1. Recruitment for civil posts — EWS reservation — Submission of Income and Asset Certificate for incorrect financial year — Challenge to cancellation of candidature. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10 , 13 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 1926
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
INDIRA BANERJEE, C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
Union Public Service Commission - Appellant
Versus
Gaurav Singh & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4152 of 2022(Arising out of SLP (C) No.426 of 2021)
Decided on : 18-05-2022.
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the importance of adhering to the specified financial year and the competence of the issuing authority for EWS eligibility, emphasizing that technical irregularities and negligence by candidates cannot be overlooked.
The judgment establishes the importance of adhering to the specified financial year and the competence of the issuing authority for EWS eligibility, emphasizing that technical irregularities and negligence by candidates cannot be overlooked.
Subject
Civil Law - Constitutional Law
Act Referred
Headnote
EWS Reservation - Income and Asset Certificate - Constitution (103rd) Amendment Act 2019, Article 15(6), Article 16(6) - The judgment discusses the EWS reservation and the criteria for Income and Asset Certificate. It highlights the requirement for the certificate to relate to the financial year prior to the year of application and the authority issuing the certificate. The court's decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to the specified financial year and the competence of the issuing authority for EWS eligibility.
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent-Writ Petitioners applied for EWS reservation in a recruitment process but their candidature was cancelled due to issues with their Income and Asset Certificates. They filed a Writ Petition in the High Court, which was allowed, directing the Appellant to permit them to appear for interviews as EWS candidates and to produce corrected Certificates.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found discrepancies in the treatment of the Respondent-Writ Petitioners and other candidates, and extended the crucial date for the Income and Asset Certificates. The Appellant later accepted the Certificates of some Respondent-Writ Petitioners due to technical errors. The Court held that the Respondent-Writ Petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria for EWS reservation.
Issues: Discrepancies in Income and Asset Certificates, differential treatment of candidates, and the extension of the crucial date for certificate submission.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specified financial year and the competence of the issuing authority for EWS eligibility. It held that technical irregularities in the certificate cannot be equated with certificates for a different financial year, and negligence in checking the correctness of the certificate by the candidates cannot be overlooked.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the order for two Respondent-Writ Petitioners, while affirming the EWS status for two other Respondent-Writ Petitioners.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jayant K. Sud, ASG, Mr. Tejas Patel, Adv., Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. S.K. Singhania, Adv., Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv., Mr. Vardhman Kaushik , AOR, Mr. Dhruv Joshi, Adv., Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv., Mr. Anand Singh, Adv., Mr. Prafful Saini, Adv., Mr. Nishant Gautam, Adv., Mr. B. Purushottama Reddy, Adv., Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Alaisha Asher, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR, Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, AOR
For the Appellant : Mr. Jayant K. Sud, ASG, Mr. Tejas Patel, Adv., Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, Adv., Mr. S.K. Singhania, Adv., Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Adv., Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Adv., Mr. Vardhman Kaushik , AOR, Mr. Dhruv Joshi, Adv., Mr. Manoj Joshi, Adv., Mr. Anand Singh, Adv., Mr. Prafful Saini, Adv., Mr. Nishant Gautam, Adv., Mr. B. Purushottama Reddy, Adv., Ms. Lalitha Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Alaisha Asher, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR, Mrs. Tanuj Bagga Sharma, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether technical errors in certificates are equivalent to submitting certificates for the wrong financial year and whether the crucial date for submission can be extended. (Para 15 , 17 )
3. Submission of certificate for the wrong financial year goes to the root of eligibility and cannot be treated as a rectifiable technical error. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
4. A certificate pertaining to the incorrect financial year is fundamentally defective, rendering the candidate ineligible, and cannot be cured by subsequent submission or rectification. (Para 19 , 21 )
5. Appeal allowed in part — Order set aside for candidates who submitted certificates for the wrong financial year — Others treated as EWS candidates. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 )
6. What is the distinction between technical irregularities and financial year errors in EWS certificates?
Technical irregularities, such as incomplete seals or nomenclature discrepancies, may be rectifiable. However, submitting a certificate for the wrong financial year goes to the root of eligibility and cannot be equated with a technical error. (Para 15 , 19 )
7. What is the candidate's responsibility regarding the accuracy of documents submitted for public employment?
Candidates cannot afford to be negligent and must carefully check all required documents before submission. An appointing authority proceeds based on the certificate provided; if it pertains to the wrong financial year, it is liable for outright rejection. (Para 21 )
8. To what extent should courts interfere in large-scale recruitment processes regarding eligibility errors?
Courts should not interfere in appointments involving large numbers of vacancies when errors go to the root of eligibility, particularly in computerized systems where documents are scanned and stored electronically. (Para 22 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 12th November 2020 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi allowing the Writ Petition being W.P.(C) No.8938 of 2020 filed by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners. The said Writ Petition was filed seeking the following reliefs:
“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus thereby directing the Respondents to permit the Petitioners to appear for their interview and consider their candidature in Economically Weaker Section Category;
(b) Direct the Respondent authorities to allow the Petitioners to submit their corrected EWS certificates within a span of 6 weeks from the date of their interview.
(c) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
3. On 8th January 2019, the Constitution (124th) Amendment Bill was introduced in Parliament to provide for reservation for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
4. The Constitution (103rd) Amendment Act 2019 was enacted inserting Clause (6) in Article 15 and Clause (6) in Article 16 of the Constitution of India with effect from 14th January 2019.
5. Articles 15(6) and 16(6) inserted in the Constitution by the Constitution (103rd) Amendment Act are set out hereinbelow:-
“15(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause (1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making,—
a) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
b) any special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) insofar as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the case of reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten per cent of the total seats in each category.
Explanation —For the purposes of this article and Article 16, "economically weaker sections" shall be such as may be notified by the State from time to time on the basis of family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage.
16(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per cent of the posts in each category.”
6. Pursuant to the insertion of Articles 15(6) and 16(6), the Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, issued an Office Memorandum F. No. 20013/01/2018-BC-II dated 17th January 2019 reserving 10% of recruitments to Civil Posts and admissions to educational institutions for the EWS.
7. By a notification bearing No.36039/1/2019-E dated 31st January 2019, the Department of Personnel & Training, under the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions of the Government of India, laid down the criteria of reservation for the EWS for direct recruitment to civil posts under the Government of India. The said notification provides:
“4. CRITERIA OF INCOME & ASSETS
4.1 Persons who are not covered under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs and whose family has gross annual income below Rs. 8.00 lakh (Rupees eight lakh only) are to be identified as EWSs for benefit of reservation. Income shall also include income from all sources i.e. salary, agriculture, business, profession, etc. for the financial year prior to the year of application.
Also persons whose family owns or possesses any of the following assets shall be excluded from being identified as EWS, irrespective of the family income:-
i. 5 acres of agricultural land and above;
