Candidates must be afforded the opportunity to rectify their Income and Asset Certificates post-application if invited by the recruitment authority, ensuring procedural fairness in eligibility determinations.

JUDGMENT :

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This is a batch of six writ petitions. There has been no representation, before us, of the petitioners in WP (C) 9254/2020, WP (C) 11859/2021 and WP (C) 1136/2021. As the issues in these writ petitions are cognate, however, we propose to dispose of all the writ petitions by this common judgment, expositing what, in our view, are the principles that apply.

2. Of the petitioners in the remaining three writ petitions, Ms. Priya Hingorani, learned Senior Counsel appears for Petitioner 1 in WP (C) 9253/2020 Mohit Kumar, [“Mohit” hereinafter] and Petitioner 4 in WP (C) 9255/2020 Ritesh Ojha, [“Ritesh” hereinafter], Mr. Avinash appears for Petitioner 10 in WP (C) 9255/2020 Amit Turan, [“Amit” hereinafter] and Mr. Dibyanshu Pandey appears for the petitioner Shanti Raman, [“Shanti” hereinafter] in WP (C) 10338/2020.

3. The issues in controversy are limited.

4. The petitioners in these writ petitions participated in a selection process for recruitment to the post of Assistant Commandant in the Central Armed Police Forces, [“CAPFs” hereinafter], via the CAPF (AC) Examination 2019, pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Union Public Service Commission, [UPSC] on 24 April 2019.

5. The petitioners had applied for being considered as candidates belonging to Economically Weaker Section, [EWS]. The UPSC has rejected their claim to be considered as EWS candidates and has considered them as General Category candidates. Inasmuch as none of the petitioners make the grade as General Category candidates, their prayer in these writ petitions is that their entitlement has to be considered as EWS candidates.

6. By interim orders passed in these writ petitions, the petitioners were allowed to participate in the selection process, subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.

7. The notification issued by the UPSC required the candidates to furnish the income and assets certificate, [“IAC” hereinafter], in support of their EWS status, for the year 2018-2019.

8. The petitioners fall in three categories.

9. Re. Mohit, Ritesh and Amit

9.1 In the case of Mohit and Ritesh, the authority issuing the IAC (the Tehsildar in the case of Mohit and the Anchal Adhikari in the case of Ritesh) erroneously issued the IAC for the year 2019-2020. The UPSC addressed an email to Ritesh, pointing out that the IAC submitted by him reflected the incorrect year 2019-2020 and requiring him to obtain and submit a rectified IAC. No such email was, however, addressed to Mohit. Both Mohit and Ritesh, however, applied to the authorities that had issued the IAC and procured rectified IACs reflecting the correct financial year 2018-19. These IACs were emailed to the UPSC as soon as it was obtained.

9.2 On these facts, there is no dispute.

9.3 In the case of Ritesh, the UPSC raised a second objection which was to the effect that the Anchal Adhikari was not competent to issue the IAC. In this context, Ms. Hingorani relies on a clarification issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005 albeit in respect of another candidate Sumit Arya, to the effect that the Anchal Adhikari was the competent authority for issuance of the IAC in Bihar, as there are no post of Tehsildar in the Bihar Revenue Department.

9.4 On these facts, too, there is no dispute.

9.5 In the case of Amit, the IAC reflected the correct financial year 2018-2019. However, the UPSC objected to the IAC on the ground that it had been issued by the Naib Tehsildar, who was not the competent authority.

9.6 Amit, thereupon, obtained a IAC dated 25 July 2019 from the Tehsildar, certifying his income and assets for the financial year 2018- 19. Accompanying the said IAC was the original IAC issued by the Naib Tehsildar with an endorsement, by the Tehsildar, which read thus:

“It is certified that the certificate with serial number dated 25 July 2019 has been issued from Tehsil, Panipat.”

Side by side, as already noted, the Tehsildar also certified the petitioner’s income and assets for the financial year 2018-19.

9