SAKSHI ARHA versus THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND OTHERS

Summary

The Bench split on whether judicial-service candidates could claim OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL or EWS reservation using certificates issued after the application deadline. Rastogi J. distinguished existing eligibility from later proof and favoured consideration for appointment; Trivedi J. treated contemporaneously valid economic-status certificates as essential and would dismiss the appeals. The joint order directed placement before the Chief Justice for an appropriate Bench. Neither proposed merits disposition became the Court’s final decision.

Issues

1. Whether the application deadline also required possession of a certificate issued by that date where the recruitment rules and original advertisement did not expressly specify a certificate-issuance cut-off.
2. Whether the later verification notice merely enforced existing certificate-validity requirements or introduced an impermissible restriction.
3. Whether existing reserved status can be distinguished from proof of that status for categories dependent on changing economic circumstances.
4. What effect the earlier certificate decisions and Rajasthan circulars had on this recruitment.
5. Whether appointment relief, including against future vacancies under Article 142, should follow.

Provisions considered

• Clauses 6, 17, 18 and 22, read with verification notice dated 4 August 2022, Rajasthan High Court Civil Judge recruitment advertisement dated 22 July 2021The judges disagreed on the demand for certificates issued by the application deadline: Rastogi J. viewed production on demand as sufficient proof of existing status; Trivedi J. required certificates valid by the deadline under the advertised instructions and governing circulars. (¶¶ Rastogi J.: 7, Rastogi J.: 8, Rastogi J.: 9, Rastogi J.: 23, Rastogi J.: 25, Rastogi J.: 32, Rastogi J.: 38, Rastogi J.: 39, Trivedi J.: 4, Trivedi J.: 5, Trivedi J.: 21, Trivedi J.: 22, Trivedi J.: 23, Trivedi J.: 24, Trivedi J.: 25)
• Certificate-validity instructions quoted in the separate opinions, Rajasthan Department of Social Justice and Empowerment circularsTrivedi J. applied the one-year NCL validity and affidavit-based continuation for up to three years. Rastogi J. emphasised the absence of a notified issuance cut-off in the recruitment and the later clarification allowing affidavit-supported proof. The Bench reached no common ruling. (¶¶ Rastogi J.: 13, Rastogi J.: 38, Rastogi J.: 40, Trivedi J.: 9, Trivedi J.: 10, Trivedi J.: 11, Trivedi J.: 20, Trivedi J.: 22, Trivedi J.: 23, Trivedi J.: 24, Trivedi J.: 28)
• Article 142, Constitution of IndiaRastogi J. proposed protecting existing appointees while considering appellants against available or future vacancies, subject to suitability. That proposed relief was not a joint appointment direction because the other judge dissented and the appeals were referred. (¶¶ Rastogi J.: 41, Rastogi J.: 42, Rastogi J.: 43, Trivedi J.: 33, Trivedi J.: 34, Joint order: unnumbered)

Held

• Rastogi J. accepted the ordinary rule that eligibility must exist on the date fixed by the rules or advertisement, or otherwise the application deadline. He distinguished that requirement from production of documentary proof of already existing reserved-category status, for which procedural flexibility may be appropriate. (¶¶ Rastogi J.: 26, Rastogi J.: 27, Rastogi J.: 28, Rastogi J.: 29, Rastogi J.: 30, Rastogi J.: 32, Rastogi J.: 33, Rastogi J.: 35)
• Rastogi J. reasoned that the original recruitment terms required certificates on demand and did not expressly require issuance before the application deadline. The candidates’ claimed categories and category-wise merit were not disputed in his analysis. He considered the later issuance restriction an insufficient basis to deny reservation and favoured allowing the appeals. (¶¶ Rastogi J.: 7, Rastogi J.: 8, Rastogi J.: 9, Rastogi J.: 10, Rastogi J.: 11, Rastogi J.: 12, Rastogi J.: 23, Rastogi J.: 24, Rastogi J.: 25, Rastogi J.: 34, Rastogi J.: 38, Rastogi J.: 39, Rastogi J.: 43)
• Rastogi J. relied on Dolly Chhanda and Ram Kumar Gijroya, treating the later three-judge disposal in Karn Singh Yadav as affirming the latter view. He also urged clear, widely circulated certificate guidelines. His proposed Article 142 relief would preserve existing appointees and consider appellants, subject to suitability, against available or future vacancies with consequential benefits and seniority. (¶¶ Rastogi J.: 35, Rastogi J.: 36, Rastogi J.: 37, Rastogi J.: 40, Rastogi J.: 41, Rastogi J.: 42, Rastogi J.: 43)
• Trivedi J. disagreed because NCL and EWS status depends on economic circumstances that may change over time. She considered the date and validity of the certificate material to showing entitlement when the application was made, rather than merely a curable delay in supplying proof. (¶¶ Trivedi J.: 14, Trivedi J.: 15, Trivedi J.: 18, Trivedi J.: 19, Trivedi J.: 20, Trivedi J.: 22, Trivedi J.: 25, Trivedi J.: 29)
• Trivedi J. read the advertisement’s requirement of valid certificates with the existing State circulars and held that the verification notice did not change the rules mid-selection. She found that later-issued certificates unsupported by the prescribed affidavits did not meet those requirements. In her view, the cited certificate decisions did not decide the same issuance-date issue, and retrospective relaxation would unfairly prefer these candidates over similarly situated non-applicants. (¶¶ Trivedi J.: 21, Trivedi J.: 22, Trivedi J.: 23, Trivedi J.: 24, Trivedi J.: 25, Trivedi J.: 26, Trivedi J.: 27, Trivedi J.: 28, Trivedi J.: 29, Trivedi J.: 30, Trivedi J.: 31, Trivedi J.: 32, Trivedi J.: 33, Trivedi J.: 34)
• The opinions proposed opposite results: Rastogi J. would allow the appeals and direct consideration for appointment, while Trivedi J. would dismiss them. The joint order consequently required the matters to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for an appropriate Bench and expressed the hope of expedited hearing. It supplied no final merits ruling or operative appointment relief. (¶¶ Rastogi J.: 43, Trivedi J.: 34, Joint order: unnumbered)

Result

Split decision. Matters directed by joint order to be placed before the Chief Justice of India for an appropriate Bench, with a request for expedited hearing. No final disposal of the merits or joint direction granting appointments.