[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Vinod Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5962) on 2 February, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:5962]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR


                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2089/2026

Vinod Kumar S/o Bhagirath Prajapat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Adarsh Nagar, Deedwana, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus


1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
        Department      Of     Medical        Education,         Government    Of
        Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2.      Chairman, M.d.m.           S/d.m/m.ch Candidate's              Allotment
        Board 2026, Sms Medical College, Jln Marg, Jaipur,
        Rajasthan.
3.      Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Its
        Registrar, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
                                                                 ----Respondents



For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Kanishk Singhvi

For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG




           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT

Order

02/02/2026

1. Present writ petition is filed praying for following reliefs:-

"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Respondent No.2 be directed to consider petitioner as OBC-NCL candidate and issue fresh/revised allotment list/result for Broad specialty (Non-Service) category for Senior Resident Programme.

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Respondent No.2 be directed to appoint petitioner as Senior Resident at Dr. S.N. Medical College, Jodhpur instead of Government Medical College, Pali;

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:44:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5962] (2 of 9) [CW-2089/2026]

(iii) Any other order of direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly be passed in favour of the humble petitioner; and

(iv) Costs of writ petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

2. Explaining background facts of the present case, it is

submitted that petitioner successfully cleared the NEET-PG 2022

Examination and was granted admission in the course of M.D.

(General Medicine) and seat was allotted in S.N. Medical College,

Jodhpur. The admission was granted on the basis of Other

Backward Class - Non-Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) certificate dated

27.06.2022. It is stated that Petitioner has successfully

completed the course in the year 2025.

2.1 Further, Notification dated 31.10.2025 was issued inviting

applications for allotment of post as Senior Residents, wherein

last date for submission of application form was fixed as

12.11.2025, which was subsequently extended vide corrigendum

Notification dated 22.11.2025. It is stated that the provisional list

was published on 18.12.2025, in which name of petitioner was

shown at Serial No. 86 under General category.

2.2 It was further averred that petitioner's wife was expecting a

baby and was admitted to the hospital; consequently, the

petitioner could not submit his objection at the relevant time.

Finally, petitioner was allotted a seat at Government Medical

College, Pali in the General Medicine branch.

2.3 It is contended that petitioner personally approached the

respondent-authorities requesting that his candidature be

considered under the OBC-NCL category, as even other

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:44:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5962] (3 of 9) [CW-2089/2026]

candidates securing less marks than the petitioner were

considered under the said category. However, respondents

refused to consider his case in the OBC-NCL category on the

ground that caste certificate submitted by the petitioner was

issued prior to cut-off date, whereas, learned counsel for the

petitioner submits, Instruction Booklet issued by the respondents

along with Notification dated 31.10.2025 does not prescribe any

cut-off date for the caste certificate.

2.4 Challenging the said action of respondents, the present writ

petition has been filed.

2.5 In support of his submissions, counsel for the petitioner

relied upon judgment dated 10.12.2025 passed by Hon'ble Delhi

High Court in Raghvendra Singh and Ors. Vs. Union Public

Service Commission and Ors. : 2025 : DHC : 11105-DB.

3. Per contra, representing the respondents, Mr. N.S.

Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General, submitted that

in fact, non-consideration of the petitioner's caste certificate was

not on account of any specific cut-off date, but for the reason

that as per the guidelines dated 09.09.2015 issued by the State

Government, such Non-Creamy Layer certificates are valid for

one year and may be relied upon for the subsequent two years

on the basis of an affidavit. However, in any case, the maximum

period of validity of a Non-Creamy Layer certificate is three

years. Whereas OBC-NCL certificate was issued in favour of the

petitioner on 27.06.2022 and the same expired on 27.06.2025

and, therefore, the same was rightly not being considered by the

authorities.

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:44:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5962] (4 of 9) [CW-2089/2026]

3.1 Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon judgment

dated 08.04.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case

of Sakshi Arha Vs. The Rajasthan High Court & Ors.: 2025

INSC 463.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the

material available on record.

5. Sole ground urged by petitioner is that OBC-NCL certificate

of petitioner was not considered on the ground that it was

beyond the cut-off date and Instruction Booklet issued along with

Notification dated 31.10.2025 does not prescribe any cut-off

date. Thus, it is argued that the rules of the game cannot be

changed once the game has started.

5.1 In support of the said contention, counsel relied upon para

58 and 59 of the judgment passed in Raghvendra Singh

(supra) which are quoted below:-

"58. In the present case, it is not the case of respondents that the petitioners did not possess any OBC-NCL certificates, rather, it is evident from the record that the petitioners were in possession of OBC- NCL certificates for the relevant FY of the CAPF (AC) Examination of 2023 and 2024. The only impediment appears to be that the certificates were not issued within the stipulated timeframe. Hence, in the absence of any material grounds such as non-supply, fabrication, etc., for the cancellation of candidature of the petitioners, this Court cannot deem the OBC-NCL certificates as invalid for the purposes of recruitment merely on the ground that they were not issued during the stipulated cut-off period, i.e., 01.04.2023 to 16.05.2023 or between 01.04.2024 to 14.05.2024 respectively. Therefore, keeping in mind the decisions of Ravi Kumar (supra) and Anu Devi (supra) we find that a caste certificate merely reaffirms a pre-existing fact and furnishing the said certificate is only "ministerial" in nature and is also in tandem with the

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:44:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5962] (5 of 9) [CW-2089/2026]

principles of equality and affirmative action envisaged by our Constitution under Articles 14 and 16."

59. We further find that to cancel the candidature of otherwise eligible candidates, on sole grounds of issuance date, deprives the petitioners of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and actually runs contrary to the object sought to be achieved by providing reservations in public employment as per the reasoning laid down in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), Anil Kumar (supra) and Pushpa (supra) discussed in the foregoing paragraphs."

5.2 From perusal of the record of present case, it is revealed

that, admittedly, the caste certificate issued in favour of the

petitioner was issued on 27.06.2022 and by virtue of specific

guidelines dated 09.09.2015, validity of such certificate is only

upto three years i.e. 27.06.2025, whereas Notification in

question was issued on 31.10.2025 i.e. after expiry of validity

period of petitioner's caste certificate. Therefore, on the date of

Notification, the petitioner's certificate was not legally valid.

5.3 It is not the case of petitioner that after expiry of earlier

certificate, petitioner has already applied for grant of fresh

certificate and the same was delayed by the competent authority

due to some administrative reasons/technicalities. It is also not

the case of petitioner that respondent-authorities by way of

corrigendum has challenged cut-off date regarding submissions

of OBC-NCL certificate.

5.4 Therefore, facts of the case of Raghvendra Singh (supra)

are distinct and not applicable to the present case, as the

petitioner, even till the time of issuance of merit list, had not

applied for issuance of fresh OBC-NCL certificate. The certificate

submitted along with application form dated 27.06.2022 was

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:44:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5962] (6 of 9) [CW-2089/2026]

already expired. Therefore, no illegality is committed on the part

of respondent authorities in not considering the candidature of

the petitioner under the OBC-NCL category.

6. So far as the petitioner's contention that, in the absence of

a specific cut-off date in the Instruction Booklet, the OBC-NCL

certificate submitted along with the application form could not

have been ignored, also found to be misconceived.

6.1 Instructions Booklet issued along with Notification dated

31.10.2025 provides for conditions/manner and dates for process

of selection as Senior Residents and the same does not

specifically deal with issuance/validity of caste certificate.

Issuance of certificate for OBC-NCL category is governed by the

guidelines issued by State Government on 09.09.2015, which

specifically provides for validity of a period of three years in case

of OBC-NCL certificate. Merely because, the Instruction Booklet is

silent on the aspect of validity/cut off date regarding OBC-NCL

certificate, the said aspect shall be governed by the relevant

provisions of law/guideline issued specifically in that regard.

6.2 The observations of this Court clearly find support from

observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakshi

Arha (supra). Relevant portion is thus, quoted below:-

"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

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:44:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5962] (7 of 9) [CW-2089/2026]

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 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,

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:44:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5962] (8 of 9) [CW-2089/2026]

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."

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."

7. Although petitioner has stated that some other candidate in

OBC-NCL category having less marks was granted seat at S.N.

Medical College Jodhpur, however, petitioner has failed to

(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 08:44:22 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5962] (9 of 9) [CW-2089/2026]

establish any parity/equivalence of petitioner with the

candidature of the said candidate.

7.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that it is

not the petitioner's case that OBC-NCL certificate of the said

candidate also was already expired or that such candidate had

procured OBC-NCL certificate after the date of application or after

issuance of the provisional select list. In these circumstances, the