2025 INSC 463
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(HON’BLE ABHAY S. OKA. J. HON’BLE
AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ,J. AND HON’BLE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH , JJ.)
SAKSHI ARHA
Appellant
VERSUS
RAJASTHAN HIGH
COURT & ORS.
Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3957 OF 2023
With Civil Appeal No. 3958-3961 OF 2023 Civil Appeal No. 3963 OF2023 Civil
Appeal No. 3962 OF2023 Civil Appeal No. 3909 OF2023-Decided on 08-04-2025
Service Law
Rajasthan Judicial
Service Rules, 2010, paragraph 10 in Part-III, paragraph 2, Part IV – Service
Law - Recruitment - Civil
Judge Examination 2021 - Last date
of issuance of the concerned certificates for each reserved category –
Clarification - Latin maxim of ignorantia juris non excusat -
Advertisement, in itself, did not clearly mention the date with regard to
issuance of category certificate, and that it came from the Subsequent Notice
which ascertained a cut-off date for acceptable certificates - The Subsequent Notice specified that the
certificate belonging to the concerned reserved category should have been
issued prior or upto 31.08.2021 i.e. the last date of receipt of the
application in pursuance to the Advertisement - This was because the Advertisement
required a candidate to possess eligibility upto the cut-off date - Contention
that the late imposition of this condition is arbitrary and unjust repelled -
High Court rejected the request, observing that OBC-NCL status is determined
annually and requires a valid certificate at the time of the application
submission - Where no specific date is provided for document submission, the
cut-off date for application submission is applicable - As regards the
specifications regarding a certificate issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020
along with the affidavit is concerned, this was based on the Government
Circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019 which clarified that the certificate
issued will be valid for one year extendable by three years with affidavit - Thus,
the Subsequent Notice issued was in consonance with law and as per the
Advertisement, applicable Rules, instructions and circulars issued by the
competent authority - Appellants cannot certainly, escape from the clutches of
the principle laid down through the Latin maxim of ignorantia juris non
excusat, which translates in literal English to "ignorance of the law
is no excuse" - The Advertisement certainly required them to produce a
valid certificate to their claim as per rules and instructions, and in the
prescribed format - The relevant law, rules and instructions clearly indicate
that a certificate of a claim, as put forth by the Appellants herein, is valid
for a period of one year from the date of issuance, and subsequently,
extendable up to three years, provided, an affidavit to the said effect is also
produced along with the originally issued certificate- The plea of the
appellants is unsustainable and deserves to be rejected - No relaxation can be
granted in the given facts and circumstances of the case nor can it be claimed
as a matter of right in the absence of any such discretionary clause in the
Advertisement/Rules/Instructions - None of the appellants had a valid
certificate and/or accompanied by the affidavit as per the proforma at the
relevant time as per the requirement referred to above – Appeals liable to be dismissed, while
upholding the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court,
impugned, as good in law.
(Para
32, 33, 35 to 40)
JUDGMENT
Augustine George
Masih, J. :- The
present set of appeals have travelled to this 3-Judge Bench as a result of the
split verdict delivered through Judgment dated 18.05.2023 in Civil Appeal No.
3957 of 2023 and other connected matters, including Civil Appeal No. 3908 of
2023 which was detagged from the instant batch vide Order dated 06.11.2024, by
Division Bench of this Court.
2. The factual backdrop in the
present set of appeals is being culled primarily from the Civil Appeal No. 3957
of 2023, as it is agreed that the issue involved in these appeals arises from
the 2010 Rules which regulate the appointment of Civil Judges in the state of
Rajasthan and the relevant facts are identical.
2.1 The Rajasthan High Court -
Respondent No. 1 published an Advertisement dated 22.07.2021 (hereinafter
referred to as "Advertisement") inviting applications for appointment
to the post of Civil Judge Cadre being the "Civil Judge Examination
2021" as per the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter
referred to as "2010 Rules), which was admittedly silent on the aspect of
the last date of issuance of the concerned certificates for each reserved
category. The last date for receipt of the applications was 31.08.2021.
Preliminary Test was held on 28.11.2021 followed by the conduct of the Mains
Examinations on 30.04.2022 to 01.05.2022. A Notice dated 04.08.2022
(hereinafter referred to as "Subsequent Notice") was issued, which
mentioned that the concerned reserved category certificates ought not to have
been issued beyond 31.08.2021.
3. The Appellants in all the
appeals belong to different reserved categories, i.e., Other Backward Classes
(Non-Creamy Layer) (hereinafter referred to as "OBC-NCL"), Most Backward
Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) (hereinafter referred to as "MBC-NCL") or
Economically Weaker Section (hereinafter referred to as "EWS")
categories. These candidates successfully cleared their preliminary examination,
followed by mains examination, as per the requirements of marks in their
respective categories. However, as none of these candidates had their
certificates issued as per the date specified in the Subsequent Notice, their
names were not included in the list of the candidates called for interview.
4. This grievance compelled the
Appellants to file a series of separate writ petitions before the High Court of
Rajasthan, both at Jodhpur, and the Bench at Jaipur. The first and foremost
writ was moved by Ms. Jyoti Beniwal, the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3909 of
2023 herein, before the Division Bench of High Court of Rajasthan as D.B. Civil
Writ Petition No 11784 of 2022, challenging the condition imposed by the Rajasthan
High Court in its Subsequent Notice, requiring candidates under the reserved
category to submit a certificate issued within one year of the application
deadline i.e. 31.08.2021 or a certificate issued between 31.08.2018 and
30.08.2020, along with an affidavit. The petitioner therein, having cleared the
preliminary and mains examinations, contended that no deadline for submitting
the OBC-NCL certificate was specified in the Advertisement, and therefore, the
late imposition of this condition is arbitrary and unjust. Citing Ram Kumar
Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another[(2016) 4 SCC 754], petitioner therein
sought to be interviewed under the OBC-NCL category, referring to the lack of
such a deadline in the Advertisement.
5. The High Court of Rajasthan,
vide Order dated 18.08.2022, rejected the request, observing that OBC-NCL
status is determined annually and requires a valid certificate at the time of
the application submission. Relying on this Court's decision in Ashok Kumar
Sonkar v. Union of India and Others[2007
(4) SCC 54], it observed that where no specific date is provided for
document submission, the cut-off date for application submission is applicable.
The Division Bench also referred to other decisions, namely, Gaurav Sharma v.
State of U.P. through Principal Secy. and 3 Others[2017 SCC OnLine All 1286], and Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others[(2013) 11 SCC 58], which affirmed the necessity of certificates by the cutoff date.
Thus, the certificate of the year 2016, as presented by the petitioner therein,
was deemed to have failed to meet the requirements as per the law, and the writ
petition was dismissed.
6. In the meantime, Ms Sakshi
Arha, the Appellant in the Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023, had also moved the
Jaipur Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
12374 of 2022. Her petition was tagged along with other similar petitions, lead
case thereof being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12022 of 2022, titled as Kuldeep
Bhatia Vs. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court which were taken up
together. As the said petitions came up for hearing, the Court on considering the
factual and legal similarity of the dispute, viz-à-viz the case of Ms Jyoti
Beniwal (supra), the cases were dismissed vide Common Order dated 06.09.2022.
7. This resulted in the
Appellants moving this Court by way of separate Special Leave Petitions which
were vide separate orders tagged along with Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023.
8. Since the Division Bench as
mentioned above, could not unanimously conclude the fate of these Appellants at
stake, the instant set of appeals have travelled before this 3-Judge Bench.
9. The counsels on behalf of the
Appellants have argued that the High Court of Rajasthan has erred in not
considering that the conditions introduced by the Subsequent Notice arbitrarily
limited the Appellants' chances in the selection process, despite they 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).
Moreover, there was no such requirement in the 2010 Rules as has been
introduced by the Subsequent Notice.
10. They have further argued that
while passing the impugned Order(s), the High Court of Rajasthan wrongly relied
on Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), which dealt with the qualification criteria. The
factual matrix therein concerned with an income-based exclusion from OBC-NCL, which
was not the case herein.
11. Moreover, 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.
12. The decisions rendered by this
Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Others[(2005) 9 SCC 779] and Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public
Service Commission[(2017) 11 SCC 276]
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.
13. In response to the collective
submissions of the Appellants, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
Rajasthan High Court, argued that 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. Thus, 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. Moreover, 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.
14. It was further submitted that
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. Withal, 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.
15. 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. Moreover, 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[(2024)
2 SCC 588], it did not provide any substantive relief to the Appellant
therein.
16. We have heard the learned
counsels at extensive length while pressing their respective submissions.
Before we determine the fate of the Appellants before us, it is crucial to
analyse the juxtaposition of the series of arguments presented before us, besides
the settled legal positions.
17. Undoubtedly, while the status
of a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste (hereinafter referred to as
"SC") or Scheduled Tribe (hereinafter referred to as "ST")
is determined by virtue of one's birth. However, as opposed to the unabating
virtue of being an SC or ST candidate, the status of a candidate claiming to be
OBC-NCL or MBC-NCL or EWS is constantly subject to transposition owing to their
social or economic status with the concerned jurisdiction. It is on the
strength of this reasoning that the decision of 9-Judge Bench of this Court in
Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others[1992 Supp(3) SCC 217] further categorized the backward classes
into "Creamy" and "Non-Creamy" layers as an attempt to
differentiate the affluent strata therein, so as to allow for the reservation
for those who are truly warranting of the affirmative action by the state.
18. Tracing these footsteps,
numerous decisions subsequently rendered by this Court crystalized this dynamic
nature of status of other backward classes as against that of SCs or STs.
Moreover, this court in a subsequent decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
and Others[(2000) 1 SCC 168]
clarified that while our nation, Republic of India, remains a caste-based
society, the Constitution mandates that caste alone cannot be the basis for
discrimination. Accordingly, reservation is justified only when the concern of
both, backwardness and underrepresentation in services is addressed
sufficiently. It further went on to observe that a caste may be identified as a
backward class, but, the creamy layer ought to be excluded as the said set of
strata is neither socially, nor economically backward. The inclusion of castes
in the backward classes list requires relevant data and must avoid extraneous
factors. Improper inclusion of forward castes or failure to exclude the creamy layer
undermines the system, depriving the
genuinely disadvantaged of benefits. The Bench therein, also dealt with the
decision in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar and Others[(1995) 5 SCC 403], in which, the Central Government had
issued an Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 to provide for reservation to
certain categories, and admittedly, they belonged to creamy layer.
19. As the determination is
clearly varied, it is important to partake the correct implementation of the
laws of the land, and, as that attempt, the NCL certificate was introduced in the
year 1993 by the Central Government. As part of the said policy, the Tehsildar
of the concerned State Government was empowered to issue the said certificate, subject
to the relevant guidelines and procedure, as may have been laid down by the
respective State Governments.
20. In light of the powers
conferred thereof, the State of Rajasthan through its Department of Social
Justice and Empowerment keeps issuing relevant directions and/or guidelines vis-à-vis
issuances of necessary caste certificates. A perusal of the said circulars
establishes a clear position as to its validity.
21. The Circular dated 09.09.2015
notified that a certificate for NCL category shall only be valid for a period
of one year. Moreover, if it is a case that the concerned applicant has not
transgressed out of the said category in the following year, an affidavit by
him/her, as provided in the Appendix-D, would allow the initially issued
certificate to be deemed as valid. However, the maximum period to allow for
this practice to continue is three years.
21.1 As a reference, the relevant
paragraph of the Circular dated 09.09.2015 is reproduced below:
"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."
22. This position was
subsequently clarified and crystalised by the State of Rajasthan in Circular
dated 08.08.2019. The relevant portion reads as follows:
"Government
of Rajasthan
Department
of Social Justice and Empowerment No. F-1 1/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."
23. Now, let us delve into the
state of affairs that surround the Advertisement and the appointment to Civil
Judge Cadre in the state of Rajasthan, especially the 2010 Rules.
24. It is through paragraph 10 in
Part-III "General Conditions" of the 2010 Rules that the Other
Backward Classes are provided reservation at the time of initial recruitment in
the proportion of 21% of the vacancies advertised. However, the same is
undoubtedly silent on the specific aspect of the categories and date of the
issuance of certificates. Having said that, 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".
25. The Advertisement was issued
in pursuance to the 2010 Rules. Before delving any further, let us peruse the
bare text of the relevant portion of translated version of the Advertisement:
"Rajasthan
High Court, Jodhpur
Advertisement
No:- Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur/Examination Cell/ R.J.S./ Civil Judge
Cadre/2021/780 dated 22/07/2021.
Competitive
Examination for Direct Recruitment in Civil Judge Cadre, 2021.
1. Online
applications are invited by Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur for direct recruitment
on total 120 vacant posts (89 posts of year 2020 and 31 posts of year 2021) of
Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate on probation in Civil judge Cadre in grade
pay 27700-770-33090-920-40450-1080-44770 under Rajasthan Judicial Service
Rules, 2010 (as amended).
2. to 4
5.
Regarding reservation of various categories
i.
Reservation for posts reserved for women (including widow and divorced women)
shall be treated as horizontal against category wise vacant posts meaning
thereby women of which category (Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes/ Other
Backward Classes/ More Backward Classes/ Economically Weaker Sections/ General
Category) will be selected, such woman candidate will be adjusted against the
concerned category of which she is an applicant.
ii.
Reservation for posts reserved for Persons with Disabilities shall be treated
as horizontal against total vacant posts meaning thereby persons with
disabilities of which category (Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes/ Other
Backward Classes/ More Backward Classes/ 5 Economically Weaker Sections/
General Category) will be selected, such candidates will be adjusted against
the concerned category of which they are applicant.
iii ...
In the event of non-availability of eligible and suitable candidates against
the posts reserved for Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes/ Other Backward
Classes/ Most Backward Classes /Economically Weaker Sections/ women (including
widow and divorced women) / Persons with Disabilities of Rajasthan, these posts
will be filled by the procedure and manner prescribed in Rajasthan Judicial
Service Rules, 2010 (as amended).
iv. For
selection against posts meant for general category, it will be essential for
reserved category candidates to be eligible as general category candidates.
Note-
Applicants from creamy layer category of Other Backward Class and More Backward
Class of Rajasthan and Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes/ Other Backward Class
(Creamy layer and non-creamy layer)/ More Backward Class (Creamy layer and
non-creamy layer)/ Economically Weaker Sections of other states, shall be
treated as general category candidates.
6. Regarding certificates of
various categories-
i. For
reservation as Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes/ Other Backward Classes and
More Backward Class, certificate issued by the Competent authority as per rules
in the prescribed format, will have to be furnished.
a....
iii. In
case of Economically Weaker Sections applicants, such candidates will have to
furnish the certificate duly issued as per rules of the Competent Authority.
iv. ...
v. For
availing benefit of reservation meant for married women candidates of Other
Backward Classes and More Backward Classes, such women candidates will have to
furnish caste certificate based on the name and address of father issued in the
prescribed format as per rules. The certificate based on the basis of name,
address and income of the husband shall not be applicable.
vi. ...
7 to
16......
17.
Time limit to apply:-
|
S. No. |
Description |
Date |
|
1. |
Time limit for applying online |
From 1:00 pm on 30.07.2021 (Friday)
to 5.00 PM on 31.08.2021 (Tuesday) |
18.
Important Instructions to Apply:-
1. Any
applicant under which category he is eligible to apply should apply in the same
category. The category filled in the application will not be changed under any circumstances
on the request of the applicant.
2. Before
applying online application, the applicant must ensure that he/ she meets all
the eligibility conditions as per the conditions mentioned in the advertisement
and all the information required in the online application form is filled in correctly
and fully in the relevant column. The information filled in the online
application form will be considered as correct and provisional admission will
be given in the examination. Therefore, the applicant himself/herself will be responsible
for the information filled in the online application form.
3. Only
the applications filled by the last date of online application will be
accepted. In case all the entries are not complete and correct, the application
will be rejected by the Rajasthan High Court.
4. No
change can be made in the entries once finally entered in the online application,
nor will any application in this regard be accepted for consideration.
19 to
21......
23.
Other Important Instructions:
1....
2....
3. The candidates
will be required to produce all the relevant original documents/certificates,
on the basis of which they make any claim, if required by the Rajasthan High
Court or the concerned appointing authority.
4 to
8......
9. Only
such applicants, who have successfully deposited the examination fee by
applying online till the last date, will be provisionally allowed to appear in
the examination by the Rajasthan High Court. Merely issuing the admit card to
an applicant to appear in the examination would not mean that his candidature
has been finally accepted by the Rajasthan High Court or that the entries made
by the applicant in the application form have been treated as correct and true.
While checking the eligibility of the applicant from the original documents by
the Rajasthan High Court and as per rule, if his/her ineligibility is detected
on the ground of non-fulfilment of other essential conditions of eligibility on
the basis of age, educational qualification and SC/ST/OBC/More Backward
Class/EWS/PH/Women/ Widow/Abandoned (Divorced) etc., his/her candidature for
this examination is liable to be cancelled at any stage, the responsibility of
which will be that of the applicant himself."
(Emphasis
supplied)
26. The Advertisement appears to
be silent on the aspect of last date of issuance of valid category certificate,
however, clause (i) and (iii) of paragraph 06 explicitly provide that the
candidates from concerned categories therein were to furnish certificate issued
by the competent authority as per rules. Thereafter, a collective reference to
clauses 1 and 2 of paragraph 18 attracts our attention as it clarified that
candidates should only apply under a said category if they meet all the eligibility
conditions as per the Advertisement. Moreover, as per para 23 of the
Advertisement, all the candidates, making their individual claims were
necessarily required to produce original documents or certificates, as the case
may be, to substantiate their claims of eligibility for reservation.
27. On the subject of absence of
last date to showcase their eligibility by a candidate apropos their equivalent
claim, this Court clarified the correct position of law in its decision in
Bhupinderpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others[(2000) 5 SCC 262], where, while upholding the view taken by High
Court of Punjab and Haryana, held that the 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. In case the
rules are silent, the decisive date is, ideally, indicated in the advertisement
for recruitment. However, in case of absence of specifications in both context,
the eligibility is to be adjudged in lieu of the last date of submission of
applications before the concerned authority or institute. This, thereby,
ensures a clear temporal reference point for evaluating qualifications of a
candidate as per the concerned advertisement.
28. This derivation of the
position of law was from the decision of this Court in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt)
v. University of Rajasthan and Others[1993
Supp (3) SCC 168] wherein the Bench explicitly observed 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 and must
be unequivocally dismissed. The indeterminate nature of the date of selection
renders it impracticable for applicants to ascertain whether they meet the
prescribed qualifications, particularly if such qualifications are yet to be
attained. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as follows:
"10.
The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be
examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the
last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The
date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such
date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether
they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire
the qualifications. 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. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence,
viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and
are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts
thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may
follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of
selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and
reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the
advertisement/notification inviting 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. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the
Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took
into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection
rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent
illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to
be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent
decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad v. B. Sarat
Chandra [(1990) 2 SCC 669 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 377 : (1990) 4 SLR 235 : (1990)
13 ATC 708] and District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential
School Society, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 :
1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 4 SLR 237 : (1990) 14 ATC 766]."
29. This is now well-accepted,
licit with clarification, also reiterated in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), and
was accepted as recently as in the decision of this Court in Divya v. Union of
India and Others[(2024) 1 SCC 448],
while dealing with crystallisation of right of EWS through issuance of Income and
Asset Certificate, as issued by the competent authority.
30. Having sailed through the
stream of law on the subject matter in question, let us now analyse the factual
matrix vis-à-vis the juxtaposition of the claims of the parties before us.
31. Prima facie, the arguments
rendered on behalf of the Appellants before us, appear to be judicious, if
limited scope is the Advertisement. But, clearly, this Advertisement does not
exist in a vacuum, nescient of the outside world and the laws of the land. The
decisions of this Court, and the guidelines on the category certificates
thereof, would invariably impact the scope of its interpretation and execution.
32. The well-read legal minds, as
the Appellants before us, cannot certainly, escape from the clutches of the principle
laid down through the Latin maxim of ignorantia juris non excusat, which
translates in literal English to "ignorance of the law is no excuse".
The Advertisement certainly required them to produce a valid certificate to
their claim as per rules and instructions, and in the prescribed format.
33. The relevant law, rules and
instructions, as reproduced and referred earlier, clearly indicate that a
certificate of a claim, as put forth by the Appellants herein, is valid for a
period of one year from the date of issuance, and subsequently, extendable up
to three years, provided, an affidavit to the said effect is also produced
along with the originally issued certificate.
34. Moreover, the decisions of
this Court have cleared the air of any doubt that the claim made by a candidate
while filling his or her application as per the concerned advertisement are to
hold good as on the date of his or her application or as per the last date of
submission of applications prescribed by the concerned advertisement.
35. It is true that, the
Advertisement, in itself, did not clearly mention the date with regard to
issuance of category certificate, and that it came from the Subsequent Notice
which ascertained a cut-off date for acceptable certificates.
36. The Subsequent Notice, which
was issued by the Rajasthan High Court on 04.08.2022, cannot be said to be
arbitrary or without any basis. It specified that the certificate belonging to
the concerned reserved category should have been issued prior or upto
31.08.2021 i.e. the last date of receipt of the application in pursuance to the
Advertisement. This was because the Advertisement required a candidate to
possess eligibility upto the cut-off date. As regards the specifications
regarding a certificate issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020 along with the
affidavit is concerned, this was based on the Government Circulars dated
09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019 (reproduced above) which clarified that the
certificate issued will be valid for one year extendable by three years with
affidavit. Thus, the Subsequent Notice issued was in consonance with law and as
per the Advertisement, applicable Rules, instructions and circulars issued by
the competent authority. The plea of the appellants is unsustainable and
deserves to be rejected. No relaxation can be granted in the given facts and
circumstances of the case nor can it be claimed as a matter of right in the
absence of any such discretionary clause in the
Advertisement/Rules/Instructions.
37. The details of the
candidates, category and the date of issuance of their respective certificates
are as follows:
|
S. No. |
Name of Appellants and Civil Appeal
Numbers |
Category |
Date of certificate issuance |
|
1. |
Sakshi Arha [Civil Appeal No.
3957 of 2023] |
OBC-NCL |
27.07.2016, 17.06.2022 &
12.08.2022 |
|
2. |
Priyanka [Civil Appeal No. 3958
of 2023] |
OBC-NCL |
23.04.2018 & 20.06.2022 |
|
3. |
Bhavya Kulhar [Civil Appeal No.
3959 of 2023] |
OBC-NCL |
19.09.2016 & 16.06.2022 |
|
4. |
Neha Batar [Civil Appeal No.
3960 of 2023] |
OBC-NCL |
28.06.2018 & 21.06.2022 |
|
5. |
Nikhil Kataria [Civil Appeal No.
3961 of 2023] |
OBC-NCL |
16.07.2018 & 09.06.2022 |
|
6. |
Sunil Singh Gurjar [Civil Appeal
No. 3962 of 2023] |
MBC-NCL |
18.06.2018 & 16.06.2022 |
|
7. |
Kuldeep Bhatia [Civil Appeal No.
3963 of 2023] |
MBC-NCL |
03.08.2012 & 09.03.2022 |
|
8. |
Jyoti Beniwal [Civil Appeal No.
3909 of 2023] |
OBC-NCL |
22.06.2016 & 25.07.2022 |
The above details would make it
clear that none of the appellants had a valid certificate and/or accompanied by
the affidavit as per the proforma at the relevant time as per the requirement
referred to above.
38. Significant reliance is
placed by the Appellants on the 2-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Ram
Kumar Gijroya (supra). A perusal of the decision rendered by the High Court of
Delhi on the factual matrix therein is evidently distinct. The same, thus,
cannot come to the rescue of the Appellants. In the instant case, it is not a
contention of Appellants that they are missing a valid proof of attainment of
their particular qualification or right. No candidate before us has a claim
that they, to begin with, already availed and established their eligibility, or
had applied for a NCL category certificate and issuance of the same is delayed
at the behest of the competent authority. The ratio, therefore, in the relied
judgment would not apply.
39. Ergo, the correct position of
law is not in favour of the Appellants before us, and, relying on the
precedents and the provisions of law governing the circumstances before us, the
appeals ought to be declared devoid of merit.
40. Consequently, the Civil
Appeals are dismissed, while upholding the decision rendered by the Division
Bench of Raj as than High Court, impugned before us, as good in law.
41. No costs.
42. Pending applications, if any,
are also disposed of.
------