SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 2306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MUNNURI LAXMAN, J.
Saroj Sharma Wd/o Surya Kant – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1919 of 2023
Decided On : 01-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : O.P. Kumawat
For the Respondents: Pawan Bhati, K.S. Solanki, I.R. Choudhary

Eligibility for reservations in recruitment must be determined as of the cut-off date for applications, and cannot be changed based on circumstances arising thereafter.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Recruitment Rules - Eligibility Criteria for Candidature - The petitioner applied for appointment under the Unreserved (Female) category without claiming under Unreserved (Widow), as her husband was alive at the cut-off date. The Supreme Court has reiterated that eligibility must be based on the cut-off date, evident in prior rulings such as Gurdeep Singh Vs. J&K and J&K Public Service Commission Vs. Israr Ahmad. The court emphasized that allowing changes to eligibility mid-selection undermines established legal standards. (Paras 11, 13.1, 20)

(B) Judicial Precedents - Shifting Eligibility Criteria - The court reaffirmed that a candidate cannot change her eligibility category based on subsequent events after the cut-off date of application submission, reinforcing this principle with references to multiple apex court judgments which established that the determined eligibility must adhere strictly to the criteria fixed at the time of application. (Paras 12, 19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner contested her non-consideration for the Unreserved (Widow) category after the death of her husband during the selection process. She applied before his death under General/Unreserved (Female) but sought reclassification post-factum based on her higher marks than the selected candidate in the widow category. (Paras 2, 6)

Findings of Court:
The petitioner failed to meet eligibility as of the application deadline and thus could not retroactively apply to the widow category. The principle that shifting eligibility undermines the integrity of the recruitment process was upheld. (Paras 19, 20)

Issues: Whether a candidate gaining eligibility for reservation after the application deadline can avail it, considering she had applied under a different category initially. (Paras 11, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that eligibility must be evaluated as of the specified cut-off date; allowing transitions to a category based on later events is legally unsound, as per established judicial principles. (Paras 19, 20)

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to non-consideration for widow reservation. (Para 1 , 2)
2. eligibility change upon husband's death contested. (Para 3 , 4)
3. arguments favoring retrospective eligibility discussed. (Para 6 , 8)
4. question on eligibility based on occurred events. (Para 10 , 11)
5. foundations of eligibility criteria and cut-off dates. (Para 12 , 14)
6. legal precedents support maintaining eligibility date. (Para 15 , 16 , 18)
7. petitioner's failure to meet eligibility criteria confirmed. (Para 19 , 20)
8. writ petition dismissed. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondents in not considering her candidature for appointment under the unreserved (widow) category for recruitment to the post of LDC.

2. The facts disclosed that the respondents issued an advertisement for the selection of LDCs vide advertisement dated 12.2.2013. The last date for submitting applications was 22.3.2013. The petitioner applied for the said post on 13.4.2013 under the category of Unreserved Female (General Female). The advertisement provided various reservations, including reservation for widows, and certain posts were earmarked for the Unreserved (Widow) category. The petitioner applied only under the Unreserved (Female) category and did not apply under the Unreserved (Widow) category as she was not entitled to do so. At the time of submitting the application, the petitioner’s husband was alive. Accordingly, the petitioner participated in the selection process for the General/Unreserved (Female) category only and not under the Unreserved (Widow) reservation.

3. During the selection process, the petitioner’s husband passed away on 19.12.2022. In the original selection list, she was not found meritorious either under the Unreserved/General (Female) category or the Unreserved/General (Widow) category. By communication dated 17.11.2022, the respondents decided to fill the unfilled vacancies in the selection process undertaken pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.02.2013. A candidate having 32.846 marks (as shown in Annexure-6) was selected under the Unreserved/General Widow category, whereas the petitioner had secured 52.739 marks. As she had higher marks than the selected candidate under the Unreserved (Widow) category, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 12.01.2023 requesting the respondents to change her category of consideration from Unreserved (Female) to Unreserved/General (Widow). When such a representation was not considered, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The case of the respondents is that the petitioner had applied under the General/Unreserved (Female) category and was not entitled to avail reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category as she was not meeting the eligibility criteria on the last date for submitting applications in 2013. Only upon the death of her husband on 19.12.2022, she gained the right to avail reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category. This right to claim reservation arose subsequent to the last date for submitting applications. The petitioner cannot change her category during the selection process, particularly when she was not eligible to avail such reservation on the last date of submitting the application. Thus, the respondent prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the for the parties.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner had applied under the General/ Unreserved (Female) category, as she did not meet the criteria for availing reservation under the Unreserved (Widow) category because her husband was alive on the last date of the notification, such a beneficial policy ought to be extended to persons who become widows during the selection process due to unforeseen circumstances. Therefore, her category ought to have been changed for consideration under the Unreserved (Widow) category. In support of his case, the lear

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top