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 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. 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/Non-Creamy 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)
The extract of Clause 6(i) and (iii) read with Clause 22(3) of the advertisement are reproduced hereunder: “ 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. 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. 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. 31 August, 2021 (the last date of application form), the 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 30 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, MBC-NCL 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:- 12.
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 09 September, 2015 followed with 08 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 at large and litigation was pending before the Courts, the State Government stepped in and in furtherance thereof, issued its directive dated 17 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. 31 August, 2021) in terms of notice dated 04 October, 2022 demanding for furnishing the certificate relating to category to which they were provisionally called for interview. 31 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 31 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 18 August, 2022 in the case of Jyoti Beniwal vs The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Its Registrar General and Another (D.B.
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 31 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. 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.
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 31 August, 2021 and admittedly, each of the applicant was not holding their certificate related to category as demanded of the period prior to 31 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 21 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 State (NCT of Delhi) and Others (2013) 11 SCC 58 and submits that this being a settled law held by this Court and relied upon by the High Court, no error has been committed by the High Court, which may called for interference of this Court.
It is not disputed that the Rules of 2010 is a complete code and silent in reference to the date when certificate of the category has to be furnished and so far as the advertisement is concerned, it nowhere indicates as to what should be the crucial date for the purpose of furnishing the caste related certificate by the applicants who intended to participate in the selection process and admittedly each of the appellant holds the certificate of the category and the period prior to as have been notified by the respondent while their provisional list of the candidates to be called for interview has been published on 04 August, 2022. 31 August, 2021 and since each of the applicant from OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL or EWS has furnished their respective certificate of the category after it was brought to their notice by the provisional list published on 04 August, 2022 and so far as the candidate belonging to EWS category is concerned, appellant furnished her caste certificate dated 07 September, 2021 with delay of seven days. To take a judicial note, reference can be made of Rekha Chaturvedi (Supra) which was further noticed in the case of Bhupinderpal Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others (2000) 5 SCC 262, Jasbir Rani and Others vs State of Punjab and Another (2002) 1 Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. Sarat Chandra
the High Court has held ( i ) that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date as may be appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications; ( ii ) that if there be no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the applications have to be received by the competent authority. (iii) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria shall be applied by reference to the last date notified by which the applications were to be received by the recruiting authority.
Let us examine the Scheme of Rules, 2010 in other way and Part IV in particular, which provides the method of recruitment in the cadre of Civil Judge, Rule 19 postulates that the candidate has to submit a character certificate while participating for direct recruitment which may qualify him for employment in service, has to be not more than six months prior to the date of application which the candidate has to enclose while the application form is filled for participation in the selection process and if we proceed on the principles as aforestated, the question arises that if the candidate who has participated in the selection process after furnishing the character certificate along with the application form in terms of Rule 19, if at a later stage in the process of selection involves in any act of moral turpitude before he is actually appointed whether the appointing authority is under an obligation to give him appointment if his name is finally placed in the order of merit, the answer indeed is in negative and the reason is that the character certificate enclosed by the applicant at the time of filling the application form in terms of Rule 19 is only for the purpose of satisfaction in reference to the character of the applicant/candidate who intends to participate in the process of recruitment which may qualify him for employment in service, but if he 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. SC/ST/OBC/MBC/Persons with Disabilities and women candidates under the Scheme of Rules, 2010 and that has been notified category-wise under Clause 4 of the advertisement dated 22 July, 2021 with which we are concerned, and it goes without saying that the candidate must be a member of the reserved category at the time when the application form is filled pursuant to the advertisement in question, but at the same time so far as the scheme of examination and syllabus, as provided in Rule 20 of the Rules, 2010 is concerned, for holding competitive examination for the post of Civil Judge conducted by the recruiting authority is common for all and each of the candidate regardless the category to which one belongs, has to undergo the same process of qualifying the preliminary examination followed with main examination and interview, except that the candidates are admitted to the main examination followed with interview in terms of the total number of vacancies category-wise.
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 self-declaration 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 category-wise 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 dated 04 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 22 July, 2021. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.” Later, in Ram Kumar Gijroya vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another (2016) 4 SCC 754, this Court has examined the question as to whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the OBC category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under OBC category and answered it in affirmative as under:- “ 18. Cochin University, (1996) 3 SCC 545 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33 ATC 713] wherein this Court after interpretation of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39-A of the directive principles of State policy held that the object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunity.
Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No 562 of 2011 is not only erroneous but also suffers from error in law as it has failed to follow the binding precedent of the judgments of this Court in Indra Sawhney [ Indra Sawhney v. of NCT of Delhi and Others (SLP(C) No.14948/2016) and the Court has some reservations and referred the matter to be placed before three- Judge Bench by order dated 24 January, 2020 and three-Judge Bench of this Court while relying upon Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra) disposed of the appeal under its order dated 28 September, 2022, it appears that the reference made by two-Judge Bench of this Court remained unnoticed. 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 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.
To understand the dynamics, the Government has come out with the Circulars earlier dated 9 September, 2015 followed with 08 October, 2019 of which reference has been made, but it has always to commensurate with the process of selection when the advertisement has been published by the recruiting authorities for making open selection and in every advertisement notified by the recruiting authority, the last date of application is bound to differ and that may change the complete dynamics of the certificate which the applicant holds and he is not supposed to obtain the certificate of category in conformity with each advertisement and it is not being practically possible and that appears to be the reason since there was no scheme or instructions in place which may regulate and streamline as to what is the procedure the applicant has to follow while participating in the selection process intending to avail the benefit of reservation for various categories and to overcome on-going litigation, the State Government has stepped in and clarified under its directives dated 17 October, 2022 indicating that if the applicant has failed to furnish the certificate on the last date of application or furnish the same of the date later to the last date of application, he has to furnish an affidavit that if it is found to be incorrect or false, such appointment will be cancelled. To sum up further, as noticed by this Court, the final merit list of 120 selected candidates was notified by the respondents as indicated in the notice dated 30 August, 2022 and there is no provision under the Scheme of Rules, 2010 of having any waiting list/reserve list. Taking the overall spectrum of the fact situation that the candidates who might be lower in the order of merit vis–vis the present appellants have joined and sent for training, but they were never at fault, at the same time, the present appellants also need indulgence of being considered for appointment after they are finally selected and indisputedly have secured higher marks than cut-off in their respective category and this fact has not been disputed by the respondents as well, few of the applicants can be adjusted against the available advertised vacancies and without disturbing or taking away the rights of the candidates who have been appointed by the recruiting authority, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, in exercise of our power under Article 142 of the Constitution, to do complete justice to the parties, it may be appropriate to direct the respondents to consider each of the appellants for appointment who could not be adjusted against the advertised vacancies of Civil Judge against future vacancies, subject to their suitability under the Scheme of Rules, 2010. OF 2023 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No 16428 OF 2022) SAKSHI ARHA…..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS. OF 2023 (@SPECIAL CIV LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.6-18299 OF 2022) PRIYANKA ETC. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS REGISTRAR EXAMINATION, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR…. 19179 OF 2022) SUNIL SINGH GURJAR…APPELLANT(S) VERSUS REGISTRAR EXAMINATION, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR….RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ANR. The 3 appellants having produced the certificates showing their status in the respective reserved category, which were issued after the said date 31.08.2021, they were not found eligible for the said post by the respondent-High Court. They having been provisionally qualified to be called for the interview, were invited by the respondent for the interview between 20.08.2022 to 27.08.2022, vide the notice dated 04.08.2022.
The appellant Jyoti Beniwal (SLP (C) No 5654/2023) who had applied under the category OBC-NCL for the said post of Civil Judge, filed the writ petition being No 11784 of 2022 inter alia challenging the conditions imposed in the said notice dated 04.08.2022 requiring the candidates to furnish the OBC-NCL certificates issued between 31.08.2018 to 31.08.2021, and declaring that the certificates issued after 31.08.2021 would not be accepted. Similar writ petitions filed by the other appellants-writ petitioners came to be dismissed by the High Court by passing separate orders relying upon the decisions in case of Jyoti Beniwal and Kuldeep Bhatia. The relevant paragraph 4 of the Circular dated 09.09.2015 with regard to issuance of caste certificates reads as under: 10.
In absence of any specification with regard to the date of certificates to be produced by the candidates applying under the reserved categories either in the recruitment advertisement dated 22.07.2021 or in the said Rules of 2010, the prescriptions contained in the notice dated 14 04.08.2022 requiring the candidates to produce the certificates as per Clause 3 thereof tantamount to changing the rules of game in the midst of the recruitment process, which is not permissible in the eye of law.
Case Title: SAKSHI ARHA Vs. THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (2023 INSC 559)
Case Number: C.A. No.-003957-003957 / 2023
