1. The petitioner is a candidate aspiring for selection under the OBC (NCL) category to the post of Civil Judge cadre under the provisions of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2010’). The respondent No.2 Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement dated 22.07.2021 inviting online application forms from eligible and desirous candidates for direct recruitment to the vacant posts in the Civil Judge cadre under the Rules of 2010. A total of 120 posts were notified out of which, 24 were reserved for the Other Backward Class-Non Creamy layer (OBC-NCL) category. The last date for submitting the online application forms was fixed as 31.08.2021.
2. As per the petitioner, the applicants were required to submit the complete details in the online application forms but there was no requirement to upload the corresponding documents along with the online application forms. The petitioner has asserted that no cut-off date was prescribed/specified for submitting the caste certificate in the advertisement. The petitioner further claims that she was declared successful in the OBC-NCL category in the preliminary examinations, result whereof was declared on 11.01.2022 and was declared qualified for Main Examination. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared in the Main Examination and was declared successful in the OBC-NCL category vide result published on 05.06.2022.
3. The respondent Rajasthan High Court issued a notice dated 04.08.2022 inviting the successful candidates for interview wherein, conditions Nos. iii (a) and (b) were stipulated requiring the candidates applying in the OBC/MBC (Non Creamy Layer) category to provide a certificate issued not prior to one year from the last date of submission of the application form i.e., 31.08.2021 and alternatively in case, the certificate was issued between 31.08.2018 to 30.08.2020, an affidavit to be submitted in the prescribed format along with the caste certificate.
4. The petitioner has alleged that she possesses OBC-NCL certificates of earlier years. However, since neither any condition is stipulated in the Rules of 2010 nor was it provided in the advertisement dated 22.07.2021 that the candidates of the OBCNCL category would be required to possess a certificate of the period as stipulated in the conditions nos. iii (a) & (b) (supra), she remained under dark and did not take steps for procuring the certificate of the stipulated time period.
5. Learned counsel Shri Deepak Nehra, representing the petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that absence of a condition either in the Rules or in the recruitment advertisement that the candidates of the OBC-NCL category would be required to possess a certificate of previous one year or of previous three years as the case may be, and imposition of such a condition at a highly belated stage in the interview notice is totally unjust, illegal and arbitrary and hence, a direction deserves to be issued to the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview process under the OBC-NCL Category. In support of his contentions, Shri Nehra relied upon the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 .
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone the material available on record.
7. At the outset, we may note that the concept of OBC-NCL reservation is based on the current economic status of the aspirant. As against this, the caste based reservation i.e., OBC, SC/ST is governed by birth in the particular caste. This caste status would be retained for life-time whereas the Non Creamy Layer (NCL) status is dynamic and can change every year. That is why, the State Government’s notification dated 09.09.2015 governing the field mandates issuance of fresh OBC-NCL certificate every year. The State Government has issued another notification dated 08.08.2019 whereby, the process has been made less cumbersome and the OBC-NCL category candidates have been given opportunity to get their OBC certificates of previous three years validated by submitting an affidavit in the prescribed format.
8. The petitioner has alleged that she was having the OBC-NCL certificates issued in the years 2007 and 2016. In this regard, certificates dated 11.06.2007 and 22.06.2016 issued by the Tehsildar concerned have been placed on record. The petitioner has further alleged that she was taken by surprise by the notice (Annex.9) dated 04.08.2022 wherein, for the first time, it was stipulated that the successful candidates under the OBC-NCL category would be required to submit a certificate issued not prior to one year from the last date of submission of the application form or from 31.08.2018 to 30.08.2020 with an affidavit in the prescribed format.
9. However, in anticipation, she had moved an application and procured a certificate (Annex.8) dated 25.07.2022 from the Office of the SDM, Dhorimanna, Barmer affirming her status in the said category. It was the fervent contention of Shri Deepak Nehra, learned counsel representing the petitioner that as no last date for furnishing certificate was mentioned in the advertisement dated 22.07.2021, the petitioner should be allowed to submit the certificate (Annex.8) dated 25.07.2022 and based thereupon she may be declared eligible to participate in the interview process under the OBC-NCL category.
10. We are of the firm view that this prayer of the petitioner is untenable on the face of record. Law in this regard is well settled by a catena of judgments that where the date of furnishing the qualifying documents/certificates is not provided in the Rules or the Advertisement, the last date for submitting the application forms is to be considered as the relevant date on which, the candidate must be possessed of all requisite testimonials/certificates. This issue is no longer res integra. In this regard, reference may be had to Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs Union of India, reported in 2007 Volume 3 SCC 956. Thus, the contention of the petitioner’s counsel that omission regarding the date of submission of the OBC-NCL certificate in the recruitment notification makes the subsequent incorporation of this condition in the interview notice dated 04.08.2022 invalid, is absolutely untenable. The legal and factual issues involved in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) cannot be applied to the present scenario. In the said case, Hon’ble the Supreme Court directed the employer to consider the candidature of the writ petitioner in the reserved (OBC category) even though the certificate had been submitted after the cut off date.
11. It may be reiterated that the caste status of a person, be it OBC, SC or ST is directly dependent upon the birth in that particular caste and such caste status would remain the same for the entire life time. However, the concept of OBC-NCL reservation is based on the economic status of the aspirant/his family. This status is dynamic and can change every year. It is quite possible that a candidate who belongs to OBC (Creamy Layer) category, owing to financial constraints/loss of income may drop down into the OBC-NCL category and vice versa. We may take the example of the petitioner herein. Presuming for the sake of arguments that she is a candidate of OBC-NCL category; if she was to be selected to the post of Civil Judge, the pay-scale of the post would immediately have shunted her out of the NCL category.
12. It may further be noted that the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Girjoya (supra) has been referred to the Larger Bench by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Karan Singh Yadav vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (Special Leave Petition No.14948/2016) vide order dated 24.01.2020 with the following observations:
“The petitioner attempted to claim inclusion in the OBC Category by producing the required caste certificate after the cutoff date, i.e., January 21, 2008. When such claim was not accepted by the respondents, he approached the High Court of Delhi by way of filing a writ petition, which was dismissed by the impugned order.
During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court, a two-Judge Bench judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754, wherein this Court has held that claims for inclusion in the OBC category can be considered even in cases where certificates were not produced by the applicants before the cut-off date notified in the advertisement. Thus this Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) held that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in the case of Ms. Pushpa v. Government, NCT of Delhi & Ors. [2009 SCC OnLine Del. 281].
We have heard learned counsel on both sides and perused the record including the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). In the case of Ms. Pushpa (supra), which was referred to in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) though the applicant had moved an application much prior to the date of the advertisement, the office of the competent authority took considerable time to make the required OBC certificate available. It was in such circumstances that the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court held that the applicant cannot be made to suffer for lapse on part of the SDM office in issuing the OBC certificate. In the case of Gaurav Sharma v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 2017 All 116, a Full Bench of Allahabad High Court disagreed with the view expressed in the case of Ms. Pushpa (supra) and held that even claims made under OBC category are to be made before the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors., [(2013) 11 SCC 58] , this Court has held that eligibility criteria/conditions are to be considered on the last date of receipt of applications.
In view of the acute problem of unemployment, whenever few vacancies are notified by any public authority, it is common that thousands of applicants apply for such posts. If the applicants are permitted to rectify applications after cut-off dates, the same would render the scrutiny process indefinite. In the course of such recruitment process, many persons, though they below to the OBC category or SC/ST category, might not have obtained the required caste certificate before the cut-off date. Such persons, being law abiding and being conscious of the bar contained in the notification of the cut-off date, might not have applied seeking employment. In case the authority starts accepting caste certificates subsequent to the prescribed cut-off dates whenever a candidate approaches the authority, the remaining candidates who had not applied would definitely be affected. If the applicants are allowed to submit certificates in proof of their claim of reservation subsequent to the notified cut-off date, it would create administrative chaos.
In practice, for every advertisement, there are such belated claims claiming reservation, though the candidates did not submit certificate from the competent authority, before the cut-off date. In view of the general importance of the question, we are of the view that the issue which fell for consideration in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) requires to be considered by a larger Bench of three-Judges.”
13. At this stage, we may refer to the notifications holding the field of caste certificate issued by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of Rajasthan dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019. In clause No.4 of the Notification of 2015 as well as the Notification dated 08.08.2019, it is clearly stipulated that the certificates issued for SC/ST category would be valid lifelong. The OBC certificate shall also be issued once but certificate regarding not being covered in the creamy-layer (NCL) would be valid for one year only. By the notification dated 08.08.2019, a relaxation has been given to the candidates who hold a certificate of not being covered under the creamy-layer (NCL) with the stipulation that if such candidate is not in the creamy-layer in the subsequent year, then the certificate issued for the previous year would be treated valid with an affidavit of the candidate and such a course of action would be permissible for a maximum of three years. Thus, even with this relaxation, the validity of an OBC-NCL certificate cannot be extended beyond three years and hence, the certificate dated 22.06.2016 held by the petitioner would not serve her cause. While pleading that she was not aware of this requirement, the petitioner has feigned ignorance of law which cannot be expected of a person seeking selection to judicial services.
14. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the petitioner was neither possessed of an OBC NCL certificate valid within the period of one year from the last date of submission of the application forms pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.07.2021 nor did she furnish a certificate issued between 31.08.2018 to 30.08.2020 with an affidavit in the prescribed format. Thus, she cannot be allowed to participate in the forthcoming interviews under the OBC-NCL category. However, for balancing the equities, the petitioner is permitted to vie for the post in un-reserved category and for this purpose, she may participate in the interview. The writ petition is devoid of merit and hence, the same fails and is rejected with the above observations.
