No Relaxation Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Rajasthan Civil Judge Candidates Who Were Not Called For Interview Due To Lack Of Reserved Category Certificates
The batch of Appeals was before the three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court as a result of the split verdict delivered through a Judgment in May 2023.
Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has dismissed the Civil Appeals of the candidates for the post of Civil Judge in the Rajasthan State, who were not called to appear for the interview due to lack of reserved category certificates.
The batch of Appeals was before the three-Judge Bench as a result of the split verdict delivered through a Judgment in May 2023.
The Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “… 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.”
The Court reiterated 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.
AOR K. Paari Vendhan represented the Appellants while Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran represented the Respondents.
Case Background
The Rajasthan High Court (Respondent) published an advertisement in July 2021 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Civil Judge Cadre as per the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, which was silent on the aspect of the last date of issuance of the concerned certificates for each reserved category. The last date for receipt of Applications was August 31, 2021. After the preliminary test and main examinations were held, a notice was issued, which mentioned that the concerned reserved category certificates ought not to have been issued beyond the last date.
The Appellants belonged to different reserved categories and had successfully cleared both the examinations. However, as none of them had their certificates issued as per the date specified in the subsequent notice, their names were not included in the list of candidates called for interview. Being aggrieved, they filed a series of separate Writ Petitions before the Jaipur and Jodhpur Benches of the Rajasthan High Court, which were dismissed. This resulted in the Appellants approaching the Apex Court. Since the two-Judge Bench could not unanimously decide the case, the Appeals were before the three-Judge Bench.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above regard, remarked, “The well-read legal minds, as the Appellants before us, cannot certainly, escape from the clutches of the 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.”
The Court said that the relevant law, rules, and instructions clearly indicate that a certificate of a claim, as put forth by the Appellants, 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.
“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”, it further noted.
Moreover, the Court said that the subsequent notice which was issued by the Rajasthan High Court cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any basis as it specified that the certificate belonging to the concerned reserved category should have been issued prior to or up to the last date.
“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”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court noted 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.
“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”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the Appeals and upheld the High Court’s Judgment.
Cause Title- Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 463)
Appearance:
Appellants: AORs K. Paari Vendhan, Abhisar Bhanu, Prashant Bhushan, Pallav Mongia, Archit Upadhayay, Advocates Rishabh Sancheti, Padma Priya, Jaswant Singh Lakhawat, Naman Jain, Alice Raj, Nisha Tiwari, and Anubhav Mishra.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran, AORs Gopal Jha, Ajay Choudhary, Advocates Vikram Aditya Narayan, Abeda Sheikh, and Nishant Verma.
