Sakshi Arha vs. The Rajasthan High Court

2025 INSC 463
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3957 OF 2023

SAKSHI ARHA … APPELLANT

VERSUS

THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3958-3961 OF 2023
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3963 OF 2023
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3962 OF 2023
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3909 OF 2023

J U D G M E N T


AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. 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 de-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2025.04.08
17:22:00 IST
Reason:
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 1 of 26


tagged 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.
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 2 of 26


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
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 3 of 26


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
1
Selection Board and Another , 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
2
Sonkar v. Union of India and Others , 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.
3
through Principal Secy. and 3 Others , and Rakesh

1
(2016) 4 SCC 754
2
2007 (4) SCC 54
3
2017 SCC OnLine All 1286
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 4 of 26


4
Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others ,
which affirmed the necessity of certificates by the cut-
off 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
, the cases were dismissed vide
Beniwal (supra)
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.

4
(2013) 11 SCC 58
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 5 of 26


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
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 6 of 26


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
5
Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Others and
Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public Service
6
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.
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

5
(2005) 9 SCC 779
6
(2017) 11 SCC 276
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 7 of 26


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.
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 8 of 26


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.
7
Government of NCT of Delhi and Others , 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

7
(2024) 2 SCC 588
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 9 of 26


8
India and Others 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
9
India and Others 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,

8
1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
9
(2000) 1 SCC 168
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 10 of 26


depriving the genuinely disadvantaged of benefits. The
Bench therein, also dealt with the decision in Ashoka
10
Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar and Others , 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.

10
(1995) 5 SCC 403
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 11 of 26


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
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 12 of 26


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.”


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”.
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 13 of 26


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
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 14 of 26


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.
ii. …
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. …
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 15 of 26


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:-

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.
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 16 of 26


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
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 17 of 26


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.
11
State of Punjab and Others , where, while upholding
the view taken by High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
held that the eligibility criteria for candidates aspiring

11
(2000) 5 SCC 262
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 18 of 26


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.
12
University of Rajasthan and Others 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:

12
1993 Supp (3) SCC 168
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 19 of 26


“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
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 20 of 26


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
13
Divya v. Union of India and Others , 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

13
(2024) 1 SCC 448
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 21 of 26


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.
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 22 of 26


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.
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 23 of 26


37. The details of the candidates, category and the date of
issuance of their respective certificates are as follows:

Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 24 of 26


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
Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 25 of 26


of Rajasthan High Court, impugned before us, as good
in law.
41. No costs.
42. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.



.…..………………………………. J.
[ ABHAY S. OKA ]



.......………………………………. J.
[ AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ]



....……………………………………J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]


NEW DELHI;
APRIL 08, 2025

Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 Page 26 of 26