Supreme Court Upholds Certificate Validity Rules for Civil Judge Appointments: Sakshi Arha vs. Rajasthan High Court (2025)

Date of the Judgment: April 08, 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 463
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J., Augustine George Masih, J.

Can a candidate’s application for a reserved category be rejected if their certificate was issued before the deadline specified in a subsequent notice, even if the original advertisement was silent on the matter? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a set of appeals concerning the appointment of Civil Judges in Rajasthan. The core issue revolved around whether the Rajasthan High Court rightly rejected the applications of candidates from OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL, and EWS categories because their certificates were not issued within the timeframe specified in a notice issued after the initial advertisement. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Augustine George Masih.

Case Background

The case originated from an advertisement published by the Rajasthan High Court on July 22, 2021, inviting applications for the post of Civil Judge Cadre. The advertisement, based on the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, did not specify the last date for the issuance of reserved category certificates. The deadline for application submissions was August 31, 2021.

A preliminary test was conducted on November 28, 2021, followed by the main examinations on April 30, 2022, and May 1, 2022. Subsequently, on August 4, 2022, a notice was issued stating that reserved category certificates should not have been issued beyond August 31, 2021.

Several candidates from the Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) (OBC-NCL), Most Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) (MBC-NCL), and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) categories cleared both the preliminary and main examinations. However, their names were not included in the list of candidates called for the interview because their certificates were not issued as per the date specified in the subsequent notice.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Aggrieved by the exclusion, the affected candidates filed separate writ petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan. Ms. Jyoti Beniwal, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3909 of 2023, filed the first writ petition challenging the condition imposed by the Rajasthan High Court in its subsequent notice. She argued that since the original advertisement did not specify a deadline for submitting the OBC-NCL certificate, the imposition of this condition was arbitrary and unjust.

The High Court of Rajasthan rejected the request on August 18, 2022, stating that OBC-NCL status is determined annually and requires a valid certificate at the time of application submission. The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others, observing that when no specific date is provided for document submission, the cut-off date for application submission is applicable.

Ms. Sakshi Arha, the appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023, also filed a writ petition before the Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan. Her petition was tagged with other similar petitions and was dismissed on September 6, 2022, based on the factual and legal similarity to Ms. Jyoti Beniwal’s case.

The appellants then moved the Supreme Court by way of separate Special Leave Petitions, which were tagged along with Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023. Due to a split verdict in the Division Bench, the set of appeals was referred to a three-judge bench.

Legal Framework

The case is governed primarily by the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, and various circulars issued by the State of Rajasthan regarding the issuance and validity of caste certificates.

Paragraph 10 in Part-III “General Conditions” of the 2010 Rules provides for reservation for Other Backward Classes at the time of initial recruitment, allocating 21% of the advertised vacancies. However, the rules are silent on the specific aspect of categories and the date of issuance of certificates. Paragraph 21 of “A-Recruitment to the Cadre of Civil Judge” in Part-IV “Methods of Recruitment” calls for the invitation of applications from “eligible candidates”.

The State of Rajasthan, through its Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, issues directions and guidelines regarding the issuance of necessary caste certificates. A Circular dated September 9, 2015, specifies that a certificate for the NCL category is valid for one year. If an applicant has not transgressed out of the said category in the following year, an affidavit allows the initially issued certificate to be deemed valid, up to a maximum period of three years.

The relevant paragraph of the Circular dated September 9, 2015, states:

“4. Validity Period of Caste Certificate:
1. The validity of caste certificates issued for SC / ST will be lifetime whereas the certificate for OBC will be issued only once but the fact that the person is not in the creamy layer will be recognised on the basis of a valid affidavit up to three years.
2. The certificate of non -creamy layer will be valid for one year. Once the certificate of non -creamy layer is obtained, if the applicant is not in the creamy layer in the next year as well, then in such a situation an affidavit (Appendix -D) will be obtained from him, where the earlier issued non -creamy layer certificate shall be deemed valid, this can be done for a maximum period of three years.”

This position was clarified and crystalized by the State of Rajasthan in a Circular dated August 8, 2019, which states:

“Government of Rajasthan
Department of Social Justice and Empowerment
No.F-11/SCST/OBC/SBC Date: 08.08.2019
…Therefore, it is once again clarified in this regard that the caste certificate of Other Backward Classes shall be valid for one year, however, in a situation where the applicant has been issued a certificate for not falling in the creamy layer category and if such applicant does not fall within the creamy layer in the subsequent year as well, in that situation, previously issued certificate of falling within the non -creamy layer will be treated as valid after obtaining an attested affidavit from the applicant, which can be done maximum for a period of three years.”

Arguments

Arguments of the Appellants:

• ✓ The High Court of Rajasthan erred in considering that the conditions introduced by the Subsequent Notice arbitrarily limited the Appellants’ chances in the selection process, despite them having a OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL certificate since 2016, which was valid as per the Advertisement.
• ✓ This condition, therefore, violated fundamental rights of the Appellant (s).
• ✓ There was no such requirement in the 2010 Rules as has been introduced by the Subsequent Notice.
• ✓ The High Court of Rajasthan wrongly relied on Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), which dealt with the qualification criteria.
• ✓ The decision in Ram Kumar Girjoya (supra) was binding on the Court as the Advertisement only necessitated a valid caste certificate as per the prescribed format but had not mandated its issuance within a specified period.
• ✓ The Appellants in the instant appeals are certified to be candidate of OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL category by the competent authority – which had considered the report of Tehsildar – and also the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Years 2015-2016 to 2022-2023.
• ✓ The decisions rendered by this Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Others and Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public Service Commission were also brought to our attention to argue instances of relaxations that have been previously provided to candidates for submission of proof for the concerned documents, relying on which, respective candidates have made their claim for reservation.

Arguments of the Respondent (Rajasthan High Court):

• ✓ The benefit of OBC/MBC reservation in a public service is contingent on having been issued a NCL Certificate, which as per the Circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2015 of the State of Rajasthan, is valid for a period of one year, and a certificate preceding past two years can be validated subsequently, through an affidavit to the said effect.
• ✓ The Advertisement explicitly provided for the candidate to produce a legally valid certificate.
• ✓ The action of the Respondent, to not include the Appellants in the list of candidates eligible to participate in the interview in the category of OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL, is in compliance with the law being neither malafide nor arbitrary.
• ✓ The High Court of Rajasthan balanced the equity by directing that the result of the Appellant(s) concerned be declared treating them as if they had applied under the General Category.
• ✓ The decision in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra) clarified that in case of absence of a specified cut-off date, the last date of submission of form for the concerned advertisement is deemed so.
• ✓ This Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra) observed that if a relaxation is given to accept a concerned certificate after the cut-off date, it would be prejudicial to candidates who had not applied for the said reason.
• ✓ The reliance placed by the Appellants on Ram Kumar Girjoya (supra) is also distinguishable from the instant factual matrix as the candidates herein do not possess a valid certificate to claim the benefit of reservation.
• ✓ While Ram Kumar Girjoya (supra) was referred to a larger bench by this Court vide Order dated 24.01.2020 in SLP (Civil) No. 14948 of 2016 and had its observations affirmed by the 3-Judge Bench vide Order dated 28.09.2022 in Karn Singh Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others, it did not provide any substantive relief to the Appellant therein.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

1. [Issue 1 Extracted Verbatim from Source Document]
2. [Issue 2 Extracted Verbatim from Source Document]
3. [Issue 3 Extracted Verbatim from Source Document]

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases and books relied upon by the court, categorized by specified legal point:

• Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 – Categorized backward classes into “Creamy” and “Non -Creamy” layers.
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Others, (2000) 1 SCC 168 – Clarified that caste alone cannot be the basis for discrimination.
• Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar and Others, (1995) 5 SCC 403 – Dealt with reservation to certain categories belonging to creamy layer.
• Bhupinderpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 262 – Determined eligibility criteria for candidates aspiring public employment.
• Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) v. University of Rajasthan and Others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 – Proposition of assessing a candidate’s qualification with reference to the date of selection, as opposed to the last date of applications is untenable.
• Divya v. Union of India and Others, (2024) 1 SCC 448 – Dealing with crystallisation of right of EWS through issuance of Income and Asset Certificate.

Legal provisions considered by the court:

• Paragraph 10 in Part-III “General Conditions” of the 2010 Rules – Provides reservation for Other Backward Classes.
• Paragraph 21 of “A-Recruitment to the Cadre of Civil Judge” in Part-IV “Methods of Recruitment” – Calls for invitation of applications from “eligible candidates”.
• Circular dated 09.09.2015 – Notified that a certificate for NCL category shall only be valid for a period of one year.
• Circular dated 08.08.2019 – Clarified the validity of caste certificate of Other Backward Classes.

Authority Treatment Table

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize the categorization of backward classes into “Creamy” and “Non-Creamy” layers.
• Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and Others [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to clarify that in the absence of a specified cut-off date, the last date of submission of the form for the concerned advertisement is deemed so.
• Bhupinderpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to clarify that eligibility criteria for candidates aspiring public employment shall be determined pertaining to the cut-off date as outlined in the applicable rules of their respective service.
• Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) v. University of Rajasthan and Others [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to clarify that the proposition of assessing a candidate’s qualification with reference to the date of selection, as opposed to the last date of applications is untenable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Sakshi Arha case was influenced by several key considerations. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the established legal framework, which includes the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, and the circulars issued by the State of Rajasthan regarding the validity of caste certificates. The Court also stressed the significance of the cut-off date for determining eligibility, as well as the principle that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by both factual and legal considerations. The factual aspects of the case included the specific dates of certificate issuance, the content of the advertisement, and the circumstances surrounding the Subsequent Notice. The legal considerations included the relevant rules, circulars, and precedents governing the validity of caste certificates and the determination of eligibility.

Logical Reasoning

Issue: Validity of Subsequent Notice

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Candidates applying for reserved categories must ensure that their certificates are valid as per the rules and instructions in the advertisement.
• ✓ In the absence of a specified date for certificate issuance, the last date of application submission is considered the cut-off date.
• ✓ Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and candidates are expected to be aware of the relevant rules and regulations.
• ✓ This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the established legal framework in matters of public employment.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that candidates applying for reserved categories must ensure that their certificates are valid as per the rules and instructions in the advertisement, and in the absence of a specified date for certificate issuance, the last date of application submission is considered the cut-off date. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position on the validity of caste certificates and the determination of eligibility in public employment.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals, upholding the decision of the Rajasthan High Court. The Court held that the appellants’ certificates were not valid as per the rules and instructions in the advertisement, and the Subsequent Notice issued by the Rajasthan High Court was in consonance with law. The judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the established legal framework in matters of public employment and clarifies the cut-off date for certificate validity in the absence of a specified date in the advertisement.