“The Advertisement Certainly Required Them To Produce a Valid Certificate to Their Claim as per Rules” Supreme Court Dismisses Civil Judge Aspirants’ Pleas on Certificate Cut-Off
Isabella Mariam
The Supreme Court of India Three-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed a batch of civil appeals challenging the Rajasthan High Court’s decision regarding the cut-off date for submission of OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL, and EWS certificates in the Civil Judge Examination 2021. The Court held that eligibility must be established as of the application deadline, and that the Advertisement, while silent on the specific certificate issuance date, inherently required submission in accordance with rules and prevailing circulars. The Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling and dismissed the appeals.
The appeals arose from a split verdict issued by a Division Bench of the Supreme Court dated 18 May 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 and related matters, later referred to a Three-Judge Bench. These appeals involved the interpretation and enforcement of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 ("2010 Rules") with regard to reserved category certificate requirements.
On 22 July 2021, the Rajasthan High Court published an Advertisement for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge under the 2010 Rules. The last date to submit applications was 31 August 2021. The Advertisement did not specify the last date by which reserved category certificates had to be issued. However, a Subsequent Notice dated 4 August 2022 clarified that such certificates must not be issued after 31 August 2021.
Appellants across these connected appeals belonged to reserved categories—OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL, and EWS. All cleared both preliminary and mains examinations as per their category-specific requirements. However, due to their certificates having been issued post-31 August 2021, they were excluded from the interview shortlist.
The first writ petition was filed by Jyoti Beniwal (Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3909 of 2023) before the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, challenging the new requirement. She contended that no deadline was mentioned in the original Advertisement. Relying on Ram Kumar Gijroya v. DSSSB (2016) 4 SCC 754, she argued that the newly imposed requirement was arbitrary. The High Court rejected the plea on 18 August 2022, citing Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India (2007) 4 SCC 54, which held that the application deadline serves as the effective cut-off date when none is specified. It also relied on Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P. and Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi).
Subsequently, Sakshi Arha (Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023) and others filed writ petitions before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Their petitions were dismissed through a Common Order dated 6 September 2022 due to similarity with the Beniwal case. The petitioners then approached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petitions, later converted to Civil Appeals and clubbed under Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023.
Appellants argued that the 2010 Rules contained no provision requiring certificates to be dated prior to the application deadline. They maintained that certificates issued by competent authorities certifying their OBC-NCL or EWS status should suffice, regardless of issuance date.
They further claimed that the High Court incorrectly relied on precedents that addressed income-based exclusions rather than procedural eligibility, and cited additional decisions such as Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE (2005) 9 SCC 779 and Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. UPSC (2017) 11 SCC 276 to show that procedural relaxation was possible.
The Rajasthan High Court, represented by senior counsel, rebutted that NCL certificates are valid for one year, extendable to three years only with an affidavit, as per Circulars dated 9 September 2015 and 8 August 2019. The Advertisement required submission of valid certificates under “rules,” thereby incorporating the circulars. The Rajasthan High Court argued its decision was consistent with law and not arbitrary.
The matter was eventually placed before the present Three-Judge Bench after the previous Bench was divided.
The Court began by noting:
“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… 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.”
It cited the 9-Judge Bench ruling in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217) that introduced the “creamy layer” exclusion, and clarified in Indra Sawhney (2000) 1 SCC 168 that caste alone cannot determine backwardness.
The Court recorded: “The NCL certificate was introduced in the year 1993… subject to relevant guidelines and procedures, as may have been laid down by the respective State Governments.”
The Court reproduced Circulars from the State of Rajasthan, including:
“The certificate of non-creamy layer will be valid for one year. Once the certificate of non-creamy layer is obtained… the earlier issued non-creamy layer certificate shall be deemed valid… for a maximum period of three years.”
The Advertisement required submission of valid certificates from competent authorities “as per rules,” and stated: “The candidates will be required to produce all the relevant original documents/certificates, on the basis of which they make any claim.”
The Court reiterated the rule in Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000) 5 SCC 262, which held: “If the rules are silent, the eligibility is to be adjudged in lieu of the last date of submission of applications before the concerned authority.”
Likewise, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan (1993 Supp (3) SCC 168) held:
“The only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications.”
The Court concluded: “This Advertisement does not exist in a vacuum, nescient of the outside world and the laws of the land… The Advertisement certainly required them to produce a valid certificate to their claim as per rules and instructions.”
The Court rejected the Appellants’ reliance on Ram Kumar Gijroya, noting: “In the instant case, it is not a contention of Appellants that they are missing a valid proof of attainment… or had applied for a NCL certificate and issuance of the same is delayed… The ratio, therefore, would not apply.”
The Court further stated: “The Subsequent Notice… specified that the certificate… should have been issued prior or up to 31.08.2021… This was because the Advertisement required a candidate to possess eligibility up to the cut-off date.”
On each Appellant’s case, the Court found 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…”
The Court stated: “Ergo, the correct position of law is not in favour of the Appellants… the appeals ought to be declared devoid of merit.”
It concluded: “Consequently, the Civil Appeals are dismissed, while upholding the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, impugned before us, as good in law.”
No costs were awarded. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: K. Paari Vendhan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Gopal Jha, Ajay Choudhary
Case Title: Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 463
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023
Bench: Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih
[Read/Download order]
