SAKSHI ARHAversusTHE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ORS.

                  [2025] 4 S.C.R. 714 : 2025 INSC 463

                             Sakshi Arha
                                 v.
                   The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
                       (Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023)
                                  08 April 2025
            [Abhay S. Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah and
                 Augustine George Masih,* JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       The present set of appeals have travelled to this 3-Judge Bench
       as a result of the split verdict delivered through Judgment dated
       18.05.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 and other connected
       matters. All the candidates had successfully cleared their preliminary
       examination, followed by mains examination, as per the requirements
       of marks in their respective categories. However, none of these
       candidates had their certificates issued as per the date specified in
       the Subsequent Notice (dated 04.08.2022), their names were not
       included in the list of the candidates called for interview.

                                   Headnotes†
       Judicial Services – Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 –
       Recruitment – Reservation – Submission of caste certificate –
       Rajasthan High Court-respondent no.1 invited applications
       for appointment to the post of Civil Judge Cadre being the
       “Civil Judge Examination 2021” – Last date for receipt of
       applications was 31.08.2021 – A Notice dated 04.08.2022
       (Subsequent Notice) was issued, which mentioned that the
       concerned reserved category certificates ought not to have
       been issued beyond 31.08.2021 – The appellants in all the
       appeals belong to different reserved categories, i.e., Other
       Backward Classes (Non Creamy Layer) (OBC-NCL) etc. – None
       of these candidates had their certificates issued as per the
       date specified in the Subsequent Notice, their names were not
       included in the list of the candidates called for interview – The
       appellants contended that the High Court of Rajasthan has
       erred in not considering that the conditions introduced by the
       Subsequent Notice, which arbitrarily limited the appellants’
       chances in the selection process, despite they having a
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                                715

             Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.


     OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL certificate since 2016, which was valid
     as per the advertisement – This condition, therefore, violated
     fundamental rights of the appellant(s) – Moreover, there was
     no such requirement in the 2010 Rules as has been introduced
     by the Subsequent Notice – Correctness:
     Held: The Subsequent Notice, which was issued by the Rajasthan
     High Court on 04.08.2022, cannot be said to be arbitrary or without
     any basis – It specified that the certificate belonging to the concerned
     reserved category should have been issued prior or upto 31.08.2021
     i.e. the last date of receipt of the application in pursuance to the
     Advertisement – This was because the Advertisement required
     a candidate to possess eligibility upto the cut-off date – As
     regards the specifications regarding a certificate issued between
     31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020 along with the affidavit is concerned,
     this was based on the Government Circulars dated 09.09.2015
     and 08.08.2019 which clarified that the certificate issued will be
     valid for one year extendable by three years with affidavit – Thus,
     the Subsequent Notice issued was in consonance with law and as
     per the Advertisement, applicable Rules, instructions and circulars
     issued by the competent authority – The plea of the appellants is
     unsustainable and deserves to be rejected – No relaxation can be
     granted in the given facts and circumstances of the case nor can it be
     claimed as a matter of right in the absence of any such discretionary
     clause in the Advertisement/Rules/Instructions. [Para 36]

                               Case Law Cited
     Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others [1992]
     Supp. 2 SCR 454 : (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217 – followed.
     Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) v. University of Rajasthan and Others
     [1993] 1 SCR 186 : (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 168 – relied on.
     Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
     and Another (2016) 4 SCC 754 – distinguished.
     Bhupinderpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others
     (2000) 5 SCC 262; Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India and
     Others [2007] 3 SCR 95 : (2007) 4 SCC 54; Divya v. Union of
     India and Others [2023] 15 SCR 44 : (2024) 1 SCC 448; Indra
     Sawhney v. Union of India and Others [1999] Supp. 5 SCR 229 :
     (2000) 1 SCC 168; Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. State of Bihar and
     Others [1995] Supp. 3 SCR 269 : (1995) 5 SCC 403 – referred to.
716                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


                                List of Acts
       Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.

                             List of Keywords
       Judicial Services; Recruitment; Selection Process; Reservation;
       Subsequent notice; Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination,
       2021; Other Backward Classes (NonCreamy Layer) (OBC-NCL),
       Most Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer) (MBC-NCL) or
       Economically Weaker Section (EWS); OBC-NCL certificate;
       Ignorantia juris non excusat.

                             Case Arising From
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023
       From the Judgment and Order dated 06.09.2022 of the High Court
       of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in DBCWP No. 12374 of 2022
       With
       Civil Appeal No(s). 3958-3961, 3963, 3962 and 3909 of 2023

                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant:
       K. Paari Vendhan, Rishabh Sancheti, Ms. Padma Priya, Jaswant
       Singh Lakhawat, Naman Jain, Abhisar Bhanu, Prashant Bhushan,
       Ms. Alice Raj, Ms. Nisha Tiwari, Pallav Mongia, Anubhav Mishra,
       Archit Upadhayay.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Gopal Jha, Vikram Aditya Narayan,
       Mrs. Abeda Sheikh, Nishant Verma, Ajay Choudhary.

                 Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Judgment

       Augustine George Masih, J.

1.     The present set of appeals have travelled to this 3-Judge Bench
       as a result of the split verdict delivered through Judgment dated
       18.05.2023 in Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023 and other connected
       matters, including Civil Appeal No. 3908 of 2023 which was de-tagged
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        717

             Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.


     from the instant batch vide Order dated 06.11.2024, by Division
     Bench of this Court.
2.   The factual backdrop in the present set of appeals is being culled
     primarily from the Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023, as it is agreed that
     the issue involved in these appeals arises from the 2010 Rules which
     regulate the appointment of Civil Judges in the state of Rajasthan
     and the relevant facts are identical.
     2.1 The Rajasthan High Court – Respondent No. 1 published an
         Advertisement dated 22.07.2021 (hereinafter referred to as
         “Advertisement”) inviting applications for appointment to the
         post of Civil Judge Cadre being the “Civil Judge Examination
         2021” as per the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010
         (hereinafter referred to as “2010 Rules), which was admittedly
         silent on the aspect of the last date of issuance of the concerned
         certificates for each reserved category. The last date for
         receipt of the applications was 31.08.2021. Preliminary Test
         was held on 28.11.2021 followed by the conduct of the Mains
         Examinations on 30.04.2022 to 01.05.2022. A Notice dated
         04.08.2022 (hereinafter referred to as “Subsequent Notice”) was
         issued, which mentioned that the concerned reserved category
         certificates ought not to have been issued beyond 31.08.2021.
3.   The Appellants in all the appeals belong to different reserved
     categories, i.e., Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer)
     (hereinafter referred to as “OBC-NCL”), Most Backward Classes
     (Non-Creamy Layer) (hereinafter referred to as “MBC-NCL”) or
     Economically Weaker Section (hereinafter referred to as “EWS”)
     categories. These candidates successfully cleared their preliminary
     examination, followed by mains examination, as per the requirements
     of marks in their respective categories. However, as none of these
     candidates had their certificates issued as per the date specified in
     the Subsequent Notice, their names were not included in the list of
     the candidates called for interview.
4.   This grievance compelled the Appellants to file a series of separate
     writ petitions before the High Court of Rajasthan, both at Jodhpur, and
     the Bench at Jaipur. The first and foremost writ was moved by Ms.
     Jyoti Beniwal, the Appellant in Civil Appeal No. 3909 of 2023 herein,
     before the Division Bench of High Court of Rajasthan as D.B. Civil Writ
     Petition No 11784 of 2022, challenging the condition imposed by the
718                                                           [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


       Rajasthan High Court in its Subsequent Notice, requiring candidates
       under the reserved category to submit a certificate issued within
       one year of the application deadline i.e. 31.08.2021 or a certificate
       issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020, along with an affidavit.
       The petitioner therein, having cleared the preliminary and mains
       examinations, contended that no deadline for submitting the OBC-
       NCL certificate was specified in the Advertisement, and therefore, the
       late imposition of this condition is arbitrary and unjust. Citing Ram
       Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board
       and Another,1 petitioner therein sought to be interviewed under the
       OBC-NCL category, referring to the lack of such a deadline in the
       Advertisement.
5.     The High Court of Rajasthan, vide Order dated 18.08.2022,
       rejected the request, observing that OBC-NCL status is determined
       annually and requires a valid certificate at the time of the application
       submission. Relying on this Court’s decision in Ashok Kumar
       Sonkar v. Union of India and Others,2 it observed that where no
       specific date is provided for document submission, the cut-off date
       for application submission is applicable. The Division Bench also
       referred to other decisions, namely, Gaurav Sharma v. State of
       U.P. through Principal Secy. and 3 Others3, and Rakesh Kumar
       Sharma v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Others,4 which affirmed the
       necessity of certificates by the cut-off date. Thus, the certificate of
       the year 2016, as presented by the petitioner therein, was deemed
       to have failed to meet the requirements as per the law, and the writ
       petition was dismissed.
6.     In the meantime, Ms Sakshi Arha, the Appellant in the Civil Appeal
       No. 3957 of 2023, had also moved the Jaipur Bench of the High
       Court of Rajasthan in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12374 of 2022.
       Her petition was tagged along with other similar petitions, lead case
       thereof being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12022 of 2022, titled as
       Kuldeep Bhatia Vs. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court
       which were taken up together. As the said petitions came up for



1    (2016) 4 SCC 754
2    (2007) 4 SCC 54
3    2017 SCC OnLine All 1286
4    (2013) 11 SCC 58
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                         719

                Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.


      hearing, the Court on considering the factual and legal similarity of
      the dispute, viz-à-viz the case of Ms Jyoti Beniwal (supra), the cases
      were dismissed vide Common Order dated 06.09.2022.
7.    This resulted in the Appellants moving this Court by way of separate
      Special Leave Petitions which were vide separate orders tagged
      along with Civil Appeal No. 3957 of 2023.
8.    Since the Division Bench as mentioned above, could not unanimously
      conclude the fate of these Appellants at stake, the instant set of
      appeals have travelled before this 3-Judge Bench.
9.    The counsels on behalf of the Appellants have argued that the High
      Court of Rajasthan has erred in not considering that the conditions
      introduced by the Subsequent Notice arbitrarily limited the Appellants’
      chances in the selection process, despite they having a OBC-
      NCL/MBC-NCL certificate since 2016, which was valid as per the
      Advertisement. This condition, therefore, violated fundamental rights
      of the Appellant(s). Moreover, there was no such requirement in the
      2010 Rules as has been introduced by the Subsequent Notice.
10. They have further argued that while passing the impugned Order(s),
    the High Court of Rajasthan wrongly relied on Ashok Kumar Sonkar
    (supra), which dealt with the qualification criteria. The factual matrix
    therein concerned with an income-based exclusion from OBC-NCL,
    which was not the case herein.
11. Moreover, the decision in Ram Kumar Girjoya (supra) was binding
    on the Court as the Advertisement only necessitated a valid caste
    certificate as per the prescribed format but had not mandated its
    issuance within a specified period. The Appellants in the instant
    appeals are certified to be candidate of OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL category
    by the competent authority – which had considered the report of
    Tehsildar – and also the Income Tax Returns for the Assessment
    Years 2015-2016 to 2022-2023.
12. The decisions rendered by this Court in Dolly Chhanda v. Chairman,
    JEE and Others5 and Dheerender Singh Paliwal v. Union Public
    Service Commission6 were also brought to our attention to argue



5    (2005) 9 SCC 779
6    (2017) 11 SCC 276
720                                                          [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       instances of relaxations that have been previously provided to
       candidates for submission of proof for the concerned documents,
       relying on which, respective candidates have made their claim for
       reservation.
13. In response to the collective submissions of the Appellants, Senior
    Advocate appearing on behalf of the Rajasthan High Court, argued that
    the benefit of OBC/MBC reservation in a public service is contingent
    on having been issued a NCL Certificate, which as per the Circulars
    dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2015 of the State of Rajasthan, is valid
    for a period of one year, and a certificate preceding past two years
    can be validated subsequently, through an affidavit to the said effect.
    The Advertisement explicitly provided for the candidate to produce
    a legally valid certificate. Thus, the action of the Respondent, to not
    include the Appellants in the list of candidates eligible to participate in
    the interview in the category of OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL, is in compliance
    with the law being neither malafide nor arbitrary. Moreover, the High
    Court of Rajasthan balanced the equity by directing that the result
    of the Appellant(s) concerned be declared treating them as if they
    had applied under the General Category.
14. It was further submitted that the decision in Ashok Kumar Sonkar
    (supra) clarified that in case of absence of a specified cut-off date,
    the last date of submission of form for the concerned advertisement
    is deemed so. Withal, this Court in Rakesh Kumar Sharma (supra)
    observed that if a relaxation is given to accept a concerned certificate
    after the cut-off date, it would be prejudicial to candidates who had
    not applied for the said reason.
15. The reliance placed by the Appellants on Ram Kumar Girjoya
    (supra) is also distinguishable from the instant factual matrix as the
    candidates herein do not possess a valid certificate to claim the benefit
    of reservation. Moreover, while Ram Kumar Girjoya (supra) was
    referred to a larger bench by this Court vide Order dated 24.01.2020
    in SLP (Civil) No. 14948 of 2016 and had its observations affirmed
    by the 3-Judge Bench vide Order dated 28.09.2022 in Karn Singh
    Yadav v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others,7 it did not
    provide any substantive relief to the Appellant therein.



7   (2024) 2 SCC 588
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        721

               Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.


16. We have heard the learned counsels at extensive length while
    pressing their respective submissions. Before we determine the fate
    of the Appellants before us, it is crucial to analyse the juxtaposition
    of the series of arguments presented before us, besides the settled
    legal positions.
17. Undoubtedly, while the status of a candidate belonging to the
    Scheduled Caste (hereinafter referred to as “SC”) or Scheduled
    Tribe (hereinafter referred to as “ST”) is determined by virtue of one’s
    birth. However, as opposed to the unabating virtue of being an SC
    or ST candidate, the status of a candidate claiming to be OBC-NCL
    or MBC-NCL or EWS is constantly subject to transposition owing to
    their social or economic status with the concerned jurisdiction. It is
    on the strength of this reasoning that the decision of 9-Judge Bench
    of this Court in Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and
    Others8 further categorized the backward classes into “Creamy”
    and “Non-Creamy” layers as an attempt to differentiate the affluent
    strata therein, so as to allow for the reservation for those who are
    truly warranting of the affirmative action by the state.
18. Tracing these footsteps, numerous decisions subsequently rendered
    by this Court crystalized this dynamic nature of status of other
    backward classes as against that of SCs or STs. Moreover, this court
    in a subsequent decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and
    Others9 clarified that while our nation, Republic of India, remains
    a caste-based society, the Constitution mandates that caste alone
    cannot be the basis for discrimination. Accordingly, reservation
    is justified only when the concern of both, backwardness and
    underrepresentation in services is addressed sufficiently. It further
    went on to observe that a caste may be identified as a backward
    class, but, the creamy layer ought to be excluded as the said set of
    strata is neither socially, nor economically backward. The inclusion
    of castes in the backward classes list requires relevant data and
    must avoid extraneous factors. Improper inclusion of forward castes
    or failure to exclude the creamy layer undermines the system,
    depriving the genuinely disadvantaged of benefits. The Bench
    therein, also dealt with the decision in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v.


8   (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217
9   (2000) 1 SCC 168
722                                                             [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


       State of Bihar and Others,10 in which, the Central Government
       had issued an Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 to provide
       for reservation to certain categories, and admittedly, they belonged
       to creamy layer.
19. As the determination is clearly varied, it is important to partake the
    correct implementation of the laws of the land, and, as that attempt,
    the NCL certificate was introduced in the year 1993 by the Central
    Government. As part of the said policy, the Tehsildar of the concerned
    State Government was empowered to issue the said certificate,
    subject to the relevant guidelines and procedure, as may have been
    laid down by the respective State Governments.
20. In light of the powers conferred thereof, the State of Rajasthan through
    its Department of Social Justice and Empowerment keeps issuing
    relevant directions and/or guidelines vis-à-vis issuances of necessary
    caste certificates. A perusal of the said circulars establishes a clear
    position as to its validity.
21. The Circular dated 09.09.2015 notified that a certificate for NCL
    category shall only be valid for a period of one year. Moreover, if it
    is a case that the concerned applicant has not transgressed out of
    the said category in the following year, an affidavit by him/her, as
    provided in the Appendix-D, would allow the initially issued certificate
    to be deemed as valid. However, the maximum period to allow for
    this practice to continue is three years.
       21.1 As a reference, the relevant paragraph of the Circular dated
            09.09.2015 is reproduced below:
             "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


10   (1995) 5 SCC 403
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            723

             Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.


                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.”
22. This position was subsequently clarified and crystalised by the State
    of Rajasthan in Circular dated 08.08.2019. The relevant portion
    reads as follows:
                          “Government of Rajasthan
           Department of Social Justice and Empowerment
           No.F-11/SCST/OBC/SBC 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.”
23. Now, let us delve into the state of affairs that surround the
    Advertisement and the appointment to Civil Judge Cadre in the state
    of Rajasthan, especially the 2010 Rules.
24. It is through paragraph 10 in Part-III “General Conditions” of the 2010
    Rules that the Other Backward Classes are provided reservation at
    the time of initial recruitment in the proportion of 21% of the vacancies
    advertised. However, the same is undoubtedly silent on the specific
    aspect of the categories and date of the issuance of certificates.
    Having said that, paragraph 21 of “A-Recruitment to the Cadre of
    Civil Judge” in Part-IV “Methods of Recruitment” calls for invitation
    of applications from “eligible candidates”.
25. The Advertisement was issued in pursuance to the 2010 Rules.
    Before delving any further, let us peruse the bare text of the relevant
    portion of translated version of the Advertisement:
724                                                     [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


                   “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 4
             ……….
       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
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                           725

             Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.


                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. …
                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.
                iv. …
                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
726                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                     Supreme Court Reports


           as per rules. The certificate based on the basis of
           name, address and income of the husband shall not
           be applicable.
           vi. …
           7 to 16. …..
       17. Time limit to apply:-
            S. No.   Description          Date
            1.       Time limit for       From 1:00 pm on
                     applying online      30.07.2021 (Friday) to
                                          5.00 PM on 31.08.2021
                                          (Tuesday)

       18. Important Instructions to Apply:-
           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.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                          727

             Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.


           19 to 21. …..
           23. 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 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.”
                                               (Emphasis supplied)

26. The Advertisement appears to be silent on the aspect of last date of
    issuance of valid category certificate, however, clause (i) and (iii) of
728                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


       paragraph 06 explicitly provide that the candidates from concerned
       categories therein were to furnish certificate issued by the competent
       authority as per rules. Thereafter, a collective reference to clauses
       1 and 2 of paragraph 18 attracts our attention as it clarified that
       candidates should only apply under a said category if they meet
       all the eligibility conditions as per the Advertisement. Moreover,
       as per para 23 of the Advertisement, all the candidates, making
       their individual claims were necessarily required to produce original
       documents or certificates, as the case may be, to substantiate their
       claims of eligibility for reservation.
27. On the subject of absence of last date to showcase their eligibility
    by a candidate apropos their equivalent claim, this Court clarified the
    correct position of law in its decision in Bhupinderpal Singh and
    Others v. State of Punjab and Others,11 where, while upholding
    the view taken by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, held that
    the eligibility criteria for candidates aspiring public employment
    shall be determined pertaining to the cut-off date as outlined in the
    applicable rules of their respective service. In case the rules are
    silent, the decisive date is, ideally, indicated in the advertisement
    for recruitment. However, in case of absence of specifications in
    both context, the eligibility is to be adjudged in lieu of the last date
    of submission of applications before the concerned authority or
    institute. This, thereby, ensures a clear temporal reference point
    for evaluating qualifications of a candidate as per the concerned
    advertisement.
28. This derivation of the position of law was from the decision of this
    Court in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) v. University of Rajasthan and
    Others12 wherein the Bench explicitly observed that the proposition
    of assessing a candidate’s qualification with reference to the date of
    selection, as opposed to the last date of applications is untenable
    and must be unequivocally dismissed. The indeterminate nature
    of the date of selection renders it impracticable for applicants to
    ascertain whether they meet the prescribed qualifications, particularly
    if such qualifications are yet to be attained. The relevant paragraph
    is reproduced as follows:


11   (2000) 5 SCC 262
12   (1993) Supp. 3 SCC 168
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                            729

             Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.


           “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,
730                                                         [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


             Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC
             655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 4 SLR 237 : (1990)
             14 ATC 766] .”
29. This is now well-accepted, licit with clarification, also reiterated in
    Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), and was accepted as recently as in
    the decision of this Court in Divya v. Union of India and Others,13
    while dealing with crystallisation of right of EWS through issuance of
    Income and Asset Certificate, as issued by the competent authority.
30. Having sailed through the stream of law on the subject matter
    in question, let us now analyse the factual matrix vis-à-vis the
    juxtaposition of the claims of the parties before us.
31. Prima facie, the arguments rendered on behalf of the Appellants
    before us, appear to be judicious, if limited scope is the Advertisement.
    But, clearly, this Advertisement does not exist in a vacuum, nescient
    of the outside world and the laws of the land. The decisions of this
    Court, and the guidelines on the category certificates thereof, would
    invariably impact the scope of its interpretation and execution.
32. The well-read legal minds, as the Appellants before us, cannot
    certainly, escape from the clutches of the principle laid down through
    the Latin maxim of ignorantia juris non excusat, which translates
    in literal English to “ignorance of the law is no excuse”. The
    Advertisement certainly required them to produce a valid certificate to
    their claim as per rules and instructions, and in the prescribed format.
33. The relevant law, rules and instructions, as reproduced and referred
    earlier, clearly indicate that a certificate of a claim, as put forth by
    the Appellants herein, is valid for a period of one year from the
    date of issuance, and subsequently, extendable up to three years,
    provided, an affidavit to the said effect is also produced along with
    the originally issued certificate.
34. Moreover, the decisions of this Court have cleared the air of any doubt
    that the claim made by a candidate while filling his or her application
    as per the concerned advertisement are to hold good as on the
    date of his or her application or as per the last date of submission
    of applications prescribed by the concerned advertisement.



13   (2024) 1 SCC 448
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                        731

             Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.


35. It is true that, the Advertisement, in itself, did not clearly mention
    the date with regard to issuance of category certificate, and that it
    came from the Subsequent Notice which ascertained a cut-off date
    for acceptable certificates.
36. The Subsequent Notice, which was issued by the Rajasthan High
    Court on 04.08.2022, cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any
    basis. It specified that the certificate belonging to the concerned
    reserved category should have been issued prior or upto 31.08.2021
    i.e. the last date of receipt of the application in pursuance to the
    Advertisement. This was because the Advertisement required a
    candidate to possess eligibility upto the cut-off date. As regards the
    specifications regarding a certificate issued between 31.08.2018 and
    30.08.2020 along with the affidavit is concerned, this was based
    on the Government Circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019
    (reproduced above) which clarified that the certificate issued will be
    valid for one year extendable by three years with affidavit. Thus, the
    Subsequent Notice issued was in consonance with law and as per the
    Advertisement, applicable Rules, instructions and circulars issued by
    the competent authority. The plea of the appellants is unsustainable
    and deserves to be rejected. No relaxation can be granted in the
    given facts and circumstances of the case nor can it be claimed as
    a matter of right in the absence of any such discretionary clause in
    the Advertisement/Rules/Instructions.
37. The details of the candidates, category and the date of issuance of
    their respective certificates are as follows:

      S.     Name of Appellants and        Category       Date of
      No.    Civil Appeal Numbers                         certificate
                                                          issuance

        1.   Sakshi Arha                   OBC-NCL        27.07.2016,
             [Civil Appeal No. 3957 of                    17.06.2022 &
             2023]                                        12.08.2022
        2.   Priyanka                      OBC-NCL        23.04.2018 &
             [Civil Appeal No. 3958 of                    20.06.2022
             2023]
        3.   Bhavya Kulhar                 OBC-NCL        19.09.2016 &
             [Civil Appeal No. 3959 of                    16.06.2022
             2023]
732                                                      [2025] 4 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports



         4.   Neha Batar                   OBC-NCL        28.06.2018 &
              [Civil Appeal No. 3960 of                   21.06.2022
              2023]

         5.   Nikhil Kataria               OBC-NCL        16.07.2018 &
              [Civil Appeal No. 3961 of                   09.06.2022
              2023]

         6.   Sunil Singh Gurjar           MBC-NCL        18.06.2018 &
              [Civil Appeal No. 3962 of                   16.06.2022
              2023]

         7.   Kuldeep Bhatia               MBC-NCL        03.08.2012 &
              [Civil Appeal No. 3963 of                   09.03.2022
              2023]

         8.   Jyoti Beniwal                OBC-NCL        22.06.2016 &
              [Civil Appeal No. 3909 of                   25.07.2022
              2023]


       The above details would make it clear that none of the appellants
       had a valid certificate and/or accompanied by the affidavit as per
       the proforma at the relevant time as per the requirement referred
       to above.
38. Significant reliance is placed by the Appellants on the 2-Judge
    Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). A
    perusal of the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi on the
    factual matrix therein is evidently distinct. The same, thus, cannot
    come to the rescue of the Appellants. In the instant case, it is not
    a contention of Appellants that they are missing a valid proof of
    attainment of their particular qualification or right. No candidate
    before us has a claim that they, to begin with, already availed
    and established their eligibility, or had applied for a NCL category
    certificate and issuance of the same is delayed at the behest of
    the competent authority. The ratio, therefore, in the relied judgment
    would not apply.
39. Ergo, the correct position of law is not in favour of the Appellants
    before us, and, relying on the precedents and the provisions of law
    governing the circumstances before us, the appeals ought to be
    declared devoid of merit.
[2025] 4 S.C.R.                                                  733

               Sakshi Arha v. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.


40. Consequently, the Civil Appeals are dismissed, while upholding the
    decision rendered by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court,
    impugned before us, as good in law.
41. No costs.
42. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeals dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan