emphasizing that the eligibility criteria should be examined as of the last date of application. She highlighted the dynamic nature of OBC-NCL and EWS categories, which required candidates to possess valid certificates as of the last date of application. She also emphasized that the circulars issuedby the State of Rajasthan regarding the validity of category certificates were binding.
Ratio of Fact vs. Law:
| Factor | Influence |
|---|---|
| Facts of the Case (Rural Background, Qualifying Exams) | Justice Rastogi: High, Justice Trivedi: Low |
| Adherence to Legal Rules and Regulations | Justice Rastogi: Low, Justice Trivedi: High |
| Dynamic Nature of OBC-NCL and EWS Categories | Justice Rastogi: Low, Justice Trivedi: High |
| Importance of State Circulars | Justice Rastogi: Low, Justice Trivedi: High |
Ratio Decidendi
Due to the split verdict, there is no single ratio decidendi. However, the two opinions highlight the following principles:
- Justice Rastogi: The validity of a category certificate should be determined based on whether the candidate belonged to the relevant category at the time of application, and a rigid cut-off date for the certificate’s issuance is not essential.
- Justice Trivedi: The eligibility of a candidate must be determined based on the last date of application, and the candidate must possess a valid certificate as of that date. The procedural requirement of producing the certificate before a specific date was a condition of eligibility.
Obiter Dicta
The following observations were made by the court, which are not essential to the decision, but provide insights on related legal issues:
- Justice Rastogi emphasized the need for a more benevolent approach in matters of recruitment, especially for candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds.
- Justice Trivedi highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of the reservation policy and ensuring that only eligible candidates from the reserved categories are selected.
- Both judges acknowledged the need for clarity in the rules and regulations regarding the validity of category certificates to avoid future disputes.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s split verdict in the case of Sakshi Arha vs. Rajasthan High Court underscores the ongoing debate between strict adherence to procedural rules and ensuring fair opportunities for candidates from disadvantaged backgrounds. While Justice Rastogi emphasized the need for a more benevolent approach, Justice Trivedi stressed the importance of maintaining the integrity of the reservation policy.
The absence of a clear ratio decidendi means that the issue of the validity of category certificates for government jobs remains open for future interpretation. The case highlights the need for clear and unambiguous rules and regulations regarding the validity of category certificates to avoid similar disputes in the future. It also brings to the fore the challenges faced by candidates from rural backgrounds in navigating complex recruitment processes.
The case also serves as a reminder of the importance of balancing procedural requirements with the constitutional mandate of ensuring social justice and equal opportunities for all.
Flowchart Summary