Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vibha Daroliya vs State Of Rajasthan on 19 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:41412]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8003/2025
Vibha Daroliya D/o Devendra Kumar Daroliya, Aged About 25
Years, R/o 55, Nayiyon Ki Talai, Tehsil Girwa, Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary,
Medical and Health Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. State Institute of Health And Family Welfare (Sihfu),
Through Its Director, Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avin Chhangani, Adv. (through VC)
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanuj Jain on behalf of
Mr. Mukesh Dave, AGC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN
Judgment
Judgment Reserved on : 16/09/2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 19/09/2025
1) The present writ petition has been filed challenging the
merit list dated 24.03.2025, wherein the petitioner's name was
not included in the final merit list due to the non-submission of a
valid caste certificate to claim the benefit of reservation under the
OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category. Consequently, she seeks a
direction to the 2nd respondent to consider her caste certificate
dated 14.09.2023 and grant her appointment to the post of
Pharmacist.
2) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that
the 2nd respondent issued an advertisement dated 05.05.2023 for
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 05:41:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41412] (2 of 9) [CW-8003/2025]
the selection of Pharmacists (Scheduled and Non-Scheduled
Areas) through direct recruitment for the year 2023, under the
Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965.
The last date for submission of applications was 11.06.2023. The
petitioner submitted her application on 02.06.2023, claiming
reservation under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category. To
support her claim, she submitted a caste certificate dated
09.10.2017. The petitioner was found to be within the zone of
consideration for selection and was called for document
verification on 26.08.2023. Prior to the verification, the petitioner
submitted an affidavit dated 25.08.2023, stating that she had
applied for a new caste certificate on 22.08.2023 and undertook to
produce the same upon its issuance. A fresh caste certificate was
subsequently issued on 14.09.2023. The petitioner's name was
included in the provisional selection list dated 05.07.2024 at Serial
No. 1560, with a score of 53.253%, under the OBC (Non-Creamy
Layer) category. Meanwhile, she also submitted another affidavit
dated 08.01.2025, detailing her prior work experience. However,
in the final merit list dated 24.03.2025, the petitioner's name was
not included.
3) The petitioner submitted a representation dated
25.03.2025, raising a grievance regarding non-inclusion of her
name in the final merit list. Upon verification, it was found that
her candidature had been rejected on the ground that she had not
submitted a valid caste certificate issued on or before the last date
for submission of the application through the online portal. In
these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 05:41:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41412] (3 of 9) [CW-8003/2025]
4) The response of the respondents indicates that The
petitioner submitted an OBC Non-Creamy Layer certificate dated
09.10.2017, issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Girva, Udaipur,
along with her online application. As per the conditions specified in
the notification, it is mandatory that the Non-Creamy Layer
certificate be valid for one year from the date of issuance. It is
also stated that if the certificate is older than one year, it may be
accepted only upon submission of an affidavit affirming the
continued Non-Creamy Layer status of the petitioner. However,
such an affidavit can only be submitted for a maximum period of
up to three years.
5) According to the respondents, in the present case, the
petitioner failed to submit the required affidavit either along with
the application or at the time of document verification.
Consequently, her claim under the OBC Non-Creamy Layer
category was not accepted, and she was considered under the
Unreserved category. The certificate dated 14.09.2023 could not
be considered, as it was issued after the last date for submitting
the application. Furthermore, the petitioner only applied for this
certificate on 22.08.2023, which was well after the closing date for
applications. The petitioner secured 53.253% marks, whereas the
cut-off for the Unreserved category was 55.833%. As such, her
name did not appear in the final merit list. Therefore, the
respondents prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
6) Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for
the petitioner as well as the respondents.
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 05:41:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41412] (4 of 9) [CW-8003/2025]
7) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has
submitted that the advertisement requires that to claim the
benefit of reservation, the caste certificate must be submitted
before the last date for submitting the application. The petitioner
submitted a caste certificate; however, the certificate was issued
on 09.10.2017. A Circular issued by the State Government dated
17.10.2022 relaxes the conditions set forth in the previous
Circular dated 20.01.2022. According to the earlier Circular, only a
certificate issued by the competent officer before the last date for
submitting the application would be considered for granting the
benefit of reservation under the claimed category. Any certificate
issued subsequently could not be used as a basis to claim
reservation under the special category. It is the contention of the
petitioner's counsel that these conditions were relaxed by the
Circular dated 17.10.2022, which added an additional provision to
the original Circular dated 20.01.2022. The added provision
relaxes the previous condition and allows a candidate to submit a
certificate issued after the cut-off date, provided that the
candidate files an affidavit stating that as on the last date for
application submission, he/she fulfilled the eligibility criteria to
claim reservation under the special category. The affidavit must
also include a declaration that if any facts stated therein are found
to be false, the authority shall have the right to cancel the
applicant's appointment. Therefore, in light of the relaxed
condition set forth in the Circular dated 17.10.2022, the
authorities ought to have considered the new caste certificate
dated 14.09.2023. The authorities did consider this certificate, and
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 05:41:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41412] (5 of 9) [CW-8003/2025]
the petitioner's name was initially included in the provisional
selection list dated 05.07.2024. However, her name was omitted
from the final merit list dated 24.03.2025. This action by the
respondents is contrary to the conditions specified in the Circular,
which were also incorporated in the advertisement's terms.
Therefore, he prayed to allow the writ petition.
8) Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that the conditions in the advertisement,
as well as those in the Circular, specify that caste certificates for
SC and ST categories have lifelong validity. However, certificates
issued for Other Backward Classes (OBC), Most Backward Classes
(MBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) are valid only for
one year from the date of issuance. This validity may be extended
for an additional period of up to three years, subject to the
applicant submitting a verified affidavit confirming that he/she still
belong to the OBC non-creamy layer category at the time of
submission of application. The maximum validity period of such a
certificate, including extensions by affidavit, is limited to four
years from the date of issuance. It is further submitted that the
certificate produced by the petitioner along with the application
was issued in 2017. It was initially valid for one year from the date
of issuance and could have been extended for a further three
years upon submission of a verified affidavit confirming continued
OBC non-creamy layer status. This means the maximum validity
period of the certificate was four years. However, as of the last
date of application, i.e., 11.06.2023, the petitioner did not hold
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 05:41:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41412] (6 of 9) [CW-8003/2025]
any valid certificate. Therefore, the said certificate cannot be
relied upon to claim reservation.
9) The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also
submitted that by virtue of the relaxed condition contained in the
Circular dated 17.10.2022, a certificate issued after the last date
for submitting the application can be considered, provided it is
submitted along with an affidavit confirming the applicant's non-
creamy layer status as on the last date for submission of
application. Both the certificate and affidavit were required to be
submitted before the date fixed for document verification, which
was set for 26.08.2023. However, the certificate was issued on
14.09.2023, i.e., after the date of document verification. To avail
the benefit of the Circular dated 17.10.2022, the petitioner should
have at least produced the certificate issued after the last
application date along with the required affidavit before the
document verification date, which she failed to do. As such, the
benefit of Circular cannot be extended to the petitioner.
10) I have considered the arguments advanced by both the
parties and carefully perused the material available on record.
11) The undisputed facts in the present case are that the
advertisement took cognizance of both the Circular dated
20.01.2022 and the Circular dated 17.10.2022. The Circular of
20.01.2022 clearly states that to avail the benefit of reservation,
the applicant is required to produce a certificate issued by the
competent authority prior to the last date for submitting the
application, and eligibility for reservation must be based on that
certificate alone. However, the Circular dated 17.10.2022 partially
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 05:41:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41412] (7 of 9) [CW-8003/2025]
relaxed the strict requirements of the previous Circular by allowing
applicants to submit a certificate issued by the competent
authority after the last date for application submission. When such
a certificate is produced, the applicant is also required to submit
an affidavit confirming that he/she was eligible as on the last date
for submission of the application. The affidavit must also include
an undertaking that if it is found that the applicant was not eligible
on the last date as stated, the authorities shall be entitled to
cancel the appointment.
12) From a reading of both the Circulars, it is clear that when
a new caste certificate is produced, which was issued subsequent
to the last date for submission of the application, such a certificate
must be filed along with an affidavit. Furthermore, this certificate
can only be allowed to be submitted up to the date fixed for
document verification. Unfortunately, the petitioner could not
obtain the certificate by the date fixed for document verification.
The Circulars are silent regarding the stage at which a
subsequently issued certificate can be produced along with the
affidavit. The contents of the affidavit, as required by the Circular,
include an undertaking that the appointment may be canceled if
the facts stated in the affidavit are found to be incorrect. This
implies that the new caste certificate and affidavit should be at
least filed before the publication of the final selection list.
13) In the present case, the final selection list was published
on 24.03.2025. The petitioner obtained the new certificate on
14.09.2023. However, the affidavit submitted by the petitioner
does not specify the date on which the certificate was uploaded. It
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 05:41:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41412] (8 of 9) [CW-8003/2025]
only states that the certificate was obtained on 14.09.2023 and it
was immediately uploaded. The pleadings of the respondents are
also silent regarding the date on which the certificate was
uploaded. The inclusion of the petitioner's name in the provisional
selection list published on 05.07.2024 shows her name at serial
No. 1560 under the OBC non-creamy layer category with a score
of 53.253%. This inclusion gives an inference that the certificate
was submitted prior to the preparation of the provisional list.
However, it is subsequent to the date of document verification. By
the date of verification, the petitioner had filed an affidavit dated
25.08.2023, undertaking to produce the caste certificate as soon
as she obtained it, since she had applied for the certificate on
22.08.2023. It appears that the petitioner's name was included
based on this affidavit.
14) The requirement of the Circular dated 17.10.2022 is that
in the event a certificate is issued by the competent authority
subsequent to the last date for submission of the application, the
applicant must file an affidavit specifically containing an averment
to the effect that the applicant was eligible as on the last date for
submitting the application to claim reservation under the special
category. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has produced
two affidavits--one dated 25.08.2023 and another dated
08.01.2025. However, neither affidavit contains the required
averment that the petitioner was eligible as on the last date for
submission of the application, nor do they include the undertaking
enable the appointing authority to cancel the appointment if the
contents of the affidavit are found to be factually incorrect. The
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 05:41:46 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:41412] (9 of 9) [CW-8003/2025]
two affidavits do not reflect compliance with the requirement to
file such an affidavit along with the new certificate produced for
consideration. Thus, the petitioner has also failed to comply with
the requirements of the Circular. The petitioner ought to have filed
the affidavit at least by the date of publication of the merit list. In
the absence of such compliance, the petitioner is not entitled to
question the rejection of her candidature in the final selection list.
The rejection of the petitioner due to non-compliance with the
requirements of the advertisement and the conditions of the
Circular cannot be found at fault. Therefore, the writ petition being
devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.
15) In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.
16) Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(MUNNURI LAXMAN),J
NK
(Uploaded on 19/09/2025 at 05:41:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
