Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Samira Bano vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 20 May, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:24566]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8229/2025
Samira Bano D/o Askar Ali, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Moti
Chowk, Sadar Bazar, Bilara, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare,
Jhalana Institutional Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Additional Director (Adm), Medical And Health Service,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Nikhil Dungawat
For Respondent (s) : Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC with
Mr. Tanuj Jain
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
20/05/2025
1. The present writ petition has been filed aggrieved of the
petitioner not having been afforded appointment on the post of
'Pharmacist' in pursuance to the recruitment process initiated vide
advertisement dated 05.05.2023 (Annexure-1).
2. It is admitted on record that the last date for submission of
application form was 11.06.2023 and the petitioner, at the time of
filing of the application form, annexed the OBC-NCL certificate of
the year 2018.
3. It is also an admitted fact that as per the condition of
advertisement, a certificate issued maximum to a period of one
[2025:RJ-JD:24566] (2 of 8) [CW-8229/2025]
year prior to the last date of submission of application form, was
to be furnished along with the application form.
4. However, the petitioner being selected, was called for
document verification and the scheduled date for document
verification was 26.08.2023.
5. The case of the petitioner is that she had applied for
issuance of fresh OBC-NCL certificate on 18.08.2023 and a receipt
of the same was generated and delivered to her on 24.08.2023.
The said receipt was furnished by her at the time of document
verification and hence, her other documents were verified. At that
point of time she was orally granted the permission to file the
OBC-NCL certificate subsequently, after the same being issued to
her.
6. Admittedly, the provisional list issued on 05.07.2024
reflected the name of the petitioner. However, the final select list
issued on 24.03.2025 did not reflect her name. It is only when the
final select list did not reflect the petitioner's name and she
approached the respondent-Authorities that she was informed that
as no affidavit in terms of circular dated 17.10.2022 pertaining to
her OBC-NCL certificate was filed, her candidature stood rejected.
Aggrieved of the same, the present writ petition has been
preferred.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause N (1)
of advertisement dated 05.05.2023 although mentioned about
circular dated 17.10.2022 but then, the proviso as added to earlier
circular dated 20.01.2022 vide circular dated 17.10.2022, was not
clearly reproduced/reflected in the said Clause. Hence, in absence
of the clear provision being reflected in the said clause, it could
[2025:RJ-JD:24566] (3 of 8) [CW-8229/2025]
not have been expected of any candidate to be aware of the fact
that any affidavit to the extent that she belongs to the category of
OBC-NCL could have been filed subsequently. The petitioner also
was not aware of the said requirement and hence, despite she
having obtained the new OBC-NCL certificate on 18.09.2023 and
even having uploaded the same on the website alongwith an
application, could not file an affidavit in terms of Circular dated
17.10.2022.
8. Learned counsel further submits that uploading of the new
OBC certificate on 18.09.2023 itself served the purpose and
hence, the Department could not have insisted on filing of the
affidavit and her candidature could not have been rejected only on
the count of the affidavit to the effect having not filed. Counsel
submits that filing of the certificate was a requisite as per the
advertisement and once the certificate was filed, it was proved
that she belongs to OBC-NCL category.
9. Counsel while pointing out to provisional list dated
05.07.2024 submitted that while issuing the same, the
respondent-Department permitted the selected candidates to
furnish the documents and if the documents as called for were not
furnished, their candidature was to be cancelled. Meaning thereby,
in effect the date of submitting the documents was extended vide
order dated 05.07.2024. The certificate of the petitioner having
been uploaded way back on 18.09.2023, definitely deserved to
have been considered more so in view of the fact that the date
stood extended vide order dated 05.07.2024.
10. Counsel while relying upon the Division Bench judgment of
this Court in Jyoti Verma Vs. The Rajasthan High Court &
[2025:RJ-JD:24566] (4 of 8) [CW-8229/2025]
Anr; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13971/2023 (decided on
01.10.2024) submitted that the petitioner being higher in merit in
the category of OBC-NCL deserves to be granted appointment in
the said category.
11. Per contra counsel for the respondent-Department submits
that a specific stipulation in the advertisement was made to the
effect that those candidates who could not furnish the OBC
certificate along with the application form, would be entitled to
submit an affidavit to the effect that he/she belongs to the said
category and the certificate could be filed subsequently at the
time of document verification. However, no such affidavit was ever
submitted by the petitioner and hence, the certificate as uploaded
by her on 18.09.2023 could not have been considered.
12. Counsel further submits that as Circular dated 17.10.2022
did not reflect any period of limitation as to till when such affidavit
could have been filed, a clarification was sought and vide
clarification of Staff Selection Board, it was clarified that such
affidavit could be permitted to be filed till the last date as provided
to file the representation. By the time the said clarification was
issued, the last date for filing of the representation had already
lapsed and hence, the same could not have applied to the present
petitioner and therefore, her candidature could not have been
considered.
13. Counsel while relying upon the Division Bench judgment of
this Court in Sunil Rawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B.
Spl. Appl. Writ No.587/2021 (decided on 16.08.2022)
(Affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal
No.11742/2023; decided on 05.01.2024) submitted that it is the
[2025:RJ-JD:24566] (5 of 8) [CW-8229/2025]
settled position of law that the eligibility of a candidate is to be
decided as on the date of advertisement/last date for submission
of the application form, unless otherwise stipulated.
14. Learned counsel while relying upon the Division Bench
judgment of this Court in Kailash Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan
& Ors.; D.B. S.A.W. No.279/2020 (decided on 04.09.2020)
submitted that therein too there was a condition of submitting an
affidavit and as no such affidavit was filed, the Court declined to
interfere for the reason that the certificate as furnished by the
candidate therein was the one issued prior to a period of three
years of the last date of application form.
15. Heard the counsels and perused the material available on
record.
16. A bare perusal of Clause N (1) of the advertisement in
question reflects that it provides for a clear stipulation that those
candidates who intend to take benefit of reservation, the
certificate to the effect be submitted before the last date of
application form. However, those who could not file the same at
that point of time, could file an affidavit in terms of Circular dated
17.10.2022. But then, the contents of Circular dated 17.10.2022
were neither reflected nor reproduced in the said clause.
17. Vide Circular dated 17.10.2022, a proviso was added to
earlier Circular dated 20.01.2022 and vide the said proviso, it was
provided as under:
^^;fn fdUgha dj.kksa ls vH;FkhZ }kjk vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk rd
tkjh izek.k&i= izLrqr ugha fd;k tkrk gS rFkk vfUre frfFk ds i"pkr
tkjh fd;k gqvk izek.k&i= izLrqr fd;k tkrk gS rks ,sls vH;FkhZ ls bl
vk"k; dk ,d "kiFk&i= fy[kk tkosa fd og vkosnu dh vfUre frfFk dks
[2025:RJ-JD:24566] (6 of 8) [CW-8229/2025]
lacaf/kr oxZ dh ik=rk j[krk Fkk rFkk ;g lwpuk xyr ik;s tkus ij mldh
fu;qfDr fujLr dh tk ldsxhA**
18. The only conclusion which can be drawn from the above
proviso is that a candidate could have furnished a certificate
issued subsequent to the last date of the application form. But
then, he was to file an affidavit to the effect that he did belong to
the said category on the last date of application form and if the
said affidavit was found to be incorrect subsequently, the selection
of the candidate could be cancelled.
Meaning thereby, the certificate at a subsequent stage could
be filed but then with an affidavit as provided in the circular.
19. In the present case, it is admitted that although the
petitioner did not file an affidavit but then her OBC-NCL certificate
issued on 28.08.2023 was definitely uploaded by her on
18.09.2023. The certificate of the year 2018 was already
furnished by her along with the application form. On 18.09.2023,
even an application to the effect that she is furnishing the newly
issued certificate was filed which, in the opinion of this Court, was
definitely a representation filed by her.
20. It is an admitted fact that order dated 05.07.2024
(Annexure-5) vide which the provisional list was issued,
incorporated a specific stipulation that the selected candidates
could file the documents. Further, a clarification as issued by the
Staff Selection Board also reflects that the time to file an affidavit
in compliance of circular dated 17.10.2022 could be extended till
the last date as provided by the Department for the
representation to be filed. It is not disputed that the said date was
05.07.2024.
[2025:RJ-JD:24566] (7 of 8) [CW-8229/2025]
21. Meaning thereby, by all means, the date to file an affidavit
could have been extended till 05.07.2024 in the present matter.
22. In view of the said position, the OBC certificate itself having
been uploaded by the petitioner on 18.04.2023 that is before
05.07.2024, the non filing of the affidavit in the present matter
could have been of no consequence.
23. In the specific opinion of this Court, the rejection of the
candidature of the petitioner solely on the ground of non filing of
the affidavit is erroneous and does deserve interference.
24. So far as the ratio laid down in Sunil Rawat's case (supra)
is concerned, the same is clearly distinguishable in the present
matter. Firstly, for the reason that therein, circular dated
17.10.2022 was not before the Court and secondly, in the present
matter, the time to file the documents/representation was
extended by the Department itself vide order dated 05.07.2024
(Annexure-5). When once the Department permitted the other
selected candidates to file documents subsequently, how could the
same not apply to the present petitioner, is incomprehensible. Any
State instrumentality cannot be permitted to discriminate between
the candidates standing on an equal footing. The petitioner, who
had already obtained and furnished the requisite certificate on
18.09.2023, cannot be put to a disadvantageous position in
contrast to the candidates who were permitted to submit
documents even after 05.07.2024.
25. In view of the overall facts and the above observations, the
present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed.
26. The respondent-Authorities are directed to consider the OBC-
NCL certificate as furnished by the petitioner on 18.09.2023 and if
[2025:RJ-JD:24566] (8 of 8) [CW-8229/2025]
she finds place in merit in the category of OBC-NCL, she be
afforded appointed on the post of 'Pharmacist', if otherwise found
eligible. Appropriate orders be passed within a period of six weeks
from now.
27. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
344-Devanshi/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
