/2023 INSC 0545/ /2023 INSC 0453/ REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16428 of 2022) SAKSHI ARHA     ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE RAJASTHAN HIGH  COURT & OTHERS       ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18296­18299 of 2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21644 of 2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19179 of 2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9544 of 2023) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5654 of 2023) 1 J U D G M E N T Rastogi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present batch of appellants before us are the members of Other   Backward   Classes   (Non­Creamy   Layer   i.e.,   NCL);   More Backward   Class   (NCL)   and   from   the   category   of   Economically Weaker Section (EWS), finally qualified in the selection process held for the post of Civil Judge pursuant to an advertisement issued by the   respondent   dated   22 nd   July,   2021   but   they   have   not   been considered in the category to which they belong for the reason that the   certificate   of   the   category   which   was   furnished   by   each   of   the appellant   is   subsequent   to   the   last   date   indicated   in   the advertisement,   i.e.,                 31 st   August,   2021   and   each   of   them unfortunately  could not qualify  in open category, filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution that came to be dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.  2 3. The   brief   facts   of   the   case   emanate   from   the   record   are   that the post of Civil Judge to which we are concerned is included in the Schedule   appended   to   Rajasthan   Judicial   Service   Rules,   2010 (hereinafter being referred to as the “Rules, 2010”) and is to be filled up   only   by   direct   recruitment   based   on   the   result   of   competitive examination   conducted   by   the   recruiting   authority   as   provided under Part IV of the Rules, 2010.  4. Apart  from  the  method  of recruitment,  it may   be  noticed  that the   reservation   is   being   provided   to   the   members   of   Scheduled Castes/Schedule   Tribes/Other   Backward   Classes/More   Backward Classes/Persons   with   Disabilities   and   Women   Candidates   under Rule 10 of the Rules, 2010. With the stipulation under Rule 10(2) & (5)   that   in   the   event   of   non­availability   of   suitable   candidates amongst   OBC/MBC   in   a   particular   year   of   recruitment,   the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal   procedure   and   such   of   the   unfilled   vacancies   be   carried forward to the subsequent recruitment year.  5. That as per the Scheme of examination referred to under Rule 20 of the Rules, 2010, the competitive examination for recruitment 3 to   the   post   of   Civil   Judge   shall   be   conducted   by   the   recruiting authority   in   two   stages   i.e.   preliminary   examination   followed   with Main   examination   as   per   the   Scheme   specified   in   Part­IV   of   the Rules,   2010.   With   the   stipulation   that   the   marks   obtained   in   the preliminary   examination   by   the   candidates   who   are   declared qualified   for   admission   to   the   Main   examination   shall   not   be counted for  determining their  merit and those who qualified in the Main   examination   will   be   called   for   interview   and   the   marks secured   in   the   Main   examination   and   interview   shall   be   the governing  factor  in determining  merit and those who  finally  placed in the merit list, their names will be recommended by the recruiting authority for appointment under Rule 24 and the appointments will be made by the appointing authority in consultation with the Court in terms of Rule 26 of Rules, 2010. 6. Around 120 vacancies of the year 2020­21 of Civil Judge came to be advertised by the respondent pursuant to advertisement dated 22 nd   July, 2021 and category­wise reservation was indicated in the tabulation chart as referred to under Clause 4 of the advertisement, which is reproduced as under:­  4 Total number   of vacancies  Year General Reserved Persons   with Benchmarks Disabilities     SC    ST OBC EWS MBC      89 2020 (up   to Dec., 2020)       35  Out   of which, 10 posts   for women Out   of   10 posts   02 posts reserved for widow      14  Out   of which, 04   posts for women Out   of 04   posts 01   post for widow    10  Out   of which 03 posts for women     18  Out   of which 05 posts for women Out   of 05 posts 01 post for widow    08  Out   of which 02 posts for women    04  Out   of which 01 post for woman Out   of   89 vacancies,   04 posts   for persons   with Benchmark Disabilities*      31 2021 (up   to Dec., 2021)       14  Out   of which, 04 posts   for women Out   of   4 posts   01 post reserved for widow       04  Out   of which 01   post for woman    03    06 Out   of which 01 post for woman    03    01 Out   of   31 vacancies,   01 post   for persons   with Benchmark Disabilities* * Out   of   05   posts   reserved   for   persons   with   Benchmark   Disabilities,   01(one)   post   is   reserved   for blindness   and   low   vision,   01   (one)   for   deaf   and   hard   of   hearing,   01   (one)   for   locomotor   disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy and 02   (two)   for   autism,   intellectual   disability,   specific   learning   disability   and   mental   illness   and multiple disabilities from the amongst persons under Clauses (a) to (d) including deaf­blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities. 7. Under Clause 5 of the advertisement, it is indicated that in the absence   of   vacancies   reserved   of   various   categories   remained unfilled,   what   method   has   to   be   adopted   in   filling   those   unfilled vacancies with a note appended thereto that the applicants who are from the State of Rajasthan and members of Other Backward Class (Creamy   Layer)/More   Backward   Class   (Creamy   Layer)   and 5 applicants from other than the State of Rajasthan and members of SC/ST/OBC   (Creamy   Layer/Non­Creamy   Layer)   and   More Backward   Class   (Creamy   Layer/Non­Creamy   Layer)   and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) shall be considered in general category   and   as   referred   to   under   Clause   6(i)   and   (iii)   of   the advertisement,   caste   certificate   issued   as   per   Rules   in   the prescribed   format   by   the   competent   authority   has   to   be   produced for   seeking   reservation   and   under   Clause   22(3)   (Other   Important Instructions), it was indicated that the applicant has to produce on demand of the recruiting  authority all such documents/certificates while claiming benefit of reservation required by the Rajasthan High Court or the concerned recruiting authority.   The extract of Clause 6(i)   and   (iii)   read   with   Clause   22(3)   of   the   advertisement   are reproduced hereunder: “ 6. In the context of Certificate of various categories (i) Caste Certificate issued as per rules in the prescribed format by   the   Competent   Authority   will   have   to   be   produced   for reservation   in   the   Scheduled   Caste,   Scheduled   Tribe,   Other Backward Class and Highly Backward Class. (ii) …… 6 (iii) Certificate   issued   as   per   rules   in   the   prescribed   format   by the   Competent   Authority   shall   have   to   produce   in   the   event   of applicant belongs to Economic Weaker Section. …. “ 22.           Other Important Instructions  :­ (1)­(2) ………. (3) It   would   be   mandatory   for   the   applicants   to   submit   all concerning   original   documents/certificates,   on   the   basis   of   which they   raise   any   claim   on   being   demanded   by   the   Rajasthan   High Court or concerned Appointing authority. (4) …….” 8. The   instructions   indicated   that   in   terms   of   Clause   6(i)   &   (iii) read   with   Clause   22(3),   the   applicants   who   claim   the   benefit   of reservation,   such   certificate/document   has   to   be   produced   on demand   by   the   High   Court   or   concerned   Appointing   authority. Thus,   it   is   clear   that   there   is   no   requirement   to   furnish   the   caste certificate   of   the   category   claiming   benefit   of   reservation   either   at the   stage   of   filling   the   application   form   or   at   any   lager   stage, however,   it   has   to   be   produced   on   demand   by   the   recruiting authority. It may be noticed that the reservation for MBC (NCL) and EWC   are   for   the   first   time   introduced   in   the   instant   selection process held pursuant to an advertisement dated 22 nd  July, 2021.   7 9.  The relevant requirement was notified by the respondent to be furnished   by   the   applicant   claiming   reservation   against   reserved vacancies   OBC­NCL,   MBC­NCL   or   EWS   category   as   the   case   may be, with the stipulation that the certificate must be of the period not prior   to   one   year   of   the   last   date   of   submission   of   application   i.e. 31 st   August, 2021 for the first time by its notice dated 04 th   August, 2022   of   which   reference   has   been   made.   The   extract   of   the documents   demanded   by   the   respondent   in   reference   to   the certificate relating to category, is reproduced as under:­ “ (iii)    Certificate relating to category a. OBC/MBC   (Non   Creamy   Layer)   certificate   issued   not   prior   to one   year   from   the   last   date   of   submission   of   the   application form i.e. 31.08.2021. b. In   case   OBC/MBC   (Non   Creamy   Layer)   certificate   is   issued between   31.08.2018   and   30.08.2020,   an   affidavit   in prescribed   format   along   with   caste   certificate   has   to   be produced. c. In case of EWS category – Income & Asset required for seeking reservation   in   EWS   category   must   not   be   issued   prior   to 01.04.2021.       In case Income & Asset Certificate issued between 01.04.2020 and   31.03.2021,   an   affidavit   in   prescribed   format   along   with certificate has to be produced. d. SC/ST/OBC/MBC/EWS   certificate,   as   the   case   may   be   must not   have   been   issued   after   the   last   date   of   submission   of   the application form i.e. 31.08.2021 .” (emphasis supplied) 8 10. It is not the case of the respondent that either of the appellant does   not   belong   to   the   respective   reserved   category   i.e.   OBC­NCL, MBC­NCL or EWS but their certificate relating to category is of the date later  to the cut­off date i.e. 31 st   August, 2021 but each of the applicant although was permitted to appear in the interview under the interim order of the High Court but were not permitted to claim the   benefit   of   their   certificate   relating   to   category   which   was furnished and were treated to be in the open category. 11.  When   the   result   came   to   be   finally   published,   indisputedly, each   of   the   applicant   secured   higher   marks   in   their   respective category i.e. OBC­NCL, MBC­NCL or EWS as the case may be, and the candidates lower in merit have been selected by the respondent but since their certificate relating to category is somewhere later to the   cut­off   date   i.e.   31 st   August,   2021   (the   last   date   of   application form),   the   benefit   of   reservation   has   not   been   extended   and   since each   of   the   applicant   failed   to   qualify   in   the   open   category,   they were   finally   denied   from   being   considered   for   appointment   to   the post of Civil Judge and this fact can be further supported from the result   of   recruitment   of   Civil   Judge   Cadre   2021   published   by 9 respondent   by   notice   dated   30 th   August,   2022   that   indicates   that the   present   appellants   have   secured   higher   marks   in   their respective   category   qua   those   who   have   been   finally   recommended for   appointment   in   the   category   of   OBC­NCL,   MBC­NCL   or   EWS category   to   which   the   present   appellants   are   concerned   and   for convenience, comparative statement prepared by the respondent, in the tabulation form is reproduced as under:­ “OBC­NCL   category   ­   SLP(C)   No.5654/2023,   SLP(C)   No.16428/2022,   SLP(C) Nos.18296­18299/2022 S.No. Name  Marks  Cut   off General  Cut   Off Marks OBC­NCL Date of OBC­ NCL Certificates of   the Petitioner  Date   of   OBC­ NCL Certificate required   as per Respondents  1. Jyoti  Beniwal 176 179.5 163.5 22.06.2016 & 25.07.2022 31.08.2018 to 31.08.2021 2. Sakshi  Arha 166.5 179.5 163.5 27.07.2016 17.06.2022 & 12.08.2022 “­do­“ 3. Priyanka 170 179.5 163.5 23.04.2018 & 20.06.2022 “­do­“ 4. Bhavya  Kulhar 165.5 179.5 163.5 19.09.2016 & 16.06.2022 “­do­“ 5. Neha Batar 165 179.5 163.5 28.06.2018 & 21.06.2022 “­do­“ 6. Nikhil  Kataria 171.5 179.5 163.5 16.07.2018 & 09.06.2022 “­do­“ “MBC­NCL   category   –   Sunil   Gurjar   SLP(C)   No.19179/22   &   Kuldeep   Bhatia   SLP(C) No.21644/22 10 S.No. Name   of the Petitioner Marks  Obtained Cut   off General  Cut   Off Marks MBC­NCL Date   of MBC­NCL Certificates Date   of MBC­NCL Certificate required  as per Responden ts  1. Sunil  Singh  Gurjar 172 179.5 141 18.06.2018 & 16.06.2022 31.08.2018 to 31.08.2021 2. Kuldeep  Bhatia 141.5 179.5 141 03.08.2012 & 09.03.2022 “­do­“ “EWS category – Parul Jain SLP(C) Diary No.1581 of 2023  S.No. Name   of the Petitioner Marks  Obtained Cut   off General  Cut   Off Marks EWS Date of EWS Certificates  Date   of   EWS Certificate required   as per Respondents  1. Parul Jain 174.5 179.5 167.5 07.09.2021 31.08.2021 (01.04.2021­ 31.03.2022 valid AY 2021­22) 12. It is not disputed by the respondent that each of the applicant is holding the certificate of their respective category and it is of prior date when demanded by the respondent under its notice dated 04 th August, 2022.  13. This has come on record that circulars are issued by the State of  Rajasthan for   the purpose of  obtaining  the  certificate relating  to category   in   reference   to   seeking   employment   issued   by   the Department   of   Social   Justice   and   Empowerment,   Jaipur   dated 11 09 th   September,   2015   followed   with   08 th   October,   2019   indicating the  validity  of  certificate of  OBC­NCL, MBC­NCL  or  EBC  and  since there was a lot of confusion and the circulars were not accessible to the people at large and litigation was pending before the Courts, the State Government stepped in and in furtherance thereof, issued its directive   dated   17 th   October,   2022   and   came   with   the   clarification that if for any  reason, the candidate has not produced a certificate issued   till   the   last   date   of   application   form   and   produces   a certificate after the last date of filling up of application then in that case,   candidate   should   submit   an   affidavit   that  he   was   having   the eligibility   of   respective   category   and   if   the   information   is   found incorrect,   then   appointment   can   be   cancelled.   The   extract   of   the clarification made by the Government in meeting out the exigencies as   demanded   and   to   streamline   the   on­going   litigation,   under   its directive dated 17 th  October, 2022 is reproduced as under:­ “If for any reason a candidate has not produced a certificate issued till   the   last   date   of   application   form   and   produces   a   certificate which is issued after the last date of filling application form then in that case candidate should write an affidavit to this aspect that he was   having   the   qualification   of   respective   class   and   if   the information   is   found   incorrect   then   the   appointment   shall   be cancelled.” 12 14. For the sake of repetition, it may be noticed that it is not the case   of   the   respondent   that   either   the   appellant   is   not   holding eligibility   of   the   respective   category   of   which   he/she   belongs   in terms of advertisement dated 22 nd  July, 2021 and their only fault is that their certificate relating to category is of a date later to the last date of application (i.e. 31 st   August, 2021) in terms of notice dated 04 th   October, 2022 demanding for furnishing the certificate relating to category to which they were provisionally called for interview. 15. On   a   writ   petition   being   filed   by   the   appellants   assailing   the action of the respondent in not permitting them of claiming benefit of reservation to which they belong and each of them have qualified after   securing   more   marks   over   the   cut­off   of   respective   category, the Division Bench of the High Court has non­suited their claim on the   premise   that   each   of   them   had   failed   to   furnish   certificate   of their   category   as   required   on   the   last   date   of   application   i.e.   31 st August,  2021  by  placing  reliance  on  the   judgment  of  this  Court  in Ashok   Kumar   Sonkar   vs.   Union   of   India   and   Others   (2007)   4 SCC   54   held   that   the   last   date   of   application   is   a   touchstone   for determining   the   eligibility   and   since   each   of   them   had   failed   to 13 furnish   their   respective   certificate   relating   to   category   on   or   before 31 st   August, 2021, they are held ineligible from being considered in the respective category and since each of them had not been able to qualify in the open category considered unsuitable for appointment to the post of Civil Judge, under the impugned judgment dated 18 th August,   2022   in   the   case   of   Jyoti   Beniwal   vs.   The   Rajasthan High   Court,   Jodhpur   Through   Its   Registrar   General   and Another   (D.B.   Civil   Writ   Petition   No.11784/2022)   and   that   was referred   to   in   the   subsequent   writ   petitions   filed   and   all   were disposed   of   placing   reliance   on   the   judgment   of   Jyoti   Beniwal (Supra)   by   subsequent   impugned   judgment   dated   06 th   September, 2022   and   in   the   case   of   appellant   Parul   Jain,   separate   judgment was passed on                                         18 th   November, 2022 relying on the same   judgment   of   High   Court   in   Jyoti   Beniwal   (Supra)   and   that became the subject matter of challenge in appeal before us. 16. Learned   counsel   for   the   appellants   jointly   submit   that   it   was nowhere indicated at any stage that certificate of the category upto which   date   is   to   be   furnished   by   the   applicants/candidates   while 14 claiming reservation and each of the appellant holds the certificate of   their   respective   category   and   accordingly,   each   of   them mentioned in their application form with regard to the category they intend   to   participate   in   the   selection   process   and   although   the permission   granted   to   appear   in   the   preliminary   examination   was provisional but no one has examined at any stage that what is the requirement   and   since   there   is   no   reference   made   either   in   the Scheme   of   Rules,   2010   or   in   the   advertisement   dated   22 nd   July, 2021 to the certificate of category to which the appellant claim has to   be   furnished   is   of   which   date   or   year.   Each   of   them   had   bona fidely   pleaded   that   the   certificate   of   the   category   which   is   being obtained is issued by the competent authority after due compliance for all practical purposes and in the given facts and circumstances, the   rigor   which   has   been   put   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High Court under the impugned judgment taking 31 st   August, 2021 as a sacrosanct date for  furnishing the certificate relating  to category  is nowhere   prescribed   either   under   the   Rules   of   2010   or   in   the advertisement   to   which   we   are   concerned   hence,   the   premise   on which the High Court has proceeded is completely misconceived.  15 17. Learned  counsel  further   submits  that   the  judgment  on  which reliance has been placed is not at all applicable on the facts of the instant   case   for   the   reason   that   the   judgments   relied   upon   are related   to   the   minimum   academic   qualification   and   in   the   cases where   rules   are   silent   or   there   is   no   administrative   instruction issued   by   the   competent   authority/recruiting   authority   before   the selection   process   being   initiated   are   in   place,   this   Court   has stepped   in   and   laid   down   a   principle   that   in   the   absence   of   rules indicating   the   requirement   of   holding   academic   qualification,   the last   date   of   filling   application   is   considered   to   be   a   benchmark   for the applicant to possess the minimum academic qualification.  18. But   we   are   not   dealing   in   this   case   with   minimum   academic qualification or the date of birth which is defined under the Scheme of   Rules,   2010.   In   the   given   facts   and   circumstances,   the   premise on   which   the   claim   of   the   present   appellants   has   been   non­suited by   the   High   Court   that   they   failed   to   furnish   the   certificate   of category   on   or   before   31 st   August,   2021   is   completely   without basis/foundation   having   no   nexus   and   they   all   have   been   put   to surprise   while   it   was   notified   to   them   demanding   to   furnish   the 16 certificate relating to category on or before 31 st  August, 2021, which was   the   last   date   of   submission   of   application   but   it   was,   for   the first time, notified when the provisional list of candidates calling for interview was published on 04 th  August, 2022.  19. Learned counsel further submits that they all are coming from rural background and belonging  to a poor strata in society, having no   means   to   know   the   advanced   technology   which   is   available   in the   urban   cities   and   with   the   minimal   facilities   available   at   their end,   still   they   are   able   to   crack   the   competitive   examination   and when   this   is   not   the   case   of   the   respondents   that   either   of   the appellant   is   not   a   member   of   a   category   which   was   indicated   by him/her in application form originally filed to non­suite them at the stage   when   they   finally   qualified   the   competitive   test   and   as informed that vacancies are available because of non­joining by the candidates,   they   can   easily   be   adjusted   against   the   unfilled advertised vacancies without disturbing or taking away the rights of the persons/candidates who have been appointed on being declared successful by this authority. 17 20. Per contra, while supporting the finding recorded by the High Court,   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   submits   that   this   being settled by this Court in a catena of judgments that eligibility is to be looked   into   on   the   last   date   of   submission   of   application   or   the cut­off   date   indicated   in   the   relevant   rules.   In   the   instant   case, when   the   rules   are   silent   in   such   circumstances,   what   being   laid down   by   this   Court   is   the   law   on   the   subject   and   the   eligibility   of the   applicant   is   to   be   looked   into   on   the   last   date   of   application which in the instant case is 31 st  August, 2021 and admittedly, each of the applicant was not holding their certificate related to category as   demanded   of   the   period   prior   to   31 st   August,   2021   and accordingly,   no   error   was   committed   by   the   respondent   and   have rightly   been   treated   in   open   category   and   it   is   not   the   case   of   the appellant   that   any   candidate   who   has   been   recommended   and appointed   in   open   category   is   lower   in   the   order   of   merit   in   the selection process held by the respondent pursuant to advertisement dated   21 st   July,   2021   and   in   support   of   his   submission,   learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court reported in   Ashok   Kumar   Sonkar   (Supra)   followed   with   Rakesh   Kumar 18 Sharma  vs.   State   (NCT  of  Delhi)  and   Others   (2013)   11   SCC   58 and   submits   that   this   being   a   settled   law   held   by   this   Court   and relied upon by the High Court, no error has been committed by the High Court, which may called for interference of this Court.  21. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   with their assistance perused the material available on record.  22. It is not disputed that the post of Civil Judge is included in the Schedule   appended   to   the   Rules,   2010   and   is   to   be   filled   up   by direct   recruitment   in   terms   of   Part   IV   and   the   advertisement   was notified   by   the   respondents   on   22 nd   July,   2021   holding   selection against 120 vacancies of Civil Judge for the year 2020­2021.  23. It   is   not   disputed   that   the   Rules   of   2010   is   a   complete   code and   silent   in   reference   to   the   date   when   certificate   of   the   category has to be furnished and so far as the advertisement is concerned, it nowhere   indicates   as   to   what   should   be   the   crucial   date   for   the purpose of furnishing the caste related certificate by the applicants who intended to participate in the selection process and admittedly each   of   the   appellant   holds   the   certificate   of   the   category   and   the 19 period prior  to as have been notified by  the respondent  while their provisional list of the candidates to be called for interview has been published on 04 th  August, 2022.   24. It   may   be   noticed   that   reservation   to   MBC   (NCL)   and   EWS category   has  been  introduced for  the  first  time  and  the candidates are   completely   alien   to   the   procedure   and   the   format   in   which   the certificate   of   their   category   has   to   be   furnished   and   so   far   as   the candidates   who   appeared   in   EWS   quota   is   concerned,   it   has   been submitted   that   father   of   the   appellant   Parul   Jain   submitted   the Income­Tax   Returns   of   the   previous   years   and   applied   for   EWS certificate on E­mitra kiosk on 16 th  August, 2021 and the appellant was   assured   that   she   will   receive   EWS   certificate   within   6­7   days but   despite   the   appellant   demanding   her   certificate,   it   was   issued by the E­mitra kiosk on 07 th  September, 2021 but it is not disputed by the respondent that the appellant belongs to EWS category.  25. It  is   also  not   disputed  that   either   in   the  advertisement   which was   initially   notified   on   22 nd   July,   2021   or   at   the   stage   of preliminary   examination   held   on   11 th   January,   2022   followed   with Main examination held on 30 th  April, 2022 to 01 st  May, 2022, it was 20 nowhere   notified   that   the   certificate   of   the   category   has   to   be furnished   of   the   period   prior   to   31 st   August,   2021   and   only   when the   list   came   to   be   published   of   the   candidates   provisionally qualified   for   interview   on   04 th   August,   2022,   the   respondent   came out   with   a   defence   that   cut­off   date   for   furnishing   caste   related certificate   should   be   prior   to   one   year   from   the   last   date   of submission   of   application   i.e.   31 st   August,   2021   and   since   each   of the applicant from OBC­NCL, MBC­NCL or EWS has furnished their respective   certificate   of   the   category   after   it   was   brought   to   their notice   by   the   provisional   list   published   on     04 th   August,   2022   and so   far   as   the   candidate   belonging   to   EWS   category   is   concerned, appellant furnished her caste certificate dated 07 th  September, 2021 with delay of seven days.  26. In   the   Scheme   of   rules,   age   has   to   be   looked   into   as   on   the first   date   of   January   following   the   last   date   fixed   for   receipt   of application,   if   one   is   not   holding   the   age   in   terms   of   Rule   17,   the applicant   stands   disqualified   provided   relaxed   by   the   appointing authority   and   Rule   18   of   the   Scheme   prescribes   the   academic qualification   and   it   is   nowhere   indicated   as   to   when   the   academic 21 qualification   of   the   applicant   is   to   be   looked   into   and   here   this Court has stepped in and the exposition of law on the subject from Rekha   Chaturvedi   (Smt.)   vs.   University   of   Rajasthan   and Others   1993   Supp   (3)   SCC   168   is   consistent   and   is   no   more   res integra   that  if   the   rules   are   silent   and   no   date   is  being   notified   on which   the   qualification/eligibility   of   the   applicant   is   to   be   looked into,   the   best   course   is   to   be   taken   care   is   the   last   date   of application.   To   take   a   judicial   note,   reference   can   be   made   of Rekha   Chaturvedi   (Supra)   which   was   further   noticed   in   the   case of   Bhupinderpal   Singh   and   Others   vs.   State   of   Punjab   and Others   (2000)  5 SCC  262,   Jasbir  Rani  and Others  vs.  State of Punjab   and   Another   (2002)   1   SCC   124,   Shankar   K.   Mandal and   Others   vs.   State   of   Bihar   and   Others   (2003)   9   SCC   519 followed with   Ashok  Kumar   Sonkar   (Supra)   and   Rakesh  Kumar Sharma  (Supra). 27. This Court in  Rekha Chaturvedi  (Supra)  held as under:­   “ 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 22 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   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].”       (Emphasis supplied) 28. It   was   later   followed   in   the   case   of   Ashok   Kumar   Sonkar (Supra),  wherein this Court held as under:­ 23 “ 17.   In   Bhupinderpal   Singh   v.   State   of   Punjab   [(2000)   5   SCC   262   : 2000   SCC   (L&S)   639]   this   Court   moreover   disapproved   the prevailing   practice   in   the   State   of   Punjab   to   determine   the eligibility with reference to the date of interview, inter alia, stating: (SCC pp. 267­68, para 13) “ 13 .   Placing   reliance   on   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in   Ashok Kumar   Sharma   v.   Chander   Shekhar   [(1997)   4   SCC   18   :   1997 SCC   (L&S)   913]   ,   A.P.   Public   Service   Commission   v.   B.   Sarat Chandra   [(1990) 2 SCC 669 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 377 : (1990) 13 ATC   708]   ,   Distt.   Collector   &   Chairman,   Vizianagaram   Social Welfare   Residential   School   Society   v.   M.   Tripura   Sundari Devi   [(1990)   3   SCC   655   :   1990   SCC   (L&S)   520   :   (1990)   14 ATC 766] ,   Rekha Chaturvedi   v.   University of Rajasthan   [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 951 : (1993) 25 ATC 234] ,   M.V.   Nair   (Dr.)   v.   Union   of   India   [(1993)   2   SCC   429   :   1993 SCC   (L&S)   512   :   (1993)   24   ATC   236]   and   U.P.   Public   Service Commission   v.   Alpana   [(1994)   2   SCC   723   :   1994   SCC   (L&S) 742 : (1994) 27 ATC 101] the High Court has held ( i ) that the cut­off   date   by   reference   to   which   the   eligibility   requirement must   be   satisfied   by   the   candidate   seeking   a   public employment   is   the   date   appointed   by   the   relevant   service rules   and   if   there   be   no   cut­off   date   appointed   by   the   rules then   such   date   as   may   be   appointed   for   the   purpose   in   the advertisement   calling   for   applications;   ( ii )   that   if   there   be   no such   date   appointed   then   the   eligibility   criteria   shall   be applied   by   reference   to   the   last   date   appointed   by   which   the applications  have  to   be   received   by   the   competent   authority. The   view   taken   by   the   High   Court   is   supported   by   several decisions of this Court and is therefore well settled and hence cannot be found fault with. However, there are certain special features   of   this   case   which   need   to   be   taken   care   of   and justice be done by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution vested in this Court so as to advance the cause of justice.” 29. It has been transpired and culled out from the aforementioned decision that:­ (i)   the   cut­off   date   by   reference   to   which   the   eligibility requirement   must   be   satisfied   by   the   applicant   seeking   a 24 public   employment   is   the   date   notified   in   the   relevant service rules.  (ii) If there is no cut­off appointed date indicated under the rules then such date shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling for applications.              (iii)   If   there   is   no   such   date   appointed   then   the   eligibility criteria   shall   be   applied   by   reference   to   the   last   date notified   by   which   the   applications   were   to   be   received   by the recruiting authority. 30. These   principles   have   been   settled   by   this   Court   and   is   no more   res   integra   for   further   discussion   that   when   the   rules   are silent   and   no   date   is   notified   to   satisfy   the   eligibility   requirement under   the   advertisement,   the   eligibility   criteria   shall   be   applied   by reference to the last date of application by which applications are to be received by the recruiting authority. 31. Let   us   examine   the   Scheme   of   Rules,   2010   in   other   way   and Part   IV   in   particular,   which  provides  the   method   of   recruitment   in the cadre of Civil Judge, Rule 19 postulates that the candidate has to   submit   a   character   certificate   while   participating   for   direct recruitment which may  qualify  him  for  employment  in  service, has 25 to   be   not   more   than   six   months   prior   to   the   date   of   application which   the   candidate   has   to   enclose   while   the   application   form   is filled for participation in the selection process and if we proceed on the   principles   as   aforestated,   the   question   arises   that   if   the candidate   who   has   participated   in   the   selection   process   after furnishing  the  character  certificate along  with the  application form in   terms   of   Rule   19,   if   at   a   later   stage   in   the   process   of   selection involves   in   any   act   of   moral   turpitude   before   he   is   actually appointed   whether   the   appointing   authority   is   under   an   obligation to give him appointment if his name is finally placed in the order of merit,   the   answer   indeed   is   in   negative   and   the   reason   is   that   the character  certificate  enclosed by  the  applicant at  the  time  of filling the  application form  in  terms of Rule 19 is only  for  the  purpose of satisfaction     in   reference   to   the   character   of   the applicant/candidate   who   intends   to   participate   in   the   process   of recruitment which may qualify him for employment in service, but if he   later   gets   himself   involved   in   any   act   of   moral   turpitude, although   there   is   no   restriction/embargo,   but   the   authority   is always   in   its   competence   to   take   into   consideration   the   later 26 developments   and   upto   the   date   of   appointment   if   the   candidate finally   selected   is   found   to   be   unsuitable   for   appointment   which indeed he did not carry at the time when the application form was filled   and   that   too   on   the   last   date   of   application,   but   that   can always   be   considered   as   material   to   adjudge   the   suitability   of   the candidate   for   being   considered   for   appointment   and   in   the   given situation   the   theory   of   last   date   of   application   becomes   completely otiose.        32. It is true that the general rule is that while participating in the recruitment   process,   the   person   must   possess   the   eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose unless there is any   express   provision   to   the   contrary   and   there   can   be   no relaxation   in   the   matter   of   holding   requisite   eligibility   qualification by   the   date   fixed   and   this   has   to   be   established   by   producing necessary   certificate   or   degree,   as   the   case   may   be.     But,   at   the same time, in order to avail the benefit of reservation or weightage, necessary   certificates   have   to   be   produced   but   they   are   in   the nature of  proof  for  the  purpose  of seeking  entitlement  to  claim   the benefit of reservation, but it has no nexus with the last date of the 27 application and, it may not be proper to apply any rigid principle in the   absence   of   any   rule   to   the   contrary.   As   a   matter   of   caution, every   infraction   of   the   rule   relating   to   submission   of   proof   in availing   the   benefit   of   reservation   may   not   necessarily   result   in rejection of the candidature. 33. In   the   similar   circumstances,   the   vacancies   are   reserved   for various   categories   i.e.   SC/ST/OBC/MBC/Persons   with   Disabilities and  women candidates under  the  Scheme of  Rules, 2010 and that has   been   notified   category­wise   under   Clause   4   of   the advertisement dated 22 nd   July, 2021 with which we are concerned, and it goes without saying that the candidate must be a member of the reserved category at the time when the application form is filled pursuant to the advertisement in question, but at the same time so far as the scheme of examination and syllabus, as provided in Rule 20   of   the   Rules,   2010   is   concerned,   for   holding   competitive examination for the post of Civil Judge conducted by the recruiting authority   is   common   for   all   and   each   of   the   candidate   regardless the category to which one belongs, has to undergo the same process of   qualifying   the   preliminary   examination   followed   with   main 28 examination and interview, except that the candidates are admitted to   the   main   examination   followed   with   interview   in   terms   of   the total number of vacancies category­wise.   34. The   reservation   of   vacancies   of   various   categories   as   referred to   in   Rule   10   is   not   a   condition   of   eligibility   for   the   candidate   to participate in the selection process as the certificate of category for the purpose of claiming reservation will arise not at the stage when the   application   form   is   filled   making   self­declaration   by   the individual   candidate   to   participate   in   the   selection   process   but   at the   stage   when   the   select   list   is   to   be   prepared   of   the   candidates who have participated in the selection process since the final select list   has   to   be   published   category­wise   by   giving   the   benefit   of reservation  to  the  candidates who  have participated in  the  process of selection and for no other purpose and when the respondent has demanded   from   the   applicant   to   furnish   their   respective   certificate of   the   category   to   which   one   had   participated   in   the   selection process under its notice dated 04 th  August, 2022, indisputedly each of   the   applicant   had   furnished   the   certificate   of   their   category   to which one belong  at  the time of  advertisement  when demanded by 29 the   recruiting   authority   in   terms   of   Clause   6(i)   &   (iii)   read   with Clause 22(3) of the advertisement dated 22 nd  July, 2021. 35. This   Court   in   Dolly   Chhanda   vs.   Chairman,   Jee   &   Others (2005)   9   SCC   779,   has   considered   the   situation   where   the incumbent   has   failed   to   furnish   the   certificate   seeking   benefit   of reservation and after examining the Scheme, this Court in the given circumstances, held as under: “7.   The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last   date   fixed   for   such   purpose   either   in   the   admission   brochure or   in   application   form,   as   the   case   may   be,   unless   there   is   an express   provision   to   the   contrary.   There   can   be   no   relaxation   in this   regard   i.e.   in   the   matter   of   holding   the   requisite   eligibility qualification   by   the   date   fixed.   This   has   to   be   established   by producing   the   necessary   certificates,   degrees   or   marksheets. Similarly,   in   order   to   avail   of   the   benefit   of   reservation   or weightage,   etc.   necessary   certificates   have   to   be   produced.   These are   documents   in   the   nature   of   proof   of   holding   of   particular qualification   or   percentage   of   marks   secured   or   entitlement   to benefit   of   reservation.   Depending   upon   the   facts   of   a   case,   there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain   of   procedure.   Every   infraction   of   the   rule   relating   to submission   of   proof   need   not   necessarily   result   in   rejection   of candidature.” 36. Later,   in   Ram   Kumar   Gijroya   vs.   Delhi   Subordinate Services   Selection   Board   and   Another   (2016)   4   SCC   754,   this Court   has   examined   the   question   as   to   whether   a   candidate   who 30 appears   in   an   examination   under   the   OBC   category   and   submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under OBC category and answered it in affirmative as under:­ “ 18.   In   our   considered   view,   the   decision   rendered in   Pushpa   [ Pushpa   v.   Govt.   (NCT   of   Delhi) ,   2009   SCC   OnLine   Del 281]   is   in   conformity   with   the   position   of   law   laid   down   by   this Court,   which   have   been   referred   to   supra.   The   Division   Bench   of the   High   Court   erred   in   reversing   the   judgment   and   order   passed by   the   learned   Single   Judge,   without   noticing   the   binding precedent   on   the   question  laid  down   by   the  Constitution  Benches of   this   Court   in   Indra   Sawhney   [ Indra   Sawhney   v.   Union   of   India , 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385]   and   Valsamma   Paul   [ Valsamma   Paul   v.   Cochin   University , (1996)   3   SCC   545   :   1996   SCC   (L&S)   772   :   (1996)   33   ATC   713] wherein   this   Court   after   interpretation   of   Articles   14,   15,   16   and 39­A of the directive principles of State policy held that the object of   providing   reservation   to   the   SCs/STs   and   educationally   and socially   backward   classes   of   the  society   is   to   remove   inequality   in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable   to   compete   with   the   candidates   belonging   to   the   general category   as   a   result   of   facing   centuries   of   oppression   and deprivation   of   opportunity.   The   constitutional   concept   of reservation   envisaged   in   the   Preamble   of   the   Constitution   as   well as Articles 14, 15, 16 and 39­A of the directive principles of State policy   is   to   achieve   the   concept   of   giving   equal   opportunity   to   all sections of the society. The Division Bench, thus, erred in reversing the   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge. Hence,   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   Division Bench   in   Letters   Patent   Appeal   No.   562   of   2011   is   not   only erroneous   but   also   suffers   from   error   in   law   as   it   has   failed   to follow   the   binding   precedent   of   the   judgments   of   this   Court in   Indra Sawhney   [ Indra Sawhney   v.   Union of India , 1992 Supp (3) SCC   217   :   1992   SCC   (L&S)   Supp   1   :   (1992)   22   ATC   385] and   Valsamma  Paul   [ Valsamma   Paul   v.   Cochin   University ,   (1996)   3 SCC  545 :  1996 SCC  (L&S) 772 : (1996) 33  ATC  713]  . Therefore, the   impugned   judgment   and   order   [ Delhi   Subordinate   Services Selection Board   v.   Ram Kumar Gijroya , 2012 SCC OnLine Del 472 : (2012)   128   DRJ   124]   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High 31 Court   is   liable   to   be   set   aside   and   accordingly   set   aside.   The judgment   and   order   dated   24­11­2010   passed   by   the   learned Single   Judge   in   Ram   Kumar   Gijroya   v.   Govt.   (NCT   of   Delhi)   [ Ram Kumar   Gijroya   v.   Govt.   (NCT   of   Delhi) ,   WP   (C)   No.   382   of   2009, order dated 24­11­2010 (Del)] is hereby restored.” 37. This   judgment   came   up   for   consideration   later   before   two­ Judge Bench of this Court in  Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and  Others   (SLP(C)  No.14948/2016)   and the Court has some reservations and referred the matter to be placed before three­ Judge   Bench   by   order   dated   24 th   January,   2020   and   three­Judge Bench   of   this   Court   while   relying   upon   Ram   Kumar   Gijroya (Supra)   disposed   of   the   appeal   under   its   order   dated   28 th September, 2022, it appears that the reference made by two­Judge Bench   of   this   Court   remained   unnoticed.   Be   that   as   it   may,   the position as on today is that three­Judge Bench of this Court under its   order   dated   28 th   September,   2022   has   affirmed   the   view expressed   by   two­Judge   Bench   of   this   Court   in   Ram   Kumar Gijroya  (Supra).  38. That   apart,   taking   into   consideration   the   Scheme   of   Rules, 2010,   which   is   indisputedly,   silent   on   the   subject   issue   and   the advertisement   dated   22 nd   July,   2021   nowhere   indicates   that   the 32 caste   certificate/certificate   of   category   has   to   be   produced   of   the period prior to the last date of the application (31 st  August, 2021) in the   instant   case.     To   the   contrary,   Clause   6(i)   &   (iii)   read   with Clause 22(3) of the advertisement, such certificate of category which one   claimed   for   seeking   the   benefit   of   reservation,   has   to   be produced on demand by the recruiting authority.  39. In the given facts and circumstances, when the rules are silent and there is no such instruction that the certificate of the category has   to   be   produced   of   the   period   on   or   before   the   last   date   of   the application under the advertisement and each of the applicants has produced the certificate relating  to category on being demanded by the   recruiting   authority   when   the   list   came   to   be   published   of   the candidates   who   were   provisionally   called   for   interview   on   04 th August,   2022,   each   of   the   applicants   indisputedly   has   furnished their  certificate  of  the   category   to  which   they  belong  at   the  time  of advertisement and had participated in the process of selection.   At this   stage,   in   our   view,   the   High   Court   had   gone   wrong   and   was influenced   with   the   condition   of   eligibility   to   be   looked   into   on   the last   date   of   application,   while   examining   the   production   of 33 certificate   of   the   category   to   which   the   candidate   belong   and participated in the selection process is in no manner co­related with the   conditions   of   eligibility   and   the   judgments   relied   upon   to   non­ suite   the  claim   of   the   appellants  has   no   application   in   the   facts  of the instant case.   40. To   understand   the   dynamics,   the   Government   has   come   out with   the   Circulars   earlier   dated   9 th   September,   2015   followed   with 08 th   October,   2019   of   which   reference   has   been   made,   but   it   has always   to   commensurate   with   the   process   of   selection   when   the advertisement   has  been   published   by   the  recruiting   authorities  for making   open   selection   and   in   every   advertisement   notified   by   the recruiting   authority,   the   last   date   of   application   is   bound   to   differ and that may change the complete dynamics of the certificate which the applicant holds and he is not supposed to obtain the certificate of   category   in   conformity   with   each   advertisement   and   it   is   not being   practically   possible   and   that   appears   to   be   the   reason   since there   was   no   scheme   or   instructions   in   place   which   may   regulate and   streamline   as   to   what   is   the   procedure   the   applicant   has   to follow while participating in the selection process intending to avail 34 the benefit of reservation for various categories and to overcome the on­going   litigation,   the   State   Government   has   stepped   in   and clarified   under   its   directives   dated   17 th   October,   2022   indicating that if the applicant has failed to furnish the certificate on the last date of application or furnish the same of the date later to the last date of application, he has to furnish an affidavit that if it is found to be incorrect or false, such appointment will be cancelled.   To our mind, it may be an ad­hoc situation noticed to meet out the current exigency   by   the   Government,   but   the   recruiting   authority   or   the Government,   as   the   case   may   be,   has   to   examine   the   issue   in totality and take into consideration the grievances which are being raised   and   considered   by   the   Court   at   various   stages   and   to   issue clear guidelines with wide circulation which the candidates have to follow   who   wants   to   avail   the   benefit   of   reservation   to avoid/overcome the litigation.    41. To sum up further, as noticed by this Court, the final merit list of   120   selected   candidates   was   notified   by   the   respondents   as indicated   in   the   notice   dated   30 th   August,   2022   and   there   is   no provision   under   the   Scheme   of   Rules,   2010   of   having   any   waiting 35 list/reserve list. Thus, no further appointments could be made after the   final   select   list   of   120   candidates   has   been   exhausted   on account of non­joining or for any other reason of the candidates.   42. It   is   informed   to   this   Court   that   out   of   120   candidates   who were   recommended   for   appointment,   appointment   orders   were issued   to   119  candidates   on   09 th   March,   2023   and   five  candidates have   not   joined   and   that   apart   in   MBC   (NCL)   category,   five vacancies were reserved and only two candidates are appointed and three   vacancies   are   filled   by   open   category.     Taking   the   overall spectrum   of   the   fact   situation   that   the   candidates   who   might   be lower   in   the   order   of   merit   vis­à­vis   the   present   appellants   have joined   and   sent   for   training,   but   they   were   never   at   fault,   at   the same   time,   the   present   appellants   also   need   indulgence   of   being considered   for   appointment   after   they   are   finally   selected   and indisputedly   have   secured   higher   marks   than   cut­off   in   their respective   category   and   this   fact   has   not   been   disputed   by   the respondents  as well, few of  the  applicants can  be adjusted against the available advertised vacancies and without disturbing or taking away  the  rights of the candidates who have been appointed by  the 36 recruiting   authority,   in   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances,   in exercise   of   our   power   under   Article   142   of   the   Constitution,   to   do complete   justice   to   the   parties,   it   may   be   appropriate   to   direct   the respondents to consider each of the appellants for appointment who could   not   be   adjusted   against   the   advertised   vacancies   of   Civil Judge   against   future   vacancies,   subject   to   their   suitability   under the Scheme of Rules, 2010.       43. The   appeals   succeed   and   are   accordingly   allowed.   The impugned   judgment   of   the   High   Court   is   hereby   quashed   and   set aside   and   the   respondents   are   directed   to   consider   candidature   of each   of   the   appellant   for   appointment   with   consequential   benefits including  seniority  to  the  post  of  Civil  Judge on  their  participation in the selection process held pursuant to advertisement dated 22 nd July,   2021.   The   order   may   be   passed   subject   to   their   suitability within two months. No costs. 44. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. ………………………J. (AJAY RASTOGI) NEW DELHI; MAY 18, 2023. 37 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. …..... OF 2023 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. 16428 OF 2022) SAKSHI ARHA .....APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS. .....RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. ....…. OF 2023 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 18296-18299 OF 2022) PRIYANKA ETC. …. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE REGISTRAR EXAMINATION ETC. …. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. …..... OF 2023 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 21644 OF 2022) KULDEEP BHATIA …. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS REGISTRAR EXAMINATION, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR …. RESPONDENT(S) WITH 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO. ...…. OF 2023 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 19179 OF 2022) SUNIL SINGH GURJAR …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS REGISTRAR EXAMINATION, RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. ….... OF 2023 (@SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 9544 OF 2023) PARUL JAIN … APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ANR. …. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO. ….... OF 2023 (@SPECIAL LEAVEL PETITION (C) NO. 5654 OF 2023) JYOTI BENIWAL …. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ANR. ….RESPONDENT(S) 2 J U D G M E N T BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. 1. I have had the opportunity to go through the opinion expressed by my esteemed brother Justice Ajay Rastogi, however I express my inability to agree with the views expressed in the said opinion, and pen down my opinion as under: - 2. Leave granted. 3. The common adjudication is being made having regard to the contextual semblance of facts and legal issues involved in all these appeals. The appellants in all the appeals have challenged the impugned orders passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, whereby the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions filed by them. In the writ petitions before the High Court, the primary challenge was to the action of the respondent-High Court in issuing the notice on 04.08.2022 requiring the candidates, who had successfully qualified themselves in the main examination for the post of Civil Judges, to produce the certificates relating to the categories like Other Backward Class / More Backward Class - Non-Creamy Layer and Economically Weaker Section etc. issued within one year from the last date of submission of the application form i.e. 31.08.2021 and not after the said date. The 3 appellants having produced the certificates showing their status in the respective reserved category, which were issued after the said date 31.08.2021, they were not found eligible for the said post by the respondent-High Court. Factual Matrix 4. The short facts that emanate from the record of the present batch of appeals are that the respondent-High Court issued an advertisement on 22.07.2021 inviting applications for the recruitment of Civil Judges against the vacancies in the year 2021 as per the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2010). The relevant part of the said advertisement is produced hereunder for the better appreciation of the issues involved: “ 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 3 ………. 4 . Number of Vacant posts and Reservation. Total No. of Vacancies Year General Reserved Persons with Benchmark SC ST OBC EWS MBC 4 Disabilities 89 2020 (upto Dec. 2020) 35 Out of which, 10 posts for women Out of 10 posts 02 posts reserved for Widow 14 Out of which, 04 posts for women Out of 04 posts 01 post for Widow 10 Out of which, 03 posts for women 18 Out of which, 05 posts for women Out of 05 posts 01 post for widow 08 Out of which, 02 posts for women 04 Out of which, 01 post for women Out of 9 vacancies, 04 posts for persons with Benchmark Disabilities* 31 2021 (upto Dec. 2021) 14 Out of which, 04 posts for women Out of 04 posts 01 post reserved for Widow 04 Out of which, 01 post for women 03 06 Out of which, 01 post for women 03 01 Out of 31 vacancies, 01 post for persons with Benchmark Disabilities* *Out of 05 posts reserved for persons with Benchmark Disabilities, 01 (One) post is reserved for blindness and low vision, 01 (One) for deaf and hard of hearing, 01 (one) for locomotor disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy and 02 (two) for autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability and mental illness and multiple disabilities from the amongst persons under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf blindness in the posts identified for each disabilities. Note- The number of aforesaid vacant posts can be increased or decreased as per rules for which no re-advertisement or corrigendum will be published. 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 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. For the applicants coming within Persons with Disability category, such candidates will have to furnish Certificate of Disability issued in the prescribed format by Authorized Certifying Authority authorized by appropriate Government, as and when demanded by Rajasthan High Court. As per the extant rules applicable in this regard, only Disability Certificate Holder candidates shall be considered eligible for selection and appointment against the posts reserved for the Persons with Disabilities. 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. 6 iv. For availing benefit of reservation meant for married women candidates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, 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. 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. In case of widow women candidate, she will have to furnish death certificate of her husband issued by the Competent authority and in case of Divorcee women candidate, she will have to furnish proof of Divorce. 7 to 9. …… 10. AGE: - A candidate must have attained the age of 21 years on 01 st January 2022 however must not have attained the age of 40 years. Provided that – (i) the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes/More Backward Classes/ Economically Weaker Sections and Women Candidates. 11 to 16 . …… 17. Time Limit to Apply:- Sr.No. Description Date 1. Time limit for applying online From 1:00 pm on 30.07.2021 (Friday) to 5.00 PM on 31.08.2021 (Tuesday) 18. Important Instructions to Apply :- 7 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. 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 . ….. 22. 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 8 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 examination is liable to be cancelled at any stage, the responsibility of which will be that of the applicant himself.” 5. All the appellants claiming to be the members of OBC/MBC- NCL/EWS, appeared in the main examinations conducted by the respondent and successfully cleared the same. They having been provisionally qualified to be called for the interview, were invited by the respondent for the interview between 20.08.2022 to 27.08.2022, vide the notice dated 04.08.2022. In the said notice it was directed that the candidates had to bring all the original documents along with the attested/certified photocopies at the time of interview. The precise directions contained in the said notice are reproduced as under: “The candidates are required to remain present for Interview on the date and reporting time mentioned above in the temporary office of Registrar (Examination), at Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, Jodhpur, Near Jhalamand Circle, Old Pall Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) with their original documents/certificates for verification. The candidates are directed to bring all the following original documents along with two attested/certified photo copies of each document: - i…. ii…. iii. Certificate relating to category:- (a) OBC/MBC (Non Creamy layer) certificate issued not prior to one year from the last date of submission of the application form i.e. 31.08.2021. (b) In case OBC/MBC (Non Creamy Layer) certificate is issued between 31.08.2018 and 9 30.08.2020, an affidavit in prescribed format along with caste certificate has to be produced. (c) In case of EWS category - Income & Asset Certificate required for seeking reservation in EWS category must not be issued prior to 01.04.2021. In case Income & Asset Certificate issued between 01.04.2019 and 31.03.2021, an affidavit in prescribed format along with certificate has to be produced. (d) SC/ST/OBC/MBC/EWS certificate, as the case may be must not have been issued after the last date of submission of the application form i.e. 31.08.2021.” 6. The appellant Jyoti Beniwal (SLP (C) No. 5654/2023) who had applied under the category OBC-NCL for the said post of Civil Judge, filed the writ petition being No. 11784 of 2022 inter alia challenging the conditions imposed in the said notice dated 04.08.2022 requiring the candidates to furnish the OBC-NCL certificates issued between 31.08.2018 to 31.08.2021, and declaring that the certificates issued after 31.08.2021 would not be accepted. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said petition vide the judgment and order dated 18.08.2022, which is impugned before this Court. 7. The appellant Kuldeep Bhatia (SLP (C) No. 21644 of 2022) also filed writ petition being no. 12022 of 2022 before the High Court challenging the said notice dated 04.08.2022 prescribing the requirement of furnishing the OBC (NCL) certificate of the period not prior to one year preceding the last date of submission of application form. The said petition also came to 10 be dismissed by the High Court vide the order dated 06.09.2022, which is also impugned before us in this batch of appeals. Similar writ petitions filed by the other appellants-writ petitioners came to be dismissed by the High Court by passing separate orders relying upon the decisions in case of Jyoti Beniwal and Kuldeep Bhatia. 8. For the better understanding and for the sake of convenience, a comparative statement showing the facts in case of each of the appellants is produced hereunder: I. OBC-NCL category SLP 5654/2023, SLP 16428/2022, SLP 18296 – 18299/22 S. No. Name Marks Cut off General Cut off marks OBC- NCL Date of OBC-NCL Certificates of the Petitioner Date of OBC- NCL Certificate required as per Respondents SLP 5654/2023 1. Jyoti Beniwal 176 179.5 163.5 22.06.2016 & 25.07.2022 31.08.2018 to 31.08.2021 SLP 16428/2022 2. Sakshi Arha 166.5 179.5 163.5 27.07.2016 17.06.2022 & 12.08.2022 “-do- “ SLP 18296-18299/2022 3. Priyanka 170 179.5 163.5 23.04.2018 & 20.06.2022 “-do-“ 4. Bhavya Kulhar 165.5 179.5 163.5 19.09.2016 & 16.06.2022 “-do-“ 5. Neha Batar 165 179.5 163.5 28.06.2018 & 21.06.2022 “-do-“ 6. Nikhil Kataria 171.5 179.5 163.5 16.07.2018 & 09.06.2022 “-do-“ 11 II. MBC-NCL category-Sunil Gurjar SLP(C) NO. 19179/22 & Kuldeep Bhatia SLP(C) NO. 21644/22 S. No. Name of the petitioner Marks Obtained Cut off General Cut off marks MBC- NCL Date of MBC-NCL Certificates Date of MBC- NCL Certificate required as per Respondents SLP(C) NO. 19179/22 1. Sunil Singh Gurjar 172 179.5 141 18.06.2018 & 16.06.2022 31.08.2018 to 31.08.2021 SLP(C) NO. 21644/22 2. Kuldeep Bhatia 141.5 179.5 141 03.08.2012 & 09.03.2022 “-do-“ III. EWS Category-Parul Jain SLP (C) No. 9544 OF 2023 S. No. Name of the petitioner Marks Obtained Cut off in General Category Cut off- EWS Date of EWS Certificates of the Petitioner Date of EWS Certificate required as per Respondents 1. Parul Jain 174.5 179.5 167.5 07.09.2021 31.08.2021 (01.04.2021- 31.03.2022 valid AY 2021- 22) 9. It is pertinent to note that as per Clause-6 read with the important instructions mentioned in the advertisement dated 22.07.2021, the candidates belonging to various reserved categories had to produce legally valid certificates issued by the competent authority. It may be further noted that the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of Rajasthan keeps on issuing the guidelines and directions 12 from time to time for the issuance of caste certificates to the SCs, STs, OBCs, MBCs and EWS. The circulars prevalent at the relevant time were the circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019. The relevant paragraph 4 of the Circular dated 09.09.2015 with regard to issuance of caste certificates reads as under: “ 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.” 10. The relevant part of the Circular dated 08.08.2019 clarifying the aforesaid direction contained in the circular dated 09.09.2015 reads as under: “Government of Rajasthan Department of Social Justice and Empowerment No. F-11/S.C.S.T.OBC/S.B.C 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.” 13 11. The substance of the above circulars was that the certificate of OBC-NCL issued to a person would be valid for one year, however in the subsequent year also if he continues to remain in the “non-creamy layer” category, the previously issued certificate would be treated valid after obtaining an attested affidavit from such person, and such procedure could be followed for a maximum period of three years. Submissions : 12. The Learned Counsels appearing for the appellants made following submissions: (i) The appellants having complied with all requisites in form as well as in substance have been wrongly not considered for the post of Civil Judge and the lesser meritorious candidates in the respective categories have been selected for the said post. (ii) In absence of any specification with regard to the date of certificates to be produced by the candidates applying under the reserved categories either in the recruitment advertisement dated 22.07.2021 or in the said Rules of 2010, the prescriptions contained in the notice dated 14 04.08.2022 requiring the candidates to produce the certificates as per Clause 3 thereof tantamount to changing the rules of game in the midst of the recruitment process, which is not permissible in the eye of law. (iii) The impugned conditions introduced by the respondents in the notice dated 04.08.2022 limiting the chances of the appellants being selected were absolutely unreasonable and arbitrary. (iv) For availing the benefit of reservation, the appellants were required to produce the relevant certificates, however any rigid principle with regard to the date of certificate as the proof for the purpose of seeking entitlement to claim the benefit of reservation, had no nexus with the last date of submission of application. (v) Relying upon the decision of this Court in Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE & Ors. 1 , it is submitted that there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof of the certificates/documents and it would not be proper to 1 (2005) 9 SCC 779 15 apply any rigid principle. Every infraction of rule relating to submission of proof need not be necessarily result in rejection of candidature. (vi) Reliance has been placed in case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. 2 , to submit that the submission of certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement was valid for the selection of the candidate under the reserved category. According to the appellants, the said view was affirmed by Three-Judge Bench in case of Karn Singh Yadav Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 3 (SLP (C) 14948/2016) . (vii) Distinguishing the judgment of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India & Ors. 4 , relied upon by the respondent, it was submitted that the ratio laid down in the said judgment had no relevance to the facts of the present appeals in as much as the said case pertained to the qualification of candidates at the time of selection, whereas in the instant appeals 2 (2016) 4 SCC 754 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1341 4 (2007) 4 SCC 54 16 the issue is with regard to the date of the issuance of certificates which is only procedural matter. 13. The Learned Counsel for the Respondents made the following submissions: (i) The appellants had failed to reproduce valid certificates as mentioned in the advertisement dated 22.07.2021 and notice dated 04.08.2022. (ii) The State Government had issued the circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019 in which it was clarified that the OBC certificate shall be issued only once, and the certificate regarding Non-Creamy Layer would also be valid for one year only, however, if the applicant continues to hold the position of “Non-Creamy Layer” in the subsequent year, then the certificate issued in previous year would be treated valid with an affidavit of the candidate. In the instant appeals the appellants claiming to be belonging to OBC-NCL had not produced the requisite valid certificates nor the affidavit in that regard. (iii) As held in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), the last date for filing application is required to be treated as 17 the cut-off date in absence of any date specified in this behalf either in the advertisement or in the rules. (iv) Relying upon Rakesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. 5 , it has been submitted that the eligibility criteria/conditions should be examined as on the last date of the receipt of the application. The appellants having acquired the requisite certificates after the cut-off date of last date of submission of applications, they were rightly not considered for selection for the post in question. (v) The reservation under the category of OBC-NCL and EWS is on the basis of the current economic status of the candidates, whereas the caste status of person i.e., a candidate being SC, ST or OBC would be dependent on the birth of the person which factor remains static. Hence, considering the dynamic state of the category of OBC-NCL and EWS, the Government had issued the circulars dated 08.08.2009 and 09.09.2015 for issuing the requisite certificates by the competent authority, and 5 (2013) 11 SCC 58 18 the appellants accordingly had to produce the valid certificates issued by such competent authorities as per the said circulars, which the appellants had failed to produce in the instant cases. Analysis and Reasoning: 14. At the outset, it deserves to be noted that the certificates to the persons belonging to the reserved categories like SC/ST/OBC- NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS are being issued by the competent authorities of the respective State Governments keeping in view the provisions contained in the Constitution of India and the guidelines/principles laid down by this Court from time to time. The status of a person whether he belongs to SC or ST category depends on the caste which he belongs to by birth, and such status would remain unchanged and would be static, however, the status of a person whether he belongs to OBC- NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS would depend upon his/her social and economic status, and such status would keep on changing depending on his/her income and therefore would be dynamic. It is very well settled position of law that the persons belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were and are treated as a separate category, and the principle of “creamy layer” does not apply to the said categories. It applies only to 19 the persons belonging to the socially and the economically backward classes. Ergo, the date of issuance of certificate to the persons belonging to OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS categories assumes significance for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the candidate claiming to belong to a particular reserved category on the date when he/she applied for the post in question under such category, in fact belonged to the said category on the date on which such application was made or on the date prescribed in the advertisement. 15. In this regard, before adverting to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, let us peep into the brief history of reservations, more particularly for the category of “Other Backward Classes” and “Economically Weaker Sections”, with which I am concerned. The most landmark decision on the issue of reservations for the “Other Backward Class” category is the Nine-Judge Bench decision in case of Indra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 6 , in which it was noticed that amongst the backward class, there is a section of the backward class which belong to the affluent section of society and they do not deserve any sort of reservation for further progress in life. In the majority judgment opined by B.P. 6 1992 Supp (3) 217 20 Jeevan Reddy, J., it was observed while discussing the issue under the head “Means test” and “creamy layer”, that “Means test’ signifies imposition of an income limit, for the purpose of excluding persons from the backward class whose income is above the said limit, (also referred as the persons belonging to creamy layer). It was further opined that the exclusion of “creamy layer” must be on the basis of social advancement and not on the basis of mere economic criteria. At the same time, income to the extent of property held by person can be taken as a measure of social advancement and on that basis “creamy layer” of all given caste/community/occupational group can be excluded to arrive at a true backward class. It was further opined that it is not impermissible for the State to categorize backward classes into backward and more backward on the basis of their relative social backwardness. It was finally concluded while answering various questions dealt with by the majority inter alia that (i) ‘creamy layer’ can be, and must be excluded; (ii) it is not necessary for class to be designated as a backward class that it is situated similarly to the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes; (iii) a backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria. It is of course permissible for the Government 21 or other authority to identify backward class of citizen on the basis of occupation-cum-income, without reference to caste, if it is so advised; (iv) there is no Constitutional bar to classify backward classes of citizens into backward or more backward categories; (v) the Government of India and the State Governments have the power to, and ought to, create a permanent mechanism in the nature of commission etc. 16. In another significant decision in case of M. Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 7 , the Constitution Bench while propounding the concepts of “formal equality” and “proportional equality”, as the basis of distribution of benefits and burdens, referred the concept of “creamy layer” evolved in case of Indra Sawhney (supra), and opined as under: “120. At this stage, one aspect needs to be mentioned. Social justice is concerned with the distribution of benefits and burdens. The basis of distribution is the area of conflict between rights, needs and means. These three criteria can be put under two concepts of equality, namely, “formal equality” and “proportional equality”. Formal equality means that law treats everyone equal. Concept of egalitarian equality is the concept of proportional equality and it expects the States to take affirmative action in favour of disadvantaged sections of society within the framework of democratic polity. In Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] all the Judges except Pandian, J. held that the “means test” should be adopted to exclude the creamy layer from the protected group earmarked for reservation. In Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] this Court has, therefore, accepted caste as a determinant of backwardness and yet it has struck a balance with the principle of secularism 7 (2006) 8 SCC 212 22 which is the basic feature of the Constitution by bringing in the concept of creamy layer…......” 17. In another significant decision of the Constitution Bench in case of Ashoka Kumar Thakur Vs. Union of India & Ors . 8 , it was opined, again referring to the principle of “creamy layer” introduced in Indra Sawhney (supra) that: - “168. As noticed earlier, determination of backward class cannot be exclusively based on caste. Poverty, social backwardness, economic backwardness, all are criteria for determination of backwardness. It has been noticed in Indra Sawhney case [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] that among the backward class, a section of the backward class is a member of the affluent section of society. They do not deserve any sort of reservation for further progress in life. They are socially and educationally advanced enough to compete for the general seats along with other candidates. 169…… 170. It is to be understood that “creamy layer” principle is introduced merely to exclude a section of a particular caste on the ground that they are economically advanced or educationally forward. They are excluded because unless this segment of caste is excluded from that caste group, there cannot be proper identification of the backward class. If the “creamy layer” principle is not applied, it could easily be said that all the castes that have been included among the socially and educationally backward classes have been included exclusively on the basis of caste. Identification of SEBC for the purpose of either Articles 15(4), 15(5) or 16(4) solely on the basis of caste is expressly prohibited by various decisions of this Court and it is also against Article 15(1) and Article 16(1) of the Constitution. To fulfil the conditions and to find out truly what is socially and educationally backward class, the exclusion of “creamy layer” is essential. 171-185……. - It was further held: 186. Moreover, right from the beginning, the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes were treated as a separate category and nobody ever disputed identification of such classes. So long as “creamy layer” is not applied as one of 8 (2008) 6 SCC 1 23 the principles of equality, it cannot be applied to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. So far, it is applied only to identify the socially and educationally backward classes. We make it clear that for the purpose of reservation, the principles of “creamy layer” are not applicable for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.” 18. So far as Economically Weaker Section category is concerned, the Parliament by 103 rd amendment had inserted Clause (6) in Article 15 and Clause (6) in Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In the statement of objects and reasons of the said Amendment, it was stated that the Economically weaker sections of the citizens were not eligible for the benefit of reservation, and with a view to fulfil the mandate of Article 46 and to ensure that economically weaker sections of the citizens get a fair chance of receiving higher education and participation in the employment in the services of the State, it was decided to amend the Constitution of India. The Constitutional validity of the said 103 rd amendment was challenged before this Court in case of Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India 9 and by 3:2 the validity of the said amendment was upheld, vide the judgment dated 07.11.2022. 19. The reason for quoting the aforesaid judgments is only to demonstrate that the status of the candidates claiming reservation under the category SCs and STs would be static, 9 W.P. (C) 55/2019 24 whereas the status of the candidates claiming reservation under the category OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL and EWS would be fluid, dynamic and not static. Under the circumstances, the State Governments are issuing the guidelines from time to time laying down the eligibility criteria for deciding the economic status of a person and the methodology or procedure to be followed for issuing the certificates to the persons belonging to the OBC-NCL/EWS categories. 20. In the instant case, the State of Rajasthan had issued the Circular dated 09.09.2015 with regard to the validity period of caste certificate, in which it was stated inter alia that the validity of caste certificates issued for SC/ST will be lifetime whereas the certificate for OBC will be issued only once, and that the certificate of non-creamy layer will be valid for one year. However, once the certificate of “non-creamy layer” is issued, and if the applicant remains in the category of non-creamy layer in the subsequent year also, then in such a situation an affidavit in the prescribed form will be furnished by him, in which case the earlier issued “non-creamy layer” certificate shall be deemed valid, and such procedure could be followed for a maximum period of three years. The said Circular 09.09.2015 was further clarified vide Circular dated 08.08.2019 in which it 25 was stated 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 of “not falling in the creamy layer” category, and if such applicant does not fall within “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 on his furnishing an attested affidavit, which could be followed for maximum period of three years. 21. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, as stated in the Clause 6 of the advertisement dated 22.07.2021, the candidates claiming reservation under the categories of SC/ST/OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS had to furnish valid certificates duly issued by the competent authority as per the rules in the prescribed format. It was also stated in the important instructions of the advertisement that the category filled in the application will not be changed under any circumstances, and that the candidates will be required to produce all the original documents/certificates on the basis of which they made claim of reservation, if required by the Rajasthan High Court or the concerned appointing authority. 26 22. Having regard to the said instructions contained in the said advertisement dated 22.07.2021, there remains no shadow of doubt that if a candidate had applied under any of the reserved categories, he or she was expected to have a valid certificate issued by the competent authority as per rules in the prescribed format, to show his or her eligibility to apply under such category. The time limit for making such application as stated in Clause 17 of the said advertisement was upto 5 PM on 31.08.2021. Under the circumstances, the candidate was expected to have the requisite certificate to show that he or she belonged to the concerned reserved category, on the date of making application or on the last date fixed for the submission of applications i.e. 31.08.2021. Such certificate to be produced by the concerned candidate had to be a valid certificate issued by the competent authority in consonance with the circulars issued by the State Government dated 09.09.2015 and as clarified in the Circular dated 08.08.2019, which governed the issue with regard to the validity of such certificates. 23. Admittedly, all the appellants had the certificates issued after the last date fixed for the submission of their applications i.e., 31.08.2021. So far as OBC-NCL category was concerned the appellant Jyoti Beniwal had furnished the OBC-NCL certificate 27 dated 25.07.2022, appellant Sakshi Arha had the certificate dated 12.08.2022, appellant Priyanka had the certificate dated 20.06.2022, appellant Bhavya Kulhar had the certificate dated 16.06.2022, appellant Neha Batar had the certificate dated 21.06.2022 and appellant Nikhil Kataria had the certificate dated 09.06.2022. So far as MBC-NCL is concerned, the appellant Sunil Singh Gurjar had the certificate dated 16.06.2022 and appellant Kuldeep Bhatia had the certificate dated 09.03.2022. So far as EWS category is concerned, the appellant Parul Jain had the certificate dated 07.09.2021. Thus, all the appellants had produced their respective certificates which were obtained by them after the last date fixed for the submission of the application i.e., 31.08.2021, and had also not produced the documents/affidavits in support thereof, in compliance with the circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019 . Therefore, the certificates produced by the appellants at the time of interview could not said to be valid certificates as mandated in the advertisement dated 22.07.2021 by the respondents. 24. It was sought to be submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there was no specific date mentioned in the advertisement dated 22.07.2021 as to the validity period of the 28 certificates to be furnished by the appellants, and subsequent notice dated 04.08.2022 directing the appellants to produce the certificates as mentioned therein was highly unreasonable, and tantamount to changing the rules of game after the process of selection had started. The Court does not find any substance in the said argument. As stated earlier, there were specific instructions given in the advertisement that the candidates applying under the reserved categories had to submit the valid certificates issued by the competent authority, and therefore such certificates had to be in consonance with the circulars of the State Government dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019 which governed the validity period of such certificates. The subsequent notice dated 04.08.2022 given by the respondent- High Court requiring the candidates belonging to OBC/MBC(NCL) to produce the certificates issued not prior to one year from the last date fixed for the submission of application form i.e., 31.08.2021, was absolutely in consonance with the said circulars issued by the State Government. It was also mentioned in the said notice dated 04.08.2022 that in case the OBC/MBC(NCL) certificate was issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020, an affidavit in prescribed format along with the caste certificate had to be produced. For the EWS category, it 29 was stated that the Income and Asset certificate required for seeking reservation in EWS category must not have been issued prior to 01.04.2021 and in case the Income and Asset certificate was issued between 01.04.2019 and 31.03.2021, then an affidavit in the prescribed format along with the certificate had to be produced. It was specifically mentioned therein that SC/ST/OBC/MBC/EWS certificate, as the case may be, must not have been issued after the last date of submission of the application form i.e., 31.08.2021. Such instructions requiring the reserved category candidates to produce the requisite certificates could neither be said to be unreasonable nor could be construed as changing the rules of game after selection process was started, they being in consonance with the important instructions given in the advertisement dated 22.07.2021, and in consonance with the circulars issued by the State Government with regard to the validity period of caste certificates. 25. It is needless to say that when a candidate applies under a particular reserved category, he or she is required to have the certificate of that particular category on the date on which he or she makes the application to show his or her eligibility to apply under the said category. If such certificates are obtained 30 subsequent to date of their application or subsequent to the last date of submission of the applications mentioned in the advertisement, such certificates could not be said to be valid certificates, more particularly in cases where the candidate applies under OBC-NCL or EWS, which category is highly dynamic and not static, as the economic status of the candidate would keep on changing depending on the income of the candidate. 26. The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants that in absence of a fixed date specified in the advertisement and in absence of any provision in the Rules, the certificates produced on the date of interview should be treated as valid, cannot be accepted. Though, reliance was sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the appellants on Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman, JEE and Others ( supra) , Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and Another ( supra) and Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 14948 of 2016) they are hardly of any help to the appellants. In Dolly Chhanda (supra), this Court while observing that every infraction of rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature, had emphasized that: 31 “ 7. The general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in the application form as the case may be, unless there is an expressed provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or marksheets. Similarly, in order to avail the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are the documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement to benefit of reservation..” 27. In Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra) , the two Judge Bench of this Court had found the candidate eligible for selection to the concerned post under the OBC category, though the certificate in that regard was submitted after the last date mentioned in the advertisement, however another two judge Bench of this Court in Karn Singh Yadav (supra) had expressed reservation in that regard, and had referred the matter to the Three-Judge Bench vide the order dated 24.01.2020. The Three-Judge Bench in the said case of Karn Singh Yadav (supra) however relying upon Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) disposed of the appeal vide the order dated 28.09.2022, without noticing the reference made by the two Judge Bench in the said case. Be that as it may, in none of these two cases, was there an issue whether the candidate could have produced the requisite certificate showing his reserved category, issued after the last date fixed for the 32 submission of the applications mentioned in the advertisement, as has been done in the instant appeals. 28. Further, none of the appellants had raised any such contention in their writ petitions that they had applied on time and the delay in issuing certificates was on the part of the competent authorities. Admittedly, no such affidavits as contemplated in the circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019 were filed by the appellants either before the competent authority issuing the certificates or before the respective High Court at the time of interview, though indicated in the notice dated 04.08.2022. Conclusion: 29. It is no more res integra that in absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement inviting applications, with reference to which the requisite eligibility is to be judged, and when the rules are silent, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the eligibility of a candidate would be the last date for making the applications. It cannot be gain said that the date of interview or selection would always be uncertain and the uncertainty of the date may lead to an anomalous situation in as much as even those candidates who were not eligible to apply under the reserved category on the date of making application, may apply 33 under the reserved category and subsequently obtain the certificate by the time the interviews are held. In such circumstance, the possibility of playing mischief also cannot be ruled out. In the instant case, the last date for the submission of applications was 31.08.2021 and the interviews were fixed in August 2022. So, there was a gap of one full year between the last date for submission of the applications and the date of interview, during which period the economic status and resultant status of “creamy layer/non-creamy layer/EWS” of the candidates might have also changed. Therefore, the exposition of law settled by this Court is that in absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement, and when the rules are also silent, the last date fixed for submitting the applications would be the date for the scrutiny of the eligibility of the candidates. 30. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India & Ors . 10 , had held inter alia that the qualification and eligibility have to be considered with reference to the last date for receiving the applications, unless the notification calling for applications itself specifies a date. 31. In Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan and Others 11 , this Court held as under: - 10 ( 1993) 2 SCC 429 11 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 34 “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 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] .” 32. A Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Chander Shekhar & Anr. 12 , observed as under: - “6. The proposition that where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the applications, the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone, 12 (1997) 4 SCC 18 35 is a well-established one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An advertisement or notification issued/published calling for applications constitutes a representation to the public and the authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act contrary to it. One reason behind this proposition is that if it were known that persons who obtained the qualifications after the prescribed date but before the date of interview would be allowed to appear for the interview, other similarly placed persons could also have applied. Just because some of the persons had applied notwithstanding that they had not acquired the prescribed qualifications by the prescribed date, they could not have been treated on a preferential basis.” 33. It is also pertinent to note that if the appellants were allowed to produce the certificates issued after the last date fixed for the submission of applications mentioned in the advertisement i.e. 31.08.2021, the other candidates similarly situated as the appellants might raise a grievance for not giving them such opportunity. The appellants who are the defaulters could not be given preferential treatment by accepting the certificates produced by them as valid, though the same were obtained by them after the last date for the submission of applications fixed in the advertisement. The said certificates were also not supported by the requisite affidavits as per the Government circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019. 34. In view of the afore-stated factual and legal aspects of the matter, I do not find any error having been committed by the High Court while passing the impugned judgments and orders. 36 In that view of the matter, the appeals being devoid of merits are dismissed. …..................................J. [BELA M. TRIVEDI] NEW DELHI; 18.05.2023 37 1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION    CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.16428 of 2022) SAKSHI ARHA     ….APPELLANT(S) VERSUS THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT  & OTHERS         ….RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.18296­18299 of 2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.21644 of 2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19179 of 2022) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9544 of 2023) CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).                       OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.5654 of 2023) O R D E R In   view   of   the   split   view   expressed   by   us   in   the   instant appeals, let the matter be placed before Hon’ble The Chief Justice of India   to   place   the   matter   before   an   appropriate   Bench.     We   hope that   looking   to   the   urgency   of   the   matter,   hearing   of   the   appeals may be expedited.   .......................J.                [ AJAY RASTOGI ] .......................J.                [ BELA M. TRIVEDI ] New Delhi; MAY 18, 2023.