LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sakshi Arha & Ors. vs. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (C.A. No. 3957/2023, with connected appeals)

Not available · 2023 INSC 559Decided 18 May 2023
Not available
Ajay Rastogi

Background

The Rajasthan High Court advertised 120 vacancies for Civil Judge in July 2021, with the last date for applications fixed as 31 August 2021. A batch of candidates (including Sakshi Arha, Priyanka, Kuldeep Bhatia, Sunil Singh Gurjar, Parul Jain and Jyoti Beniwal) applied and qualified in categories such as OBC-Non-Creamy-Layer, More Backward Class-NCL and Economically Weaker Section, but their category certificates were all dated after the 31 August 2021 cut-off: some issued only around the time of the interview in mid-2022. The High Court, by a notice issued in August 2022, insisted the certificates had to be valid as of the application cut-off date and rejected these candidates from their reserved categories (they also failed to make the cut-off in the open/general category). Their writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court were dismissed, leading to these appeals to the Supreme Court.

Decision Breakdown

Justice Rastogi held that requiring the certificate itself to pre-date the application cut-off was too rigid given there was no specific rule fixing that date for certificate validity, and, invoking Article 142 to do "complete justice", directed that the appellants be considered for appointment against future vacancies once found suitable, since they had otherwise cleared the merit cut-off in their categories. Justice Trivedi disagreed entirely, holding that settled precedent (e.g., Rekha Chaturvedi, Ashok Kumar Sharma) requires eligibility, including reserved-category status, to be judged as of the last date fixed for applications; since all appellants obtained their category certificates only after that date, and did not file the affidavits required by the State's own circulars to explain the delay, the High Court's rejection was legally correct, and she dismissed the appeals. Because of this direct conflict between the two judges on the same bench, the appeals could not be finally decided by them and were referred for listing before a different/larger bench by the CJI.

Lesson Learnt

When applying for a reserved-category government post, obtain and hold your caste/category/income certificate on or before the application deadline stated in the advertisement: a certificate obtained later, even if genuine, risks being treated as invalid for that recruitment, and courts can differ sharply on how strictly this rule should be enforced.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case