The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday dismissed the appeals of 5 candidates who were denied appointment to the post of Civil Judge in Rajasthan.

The candidates had failed to submit their OBC, MBC, or EWS certificates before the cut-off date prescribed in the job advertisement.

A three-judge bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka, Ahsanuddin Amanullah, and AG Masih upheld the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, reaffirming that rules and deadlines outlined in recruitment processes can’t be relaxed post-facto. While pronouncing the decision, Justice AG Masih stated that the cut-off date mentioned was in accordance with legal procedure and must be followed strictly.

Candidates’ Claim

The five candidates, belonging to reserved categories, had successfully cleared the Rajasthan Judicial Services Examination. However, they were denied selection under their respective categories because they submitted their community certificates after the last date mentioned in the recruitment advertisement.

Since they did not score high enough to qualify under the open (unreserved) category, they were excluded from the final list of selected candidates.

Disputing this exclusion, the candidates approached the Rajasthan High Court, seeking a direction to be considered for selection under their respective reserved categories. They argued that they were eligible and had the required certificates, albeit submitted late. However, the High Court dismissed their petition, stating that procedural rules cannot be ignored.

Split Verdict In Court

Unhappy with the High Court ruling, the candidates moved the Supreme Court. In May 2023, a division bench of the apex court comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi gave a split verdict.

Justice Ajay Rastogi held that the Court should use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief and direct authorities to consider the appellants for appointment. He emphasized that denying opportunity to technically eligible candidates due to procedural delay would amount to injustice.

However, Justice Bela M Trivedi disagreed. She maintained that deadlines in job advertisements are legally binding and that accepting certificates submitted after the due date would set a bad precedent. She stated that candidates who fail to comply with the rules should not be given preferential treatment.

Due to this split verdict, the case was referred to a larger bench for final adjudication.

Final Verdict

The three-judge bench, after hearing both sides, ruled against the candidates. Justice AG Masih, speaking for the bench, emphasized that recruitment processes must follow the timelines and procedures strictly.

The Court observed that once a deadline has been set in an official advertisement, it must be followed without exception, unless the notification itself allows for flexibility, which was not the case here. The judgment reinforced that fairness in recruitment includes equal adherence to deadlines by all candidates.

Arguments

During the hearings, the appellants argued that the category certificates were genuine and that a slight delay in submission should not override their merit and eligibility. They insisted that the authorities should have taken a more compassionate view and assessed their documents before rejecting them.

However, the bench did not accept this line of reasoning. The Court clarified that any relaxation in the application process must be provided for in the notification itself. Since there was no such provision, the late submission rendered the candidates ineligible under their claimed categories.

Procedural Significance

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in public employment. The ruling sends a strong message to all aspirants for government jobs that deadlines, particularly those related to eligibility documents, are non-negotiable unless explicitly stated otherwise.

It also clarifies that the discretionary power of the Court under Article 142 — meant for ensuring “complete justice” — is not a tool to override clear procedural lapses where public rules and equal treatment are at stake.

The full text of the Supreme Court’s judgment is awaited. Once uploaded, it is expected to provide further legal reasoning behind the bench’s decision and might serve as a future reference point in similar disputes related to procedural compliance in public recruitment.