1. Recruitment for pharmacist post — Candidate meritorious but excluded for want of timely Pharmacy Council registration certificate — Cut-off date issue. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 729
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Sandeep Shah, JJ.
Abhishek Jain S/o Shri Paras Jain - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health - Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 727 of 2025
Decided On : 08-01-2026
Important Points
A candidate cannot be disqualified for failing to produce a registration certificate by the cut-off date if the qualification was already attained and the delay in issuance was solely attributable to the administrative authority, provided the candidate applied for registration in a timely manner.
Subject
Service Law - Public Recruitment
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Public Recruitment - Cut-off date for qualifications - Distinction between attaining a qualification and the issuance of a registration certificate for an existing qualification - If a candidate applied for registration within the stipulated time and the administrative authority failed to issue the certificate by the cut-off date, such delay not attributable to the candidate cannot be used to disqualify them from selection. (Paras 6, 7 and 8)
(B) Administrative Delay - Legitimate expectation - Where a circular binds an authority to issue registration within a specific period, a failure to adhere to this timeline cannot operate to the detriment of a candidate who exercised due diligence. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
An applicant for the post of pharmacist succeeded on merit but was excluded from the selection list because the registration certificate from the professional council was not available at the time of document verification. The applicant had applied for registration several months before the advertisement and the cut-off date, but the certificate was issued by the authority after the prescribed deadline, despite a state circular mandating issuance within a month.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the candidate was duly qualified and had applied for registration well in advance. The failure to produce the certificate by the cut-off date was solely due to the delay by the regulatory authority and not the fault of the candidate.
Issues: Whether a candidate can be disqualified for not producing a registration certificate by the cut-off date if the delay in issuance is attributable to the competent authority and not the candidate.
Ratio Decidendi: Cut-off dates must be strictly adhered to for attaining qualifications, age, and other parameters. However, for a qualification already attained, if the issuance of the registration certificate is within the control of the respondents and the candidate exercised due diligence by applying in advance, the administrative delay cannot cause prejudice to the candidate. (Paras 7 and 8)
Result: Special Appeal Writ allowed.
(B) Administrative Delay - Legitimate expectation - Where a circular binds an authority to issue registration within a specific period, a failure to adhere to this timeline cannot operate to the detriment of a candidate who exercised due diligence. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
An applicant for the post of pharmacist succeeded on merit but was excluded from the selection list because the registration certificate from the professional council was not available at the time of document verification. The applicant had applied for registration several months before the advertisement and the cut-off date, but the certificate was issued by the authority after the prescribed deadline, despite a state circular mandating issuance within a month.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the candidate was duly qualified and had applied for registration well in advance. The failure to produce the certificate by the cut-off date was solely due to the delay by the regulatory authority and not the fault of the candidate.
Issues: Whether a candidate can be disqualified for not producing a registration certificate by the cut-off date if the delay in issuance is attributable to the competent authority and not the candidate.
Ratio Decidendi: Cut-off dates must be strictly adhered to for attaining qualifications, age, and other parameters. However, for a qualification already attained, if the issuance of the registration certificate is within the control of the respondents and the candidate exercised due diligence by applying in advance, the administrative delay cannot cause prejudice to the candidate. (Paras 7 and 8)
Result: Special Appeal Writ allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
-
constitutional law
- article 226 (Para 1)
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Singh Godara Mr. Ravindra Singh
For the Respondent: Ms. Aditi Sharma for Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG Ms. Shagun Mathur
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahendra Singh Godara Mr. Ravindra Singh
For the Respondent: Ms. Aditi Sharma for Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, AAG Ms. Shagun Mathur
Table of Contents
2. Appellant: registration delayed by Council despite timely application. Respondents: strict adherence to cut-off date mandatory in public recruitment. (Para 3 , 5 )
3. Certificate delay attributable to Council, not candidate; legitimate expectation from binding circular; precedent distinguished; applicant not at fault. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
4. A candidate who timely applies for a certificate required for an already-acquired qualification cannot be penalized for the issuing authority's delay. (Para 7 , 8 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed; respondents directed to grant appointment with notional benefits within three months. (Para 9 , 10 )
6. Can a candidate be denied appointment for failing to produce a registration certificate by the cut-off date when the delay was caused by the issuing authority?
No. If the candidate applied well in time for a certificate for an already-acquired qualification and the delay was solely due to the competent authority, the candidate cannot be penalized. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
7. Does a state circular prescribing a time limit for issuance of certificates create a legitimate expectation in favor of the applicant?
Yes. A binding circular requiring issuance of registration within a specified period creates a legitimate expectation that the candidate will receive the certificate within that time. (Para 6 , 7 )
8. What is the distinction from the Supreme Court judgment in Sakshi Arha?
In Sakshi Arha, candidates did not claim that issuance of a certificate was delayed by the competent authority; here, the Council's delay caused the candidate's exclusion. (Para 5 )
9. Is strict adherence to cut-off dates required for qualifications already attained?
Cut-off dates are strict for attaining qualifications or fulfilling conditions, but cannot operate to the detriment of a candidate for a delay caused by the issuing authority. (Para 7 , 8 )
ORDER :
1. The instant Special Appeal Writ has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed by quashing the judgment dated 17.04.2025 by allowing the writ petition along with the prayer made therein by holding the appellant eligible and entitle for the post of Pharmacist.
Any other order deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner/appellant.”
2. The respondents have invited applications for the post of Pharmacist vide Advertisement/Notification dated 05.05.2023. The appellant applied pursuant thereto and succeeded on merits; however, the appellant’s name did not appear in the selected list solely on the ground that registration with the Pharmacy Council was not available at the time of document verification.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant makes a limited submission that after acquiring the requisite qualification of Pharmacist, the appellant applied for registration with the Pharmacy Council on 22.02.2023. He draws the attention of this Court towards the State Circular dated 31.10.2022, particularly paragraph No.4 thereof, which reads as under:-
4. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it was the obligation of respondent No.3 – Pharmacy Council to issue the registration certificate within the stipulated period of 15 days/01 month, as prescribed under the Circular dated 31.10.2022. It is submitted that the registration certificate was not issued within the prescribed time, and as a consequence thereof, the appellant was disqualified from the selection process, as the registration certificate was ultimately issued on 12.07.2023, whereas the last date for submission of documents was 11.06.2023, as per the advertisement.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the factual matrix of the case but submits that as per the advertisement dated 05.05.2023, the appellant was required to submit the registration certificate issued by the Pharmacy Council on or before 11.06.2023, whereas the same was obtained belatedly on 12.07.2023. It is further submitted that although the portal was reopened for correction on 12.09.2023 and the registration number was uploaded thereafter, strict adherence to the cut-off date is mandatory in public recruitment. Learned counsel submits that any deviation would open a Pandora’s box and render the recruitment process susceptible to uncertainty and irregularities. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakshi Arha v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors., (2025 SCC OnLine SC 757, decided on 08.04.2025), particularly paragraph No.38, which reads as under:-
“38. Significant reliance is placed by the Appellants on the 2-Judge bench decision of this Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). A perusal of the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi on the factual matrix therein is evidently distinct. The same, thus, cannot come to the rescue of the Appellants. In the instant case, it is not a contention of the Appellants that they are missing a valid proof of attainment of their particular qualification or right. No candidate before us has a claim that they, to begin with, already availed and established their eligibility, or had applied for a NCL category certificate and issuance of the same is delayed at the behest of the competent authority. The ratio, therefore, in the relied judgment would not apply.”
6. This Court has taken note of the fact that the appellant is a duly qualified Pharmacist, who applied for registration with the Pharmacy Council on 22.02.2023. This Court also notes that pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.05.2023, the appellant participated in the selection process and succeeded on merits, but could not furnish the registration certificate, as the same was not issued till the cut-off date i.e. 11.06.2023. However, this Court has further taken note of the State Circular dated 31.10.
