Karnataka High Court
The Union Public Service Commission vs Dr Jayakumar T M on 23 October, 2024
Author: Krishna S Dixit
Bench: Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42587-DB
WP No. 16968 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT PETITION NO. 16968 OF 2023 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
B K SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
DHOLPUR HOUSE, SHAHAJAHAN ROAD,
NEW DELHI 110 009.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K SHRIHARI.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DR. JAYAKUMAR T M,
S/O MALLAPPA T,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
R/AT SUNITHA NILAYA, NEAR VETINARY COLLEGE,
Digitally signed SIDDHAGANGA BADAVANE, SHIVAMOGA 577 204.
by SHARADA
VANI B 2. THE UNION OF INDIA,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY,
COURT OF MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE,
KARNATAKA
CHS I SECTION, NIRMAN BHAVANA,
NEW DELHI - 110 015.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
THE OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR AND
TALUKA MAGISTRATE,
SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.H SHANTHI BHUSHAN.,DSGI FOR R2;
SRI.SIDDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R3;
R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42587-DB
WP No. 16968 of 2023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2023
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL BENGLAURU BENCH IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION No-
170/00289/2021 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)
The Petitioner - UPSC is knocking at the doors of
Writ Court for assailing the order dated 02.03.2023 made
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru,
whereby first Respondent's Original Application
No.170/00289/2021 having been favoured, a direction has
been issued in substance, to consider his EWS Certificate
dated 03.09.2019 at Annexure-A9 read with EWS
Certificate dated 06.02.2021 as being valid and further,
"to issue appropriate orders within a period of eight
weeks..."
NC: 2024:KHC:42587-DB
2. Learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner seeks to falter the impugned order vociferously
contending that all the candidates were specifically notified
that those seeking reservation/relaxation benefits
available for SC/ST/OBC/EWS/PWBD/X-servicemen should
be in the possession of all the requisite certificates in the
prescribed format in support of their claim. Further, he
argues that legally it was prescribed that the Income and
Asset Certificate (Certificate of Eligibility) should have
been obtained before of 1st August, 2019. According to
him, this prescription being mandatory, and the same
having not been complied with by the 1st Respondent, the
Tribunal could not have granted relief of the kind to him.
3. Despite service of notice, Respondent No.1 has
chosen to remain unrepresented. However, that would not
come in the way of this Court adjudging the cause brought
before it, in accordance with law on the basis of pleadings
of the parties and the evidentiary material borne out by
NC: 2024:KHC:42587-DB
record. Respondents 2 is represented by learned DSG-I
and Respondent No.3 is represented by learned AGA.
4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
4.1 The Petitioner vide Notification dated 10.04.2019 had
called for "Combined Medical Services Examination, 2019"
fixing 21.07.2019 as the date of examination. Admit
Cards were issued to the candidates. The 1st Respondent
figured in the Provisional Merit List dated 12.07.2019,
after facing personality test on 02.12.2019. Petitioner
issued notice dated 04.05.2020 for submission of
documents supportive of the claim for the benefit of
reservation/relaxation, on or before 26.06.2020. The
Respondent could secure EWS Certificate on 06.02.2021
for the Financial Year 2018-19. He made a representation
to the Petitioner on 23.02.2021 to consider the said
Certificate. Petitioner did not agree with this proposal on
the ground that the Certificate was not obtained before
01.08.2019 which was mandatory.
NC: 2024:KHC:42587-DB
4.2 First Respondent filed the subject OA laying a
challenge to the action of the Petitioner who had issued
Endorsement dated 07.02.2020 rejecting the candidature.
He had also sought for a direction to treat the EWS
Certificate as valid. Two members of the Tribunal held
divergent views, one agreeing with the version of the first
Respondent and the other accepting the version of
Petitioner - UPSC. Matter was referred to a third judge
who has passed the impugned order granting relief to the
first Respondent. That is how, the present Petition arises.
5. Having heard the learned Sr. Panel Counsel for
the Petitioner-UPSC, learned advocates appearing for
official Respondents and having perused the Petition
Papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter
for the following reasons: Admittedly, the first EWS
Certificate was secured by the first Respondent on
03.09.2019 for the Financial Year 2019-20 and the second
was secured on 06.02.2021 was for the Financial Year
2018-19, notified cutoff date being 01.08.2019. Any
NC: 2024:KHC:42587-DB
objective criteria to assess economic backwardness has to
be time bound and it cannot be for a future point of time
inasmuch as, the economic status is variable and not static
qua run of the time.
6. The Panel Counsel appearing for the UPSC is
more than justified in drawing our attention to internal
page No.4 of the UPSC Notification dated 10.04.2019 in
which relevant part reads as under:
"Provided further the EWS Candidates can
submit their Income and Asset Certificate
(certificate of eligibility) at the time of
submission of online Detailed Application Form
(DAF). The Income and Asset certificate must be
dated earlier than 1st August, 2019. Since
reservation for EWS category candidates has
been notified recently, therefore this extension
for submission of certificate for EWS category
candidates is one time relaxation applicable for
CMSE 2019 only."
The requirement of the Notification as clear as Gangetic
Waters. It does not require nor does it admit any
interpretation. The Apex Court in DIVYA VS. UOI 1 has
observed at para 58 as under:
(2024) 1 SCC 448
NC: 2024:KHC:42587-DB
"58. In this case, rules clearly exist in the form of
CSE-2022. It has also been settled that
determination of eligibility cannot be left uncertain
till the final stages of selection, since that would
lead to uncertainty. [See A.P. Public Service
Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra [A.P. Public
Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, (1990) 2
SCC 669 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 377] , para 7] Further,
it is well settled that if rules prescribe the last date
on which eligibility should be possessed, any
relaxation would prejudice non-applicants who for
want of possession of eligibility would not have
applied. Relaxation would then be selective, leading
to discrimination...
7. What is observed by the Apex Court in UPSC vs.
GAURAV SINGH2 in the following paragraphs assumes
significance:
"18. A technical irregularity in a certificate issued
by the competent authority in respect of the correct
financial year cannot be equated with an Income
and Asset Certificate in respect of a different
financial year when the income and assets for the
particular financial year prior to the year of
submission of the application, goes to the root of
eligibility of a candidate to qualify in the EWS
category.
19. The respondent-writ petitioners were well
aware that they had to furnish the Income and
Asset Certificates issued by the competent
authority for the financial year prior to the year of
application. If the applications were made pursuant
to a Notification published on 24-4-2019 with 20-5-
(2024) 2 SCC 605
NC: 2024:KHC:42587-DB
2019 notified as the last date for submission of the
applications, the financial year prior to the year of
submission of application could not possibly be the
Financial Year 2019-2020, to which the certificates
related. The observation in the impugned judgment
and order [Gaurav Singh v. Union of India, 2020
SCC OnLine Del 2711] of the High Court of the
expediency of specifying the financial year in the
notification for recruitment is in the nature of an
advisory, which may be kept in mind when
recruitment notifications are issued by the appellant
in future. Respondent-Writ Petitioners 2 and 4,
whose Income and Asset Certificates were not in
order, did not have any legal right to be considered
EWS candidates.
20. The respondent-writ petitioners were
required to submit certificates for the relevant
financial year. The negligence of the respondent-
writ petitioners in not checking if the certificate
related to the correct financial year, cannot be
lightly brushed aside as inadvertent lapses of the
certifying authority. A candidate applying for a post
pursuant to an advertisement, cannot afford to be
negligent. Documents required to be submitted
have to be carefully checked by the candidate
concerned before submission. An appointing
authority proceeds on the basis of what is stated in
a certificate. When a certificate pertains to a
different financial year, the same is liable to be
outright rejected. No candidate can, in such case,
claim any legal right to reconsideration of his/her
candidature by submission of a fresh certificate
and/or rectified certificate.
NC: 2024:KHC:42587-DB
In the above circumstances, this Petition is allowed;
a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order.
First Respondent's OA No. 170/00289/2021 is dismissed.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
(KRISHNA S DIXIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
Cbc/bsv
