Summary
A three-Judge Bench, hearing appeals referred after a split verdict, dismissed the claims of OBC-NCL and MBC-NCL candidates for the Rajasthan Civil Judge Examination 2021 who were excluded from the reserved-category interview list because their non-creamy-layer certificates had not been issued by the application deadline. Where the rules and advertisement fix no cut-off, eligibility is judged as on the last date for applications; the High Court's subsequent notice fixing 31.08.2021 and permitting older certificates with an affidavit mirrored the State circulars under which such certificates are valid for one year, extendable to three with an affidavit.
Issues
- Whether the Rajasthan High Court's Subsequent Notice dated 04.08.2022, requiring reserved-category certificates to have been issued on or before the last date for applications (31.08.2021) or within the preceding period with an affidavit, was arbitrary when the Advertisement dated 22.07.2021 was silent on a cut-off date.
- By reference to what date a candidate's eligibility for reservation must be assessed where neither the service rules nor the advertisement specify one.
- Whether the appellants' non-creamy-layer certificates, issued between 2012 and 2018 or after the application deadline in 2022, were valid for claiming reservation under the Rajasthan Government circulars on the validity of such certificates.
- Whether the decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board applied to the appellants.
Provisions considered
- Part III, paragraph 10; Part IV (A), paragraph 21, Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010Paragraph 10 provides 21% reservation for Other Backward Classes at initial recruitment but is silent on the categories and date of issuance of certificates; paragraph 21 requires applications to be invited from 'eligible candidates', which the Court read with the Advertisement and the State circulars governing certificate validity. (¶¶ 24, 36)
- Paragraph 4 (validity period of caste certificate), Circular dated 09.09.2015, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of RajasthanQuoted. An OBC certificate is issued once and the non-creamy-layer certificate is valid for one year; if the applicant remains outside the creamy layer in the following year, an affidavit in Appendix-D allows the earlier certificate to be deemed valid, for a maximum of three years. The Court treated this as fixing the validity of the appellants' certificates. (¶¶ 20, 21, 21.1, 33, 36)
- Clarification on validity of OBC non-creamy-layer certificates, Circular dated 08.08.2019, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of RajasthanQuoted. Reiterates that the OBC caste certificate is valid for one year, with the earlier non-creamy-layer certificate treated as valid on an attested affidavit for a maximum of three years; the Subsequent Notice's window for certificates issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020 with affidavit was based on these circulars. (¶¶ 22, 33, 36)
Held
- Unlike SC or ST status, which is determined by birth, the status of an OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL or EWS candidate is constantly subject to change with social or economic status. Indra Sawhney divided backward classes into creamy and non-creamy layers so that reservation reaches those who truly warrant affirmative action, and the non-creamy-layer certificate introduced in 1993 is issued by the Tehsildar under guidelines laid down by the State Government. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
- Under the Rajasthan circulars of 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019 a non-creamy-layer certificate is valid for one year from issuance and may be treated as valid for up to three years if the applicant files an affidavit that he or she remains outside the creamy layer; a certificate not satisfying these conditions is not a valid certificate for claiming reservation. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 33)
- Although the Advertisement did not state a last date for issuance of category certificates, clauses (i) and (iii) of paragraph 6 required a certificate issued by the competent authority as per rules in the prescribed format, paragraph 18 required candidates to ensure they met all eligibility conditions before applying, and paragraph 23 required production of original documents supporting any claim. An advertisement does not exist in a vacuum; the decisions of the Court and the guidelines on category certificates govern its interpretation, and candidates who are trained in law cannot plead ignorance of the law. (¶¶ 26, 31, 32)
- Following Bhupinderpal Singh, Rekha Chaturvedi, Ashok Kumar Sonkar and Divya v. Union of India, eligibility for public employment is determined by the cut-off date in the applicable rules; if the rules are silent, by the date in the advertisement; and if both are silent, by the last date for submission of applications. Judging qualifications by the uncertain date of selection is untenable and opens the door to manipulation. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 34)
- The Subsequent Notice of 04.08.2022 was neither arbitrary nor baseless: it fixed 31.08.2021, the last date for receipt of applications, as the date by which the certificate should have been issued because the Advertisement required eligibility as on the cut-off date, and its allowance for certificates issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020 accompanied by an affidavit followed the Government circulars. No relaxation can be granted or claimed as of right in the absence of a discretionary clause in the Advertisement, Rules or instructions. (¶¶ 35, 36)
- None of the eight appellants held a valid certificate, or an earlier certificate accompanied by the prescribed affidavit, at the relevant time: their certificates were issued between 2012 and 2018, with fresh certificates obtained only in 2022 after the deadline. (¶ 37)
- Ram Kumar Gijroya is distinguishable on its facts: no appellant contended that they had already established eligibility or had applied for a non-creamy-layer certificate whose issuance was delayed by the competent authority, so its ratio does not apply. (¶ 38)
- The appeals were devoid of merit and dismissed, the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court's decision being upheld as good in law. (¶¶ 39, 40)
Result
Civil Appeals dismissed; the Rajasthan High Court's Division Bench orders dated 18.08.2022 and 06.09.2022 upheld; no costs; pending applications disposed of.