The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that the inability to produce a marriage certificate due to an ongoing matrimonial dispute cannot justify denial of service joining to a candidate who has otherwise successfully cleared recruitment procedures. This ruling reinforces the principle that procedural rigidity must yield to substantive fairness in public employment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Javed Khan, applied for the post of Contractual Nurse Grade II under an advertisement issued by the Department of Medical, Health and Family Welfare Services, Rajasthan, dated 28.01.2025. He submitted his online application on 13.04.2025, declaring no pending criminal cases. He appeared for and cleared the recruitment examination held on 13.06.2025, secured Merit Rank No. 548, and was included in the final select list at Serial No. 238. He completed the detailed application form and document verification on 08.12.2025. An appointment order dated 27.05.2026 was issued appointing him as Samvida Nurse Grade II (Contractual). However, he was denied permission to join service solely on the ground that he could not produce his marriage certificate.
Key Facts
The petitioner solemnized his marriage with his wife on 26.10.2021
On 21.08.2025, an FIR No. 0185/2025 was registered against him at Mahila Thana, Bikaner, under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC, filed by his wife
A charge-sheet was filed on 30.09.2025
Due to the ongoing matrimonial dispute, the petitioner was unable to obtain the marriage certificate from his wife
On 03.06.2026, the petitioner submitted an affidavit affirming the factum of his marriage and explaining the circumstances of the pending case
The affidavit was verified by police authorities
The petitioner also submitted a representation dated 03.06.2026 requesting permission to join, which remained unaddressed
Procedural History
28.01.2025: Recruitment advertisement issued
13.04.2025: Petitioner submitted online application
13.06.2025: Recruitment examination conducted
20.11.2025: Result declared; petitioner ranked 548th
08.12.2025: Document verification completed
27.05.2026: Appointment order issued
21.08.2025: FIR registered
30.09.2025: Charge-sheet filed
03.06.2026: Representation submitted; no response
02.07.2026: Writ Petition No. 13095/2026 filed before Rajasthan High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought:
Permission to join service without production of marriage certificate
Seniority and benefits as if he had joined within the stipulated period
Salary from the date of application (03.06.2026)
Any other just and proper relief
The Legal Issue
Can a public employer deny appointment and service joining to a candidate who has successfully cleared all selection stages solely on the ground of non-production of a marriage certificate, when the candidate has submitted a verified affidavit affirming the factum of marriage and the non-production is due to a pending matrimonial dispute?
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on the binding precedent of Kartik Tak v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 687/2017), wherein the same Bench held that an affidavit affirming marriage, coupled with verification of circumstances, satisfies the requirement under the Circular dated 22.05.2006 and the Rajasthan Compulsory Registration of Marriages Act, 2009. It was argued that the purpose of requiring a marriage certificate - to establish marital status - is fully achieved by the affidavit, especially when the spouse is the complainant in a criminal case. The petitioner had fulfilled all other eligibility criteria and the refusal was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
For the Respondent
The respondents’ counsel acknowledged the binding nature of the Kartik Tak judgment but contended that Clause 21 of the guidelines dated 21.05.2026 mandated strict compliance with submission of a marriage certificate. However, counsel conceded that the present case was squarely covered by the earlier judgment and did not dispute its applicability.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the Kartik Tak judgment in detail and found the factual and legal matrix of the present case to be identical. The judgment in Kartik Tak had held that requiring a marriage certificate from a candidate embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with his spouse - who is also the complainant in a criminal case - is impractical and legally untenable. The Court observed:
"It is undisputed that the petitioner is embroiled in a matrimonial dispute with his wife. Thus expecting the petitioner's wife to associate with him for getting the marriage registered is virtually impossible. During the verification process, the petitioner has already furnished an affidavit affirming that he is married to Smt. Anita. He has also mentioned in the affidavit that he is facing a prosecution for the offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323 and 377 of the IPC pursuant to an FIR filed by his wife against him. Therefore, the purpose of the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Seema's case stands served by the petitioner's affidavit."
The Court emphasized that the requirement of a marriage certificate is not absolute but instrumental - its purpose is to verify marital status, not to enforce procedural compliance at the cost of substantive justice. The affidavit, corroborated by police verification, fulfilled this purpose. The Court further noted that the petitioner had been appointed and was otherwise eligible; the denial of joining was not based on any disqualification under the recruitment rules but on an extraneous, unreasoned condition.
The Court rejected the argument that newer guidelines could override a settled precedent of a coordinate Bench. It held that the principle laid down in Kartik Tak remains binding and applicable unless overruled by a larger Bench.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to join his duties pursuant to the appointment order dated 27.05.2026, provided he fulfills all other eligibility conditions. The exercise of joining shall be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. All pending applications, including the stay petition, stand disposed of.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Affidavit Can Substitute Marriage Certificate in Special Circumstances
Practitioners representing candidates in public recruitment cases may now rely on Kartik Tak to argue that an affidavit, supported by police verification, is legally sufficient when a marriage certificate cannot be produced due to a pending matrimonial dispute
This applies even where recruitment guidelines explicitly require a marriage certificate - the requirement is subject to reasonableness and proportionality under Article 14
Procedural Rigidity Must Yield to Substantive Fairness
Public employers cannot use document requirements as a tool to arbitrarily exclude otherwise qualified candidates
The burden shifts to the employer to demonstrate why an alternative proof (affidavit, verification report) is inadequate - mere non-compliance with a checklist is not enough
This precedent strengthens the position of candidates in service law matters where personal circumstances beyond their control affect document production
Precedent Binding Even Amidst New Guidelines
A judgment of a coordinate Bench on a point of law remains binding unless overruled
New circulars or guidelines cannot override settled judicial interpretations unless they are explicitly validated by a higher court
Legal advisors must audit recruitment guidelines against existing judicial precedents before enforcing rigid compliance
