In a consequential legal battle over EWS certification, the Delhi High Court has pronounced a crucial judgment. The case revolves around the validity of the EWS certificate issued to the petitioner and later ratified by the Tehsildar. Stay informed about the latest developments and insights into the EWS certification dispute.
Facts
- Petitioner appeared for the personality test on July 20, 2023, and counter signed all documents.
- He submitted Income & Asset Certificate for the financial year 2021-22, counter signed by the Tehsildar digitally.
- On August 07, 2023, the final result was declared, and petitioner’s name was not in the list of recommended candidates.
- Petitioner applied against the examination notice.
- On August 07, 2022, he cleared the written examination.
- He filled a ‘Detailed Application Form’ for physical and medical evaluation conducted on March 13 and 14, 2023.
- His documents were examined during the process and were accepted as they were.
- The subsequent ratification by the General Board was held to not confer any authority upon the Commissioner.
- The subsequent ratification of the action by the Board was noted to not save the action.
- Resolution No 51 dated November 20, 1998, was observed to only confer power upon the Commissioner for initiating action for irregularities related to purchases and not other misconduct or irregularity.
- The judgment of the learned Single Judge led to an intra-Court appeal with LPA 726/2006.
Issue
- The main questions for consideration are outlined, including eligibility criteria for staking a claim under EWS category
- The justification of UPSC in prescribing cut-off dates for possession and uploading of certificates is questioned
- The enforceability of CSE Rules, 2022 is discussed
- The validity of the EWS certificate issued to the petitioner on April 22, 2022, and signed by the Tehsildar on July 13, 2023, is in question
- The constitutionality of Rules 13, 27(3), and 28 of the CSE Rules, 2022 is being analyzed
Arguments
- The petitioner argues that the EWS certificate issued by the Naib Tehsildar was later ratified by the Tehsildar, making it valid.
- He points out that the cutoff for the EWS category was 329 marks when the petitioner’s result was uploaded.
- The petitioner references UPSC instructions stating that a certificate countersigned by a competent authority after the closing date is considered valid.
- The petitioner relies on a specific judgment to support his argument regarding the ratification of the certificate by the General Board.
- The petitioner emphasizes that he met the criteria for EWS reservation based on the ratified certificate.
- The UPSC contests the submission, citing mandatory requirements for EWS certificates issued by designated authorities.
- The UPSC argues that the petitioner, despite his marks, did not have a valid EWS certificate from the competent authority at the time of application.
- Reference is made to previous cases and judgments regarding the eligibility criteria based on certificates issued by specified authorities.
- The petitioner sought clarification from the authorities after not being recommended post securing higher marks than the cutoff.
Analysis
- The Resolution No 51 did not authorize the Commissioner to take action beyond purchases.
- EWS candidates must meet criteria and possess Income & Asset Certificate for FY 2020-2021.
- Crucial date for submission of I&AC is closing date of applications unless otherwise specified.
- Relying on the Divya case judgment, UPSC was justified in setting cut-off dates for EWS eligibility.
- Misplaced plea of extending benefit based on subsequent certification by a higher authority.
- Office Memoranda emphasize the need for prescribed format I&AC for EWS category.
- Candidates need to possess all required certificates by closing date of application for reservation benefits.
- Ratification by Tehsildar of rectified EWS certificate not valid due to post-closing date action.
- UPSC justified in rejecting candidates submitting I&AC beyond stipulated deadline for EWS category consideration.
- Resolution No. 51 dated 20.11.1998 authorized the Commissioner to take action against officers for lapses and negligence in various works and purchases.
- The resolution empowered the Commissioner to take necessary action against erring officers who committed lapses and carelessness in works and purchases.
- The Commissioner was specifically authorized to take action against officers for lapses and carelessness in works and purchases only, as per rules and regulations.
- The petitioner’s actions were considered bona fide but he is not entitled to any relief.
- The relief sought was specific to the Civil Services Examination, 2023 and not a general rule for all future exams.
- The court agrees with Mr. Kaushik’s submission on the limited scope of the relief.
Decision
- The petition along with pending application is dismissed.
Case Title: SARJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. (2024:DHC:4105-DB)
Case Number: W.P.(C)-11850/2023
