M. Shruthi vs The State Of Telangana
2025 Latest Caselaw 3064 Tel

Telangana High Court

M. Shruthi vs The State Of Telangana on 13 March, 2025

                                         1




            `THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

                           W.P.No.15391 of 2024
ORDER:

The writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

"To issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd Respondent in not considering the Income certificate/Manual Economically Weaker Sections Certificate submitted by the petitioner to claim reservation under the 10 percent EWS quota as per the Notification vide No 12/2022 dated 03/09/2022 mentioned under (v) of IMPORTANT NOTE under para-4 of the that resulted in grave injustice as the petitioner herein was not selected though she is the meritorious candidate with a rank of 217 with marks 248.203 which is illegal. arbitrary and discriminatory against the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 16, 19(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to consider and select the Petitioner under EWS quota as per the (v) of IMPORTANT NOTE under para-4 of the Notification vide No.12/2022 dated 03.09.2022 issued by the 2nd Respondent for Recruitment to the Posts of Assistant Executive Engineer (Agriculture) by taking into account both Income Certificate and EWS Manual Certificate for the Financial Year 2021-2022".

2) Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-II

appearing for respondent No.1, Mr.M.Ramgopal Rao, learned

Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the

learned Government Pleader for Services-III appearing for

respondent No.3 and perused the record.

3) The case of the petitioner is that in response to the

notification issued by respondent No.2 vide Notification

No.12/2022 dated 3.9.2022 for filling up the posts of Assistant

Executive Engineers in various Engineering Departments,

petitioner applied under OC Community (EWS category) for the

post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Agriculture) in Irrigation

and Command Area Development Department, notified for a

total number of 100 vacancies. Since the examination of Optical

Mark Recognition (OMR) conducted on 22.1.2023 was cancelled,

once again examination was conducted on 09.05.2023 through

online CBRT model and in the said examination, petitioner

secured 248.203 marks with rank of 217. Therefore, she was

called for certificate verification on 18.3.2024 wherein she has

submitted all the required certificates including Income

Certificate for the financial year 2021-2022 as per the

Notification, but the respondent No.2 has objected to the said

Income Certificate produced by the petitioner and marked it as

'pending' on 18.3.2024 on the ground it is not in EWS format.

Further, the petitioner and similarly situated candidates were

asked to submit their respective Income Certificates in EWS

format. Accordingly, petitioner submitted EWS certificate dated

21.03.2024 on 22.03.2024 before respondent No.2. Thereafter,

respondent No.2 issued a Web Note on 15.05.2024 for re-

submission of EWS Certificate by 22.05.2024 and accordingly

petitioner has re-submitted EWS Certificate on 18.5.2024 as per

the said Web Note. But, without considering the EWS

Certificates dated 27.09.2022, 15.06.2023, 26.07.2023 and

21.03.2024 submitted by the petitioner on 18.03.2024,

22.03.2024 and 18.05.2024, and without passing any rejection

order, respondent No.2 had issued a provisional selection list,

without selecting the petitioner and selecting a less meritorious

candidate with 262 rank (239.825 marks), which is illegal,

arbitrary and discriminatory in nature. Hence, the learned

counsel prayed this Court to issue appropriate direction to the

respondents to consider her case under EWS quota.

4) Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 has submitted that respondent No.2 has

conducted certificate verification for the post of Assistant

Executive Engineer from 18.3.2024 to 22.03.2024 and on

03.04.2024 in the ratio of 1:2 and accordingly, petitioner was

called for certificate verification under EWS quota, wherein

petitioner has attended and produced hard copy of EWS

certificate issued manually instead of MeeSeva Certificate. It is

further stated that as per the guidelines issued in

G.O.Ms.No.244, General Administration (Ser.D) Department,

dated 24.08.2021, the candidates shall submit EWS Certificate

obtained through Mee-Seva for the financial year prior to the

year of application and in this regard, the Principal Secretary to

Government, Revenue Department, has clarified that the

manually issued EWS Certificate is not valid to claim EWS

reservation. It is further stated that as per the Notification,

dated 03.09.2022, the candidates, who are availing reservation

under EWS quota, should produce EWS Certificate for the

Financial Year 2021-2022 obtained through MeeSeva as per

G.O.Ms.Nos.243 and 244, dated 24.08.2021, issued on or before

14.10.2022. Therefore, the Income Certificate dated 21.03.2024

produced by the petitioner for claiming reservation under EWS

quota cannot be treated as MeeSeva EWS Income Certificate,

which is contrary to the rules. In this regard, the learned

Standing Counsel has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Divya v. Union of India and others 1 and

Union Public Service Commission v. Gaurav Singh and

others 2 and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this

Court in W.A.No.1364 of 2024 dated 10.1.2025 and prayed to

dismiss the writ petition.

5) This Court has taken note of the submissions made by

respective parties and perused the material on record.

6) Having regard to the submissions made by the respective

parties and on perusal of the record, this Court is of the view

that two issues are required to be adjudicated in the present

writ petition viz.,(i) whether the petitioner has submitted EWS

Certificate for the relevant financial year i.e.2021-2022; and

(ii) whether the EWS Certificate produced by the petitioner was

1 (2024) 1 SCC 448 2 (2024) 2 SCC 605

issued on or before crucial date i.e. closing date for receipt of

application.

7) To adjudicate upon the issues, this Court deems it

necessary to extract relevant portions of Notification No.12/

2022, dated 03.09.2022, issued by Respondent No.2 wherein

applications were invited for filling up posts of Assistant

Executive Engineers in various Departments in the State of

Telangana prescribing the last date for submission of

applications as '14.10.2022', for which the petitioner has

applied.

7.1) Note(v) appended to clause-4 of Para-I of the said

Notification reads as under:

"v) Income certificate for the Financial Year prior to the year of application issued by the competent authority of Telangana Government for claiming EWS reservation.

7.2) Clause (XV) of Para-IV(10)(A) is relevant in the present

context and the same reads as under:

"Income certificate for the Financial Year prior to the year of application issued by the competent authority of Telangana Government for claiming EWS reservation."

7.3) Clause-11 of Paragraph-V of the said Notification reads as under:

".......................

(c) Income Certificate for claiming EWS Reservation issued by the Tahsildar (Government of Telangana) vide G.O.Ms.No.244, General Administration (Ser.D) Department dated 24/08/2021 and orders and instructions issued by the Government from time to time.

8) Further, in this regard, the Government of Telangana has

issued G.O.Ms.No.65, General Administration (Ser.D)

Department, dated 19.03.2021, and paragraph 10 thereof reads

as under:

"The crucial date for submitting Income and Asset Certificate by the candidate may be treated as the closing date for receipt of application for the post, except in cases where crucial date is fixed otherwise."

9) Similarly, Paragraph 7(ii) of G.O.Ms.No.244, dated

24.08.2021, reads as under:

"Persons who are not covered under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs and BCs and whose family has gross annual income below Rs.8.00 lakh (Rupees Eight Lakh only) are to be identified as EWS 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."

(emphasis added)

10) In this context, it is relevant to note that the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Divya's case (supra), at paragraphs 30, 31, 35, 36, 40,

45, 49, 50, 51, 58, 65, 67, 68 and 94, has held as under:

"30. It is averred that out of 13,090 candidates, 13,051 candidates finally submitted their DAF-I. As per the result of the CSE (Main) Examination, 2022 which was declared on 6-12-2022, 2529 candidates (2.5 times of 1022 vacancies), as per the Rules of the examination, were declared qualified for the interview. That the documents of 2529 candidates were scrutinised and the candidates were notified of their deficiency in the certificates; that 298 candidates qualified the interview belonging to the EWS category and the I&ACs of the 298 candidates were scrutinised; that 28 candidates were failed either due to their not possessing I&AC by 22-2-2022 or for failure to upload I&ACs issued on the basis of income for FY 2020-2021; that 14 candidates who fulfilled the general standard were adjusted against the general quota and their category was changed from EWS to general.

31. Strongly refuting the plea of the inability of the petitioner due to COVID-19 to obtain the certificate within time, it is averred by UPSC that the petitioner had availed the benefit under EWS category in the CSE 2021 by producing IA&C dated 9-10-2020 during the peak of the pandemic and that the plea of the petitioner, according to UPSC, was highly improbable and did not deserve to be sustained.

35. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that once their categorisation as an EWS was not in dispute, mere inability to have the certificate as of 22-2-2022 should not operate to their prejudice. According to them, the delayed submission did not affect the category-wise allocation process at any stage and that there

was no rationale for insisting on the certificate to be dated before the cut-off i.e. 22-2-2022, namely, the last day for submission of the application for Preliminary Examination....... Additionally, and quite feebly, a contention was also raised that the CSE Rules, 2022 have no statutory flavour and are not enforceable in law.

36. Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned ASG for the Union of India and Mr Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel for Respondent 3 UPSC, thoroughly and painstakingly countered the submissions of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the present was a case where there was a clear prescription in the form of rules. The learned counsel relied on OM dated 19-1-2019, 31-1-2019 and Rules 13, 27 and 28 of the CSE-2022 Rules to contend that eligibility is acquired as an EWS candidate only after the candidate meets the criteria issued by the Central Government and is in possession of the requisite I&AC based on the income for FY 2020-2021; that under Rule 28, the candidates should be in possession of all the requisite certificates in the prescribed format in support of their claim by the closing date of the application viz. 22-2-2022; that for the Main Examination, a candidate is required to submit DAF-I along with scanned documents in support within prescribed time for the same; any delay in submission of the DAF-I or documents in support beyond the prescribed date was not allowed and would lead to cancellation of the candidature.

40. Countering the submission of the petitioners in the other two petitions, the learned counsel states that the case was squarely covered by Gaurav Singh [UPSC v. Gaurav Singh, (2024) 2 SCC 605 :

2022 SCC OnLine SC 2116] and if each candidate is allowed to come with clarifications/ corrigenda, there will be no end to the selection process and the sanctity of the rule would completely stand negated. The learned counsel contended that any selective relaxation would

cause enormous injustice to the non-applicants, who in compliance with the rule would not have applied for the reason that they did not possess the eligibility certificate on the last date for submission. To reinforce the submission, reliance was placed on Ashok Kumar Sharma [Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Shekhar, (1997) 4 SCC 18 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 913] and Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Yogesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2003) 3 SCC 548 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 346] wherein it was held that deviation from the Rules allows entry to ineligible persons and deprives, among others, who could have competed for the post. So, contending they prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.

45. It is very clear that an EWS candidate acquired eligibility to be an EWS candidate for the purpose of CSE-2022 only if the candidate met the criterion prescribed by the Central Government and is in possession of the requisite I&AC based on the income for FY 2020-

2021. Read with Rule 28, the candidate should also be in possession of the certificate as on 22-2-2022. So it is beyond cavil that one cannot decide for oneself that the candidate is an EWS candidate and only on the fulfilment of the criteria and the issuance of the certificate before 22-2-2022 will the eligibility as an EWS candidate, enure to the benefit of the candidate for the CSE-2022. The argument of Shri K. Parameshwar, learned counsel, that being from the "EWS" category is a status and the I&AC to be produced is only a proof and as such the I&AC can be produced at any stage cannot be accepted in the teeth of the clear prescription in the Office Memoranda read with the CSE-2022 Rules. Further, as required under Rule 13, at the stage of DAF-I the document had to be submitted online before the prescribed date (in the present case for CSE-2022 the date was 15-7-2022) and that any delay in submission of DAF-I or document beyond the prescribed date was not allowed. These clear stipulations run counter to the submissions of

the learned counsel that on the rectification of a certificate it relates back to the date of the certificate.

49. In Gaurav Singh case, it has been categorically held that assets for the particular financial year, prior to the year of submission, go to the root of eligibility of the candidate in the EWS category. It has been further held therein that the candidates whose I&ACs are not in order did not have any legal right to be considered. It has also been held that no candidate can claim any legal right for reconsideration of the candidature by submitting a fresh certificate and/or a rectified certificate.

50. That is the fundamental distinction between Charles K. Skaria [Charles K. Skaria v. C. Mathew, (1980) 2 SCC 752 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 305] line of cases and the cases at hand. As pointed out earlier, the eligibility for being categorised as EWS candidate crystallises only when the I&AC is issued and, in this case, as required under the Rules, it was to be issued and possessed by the candidate before 22-2- 2022.

51. It is also very well settled that if there are relevant rules which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. In the absence of rules or any other date prescribed in the prospectus/advertisement for determining the eligibility, there is a judicial chorus holding that it would be the last date for submission of the application.

Impermissibility of selective relaxation

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.

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.

65. In Gaurav Singh case, this Court has held as under :

"19. 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.

20. The Respondent-Writ Petitioners were well aware that they had to furnish 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 20-5-2019 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 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. The Respondent Writ Petitioners 2 and 4, in whose Income and Asset Certificates were not in order, did not have any legal right to be considered EWS candidates.

21. 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.

23. In the case of Respondent-Writ Petitioner 3, the Income and Asset Certificate, which had initially been questioned as having been issued by an authority not competent, was later accepted as it was found that the authority issuing the certificate was in fact competent. The certificate of the Respondent-Writ Petitioner 1 was also accepted as there was no discrepancy in either the date of issuance or the year. It was just that the seal had been stamped without the full name of the officer concerned and that was accepted as an error not attributable to the candidate concerned."

67. This exceptional situation cannot be made a rule. In this case, the petitioner (Ms Divya) had an opportunity to obtain I&AC from 1-4-2021 till 21-2-2022. In fact, admittedly she obtained her EWS certificate for FY 2019-2020 on 9-10-2020 and obtained her I&AC for FY 2021-2022 on 13-12-2022 but obtained her I&AC 2020-2021 only on 1-6-2023. If she was in a position to obtain a certificate for FY 2019-2020 on 9-10- 2020 when the country was still reeling under a heightened pandemic, there is no reason why she could not have obtained her I&AC for FY 2021-2022 on any of the days between 1-4-2021 and 21-2-2022. We are not satisfied with the explanation adduced by the petitioner. Hence her claim challenging the email cancelling the candidature under the EWS category is also rejected.

Validity of CSE-2022 Rules -- Validity of the cut-off date

68. The challenge made in the writ petition to declare Rules 13, 27(3) and 28 to the extent it prescribes that candidate must be in possession of an EWS certificate as on the closing date of the application for preliminary examination to be ultra vires Article 14 is only to be stated to be rejected. There is no case made out to show that the cut-off of 22- 2-2022 was picked out of the hat. That was the last date for submission of the application and, according to us, it was a validly prescribed cut-off. In fact, the law laid down by this Court as discussed hereinabove is, where there is absence of any rule or absence of any prescription, the last day for fulfilling the eligibility is the last date of

submission of the application. This is a judicially recognised default date. In this case the last date for filing of the application has been prescribed as the cut-off in the Rules and we see absolutely no case for violation of Article 14.

Conclusion

94. Based on the above discussion, our conclusions are as under:

94.1. The candidates claiming benefit of EWS category for the purpose of CSE-2022, acquire eligibility only if they meet the criterion prescribed by the Central Government in the OM dated 19-1-2019 and 31-1-2019 and are in possession of the required Income and Asset Certificate ("I&AC"), based on the income for the year 2020-21.

Further, as required under Rule 28 of the CSE Rules, 2022 read with the OM of 19-1-2019 and 31-1-2019 the candidate should have been in possession of the Income and Asset Certificate ("I&AC") as on 22-2- 2022. Any candidate not in possession of the I&AC in the prescribed format as mentioned hereinabove cannot claim the benefit of EWS category. Equally, as required under Rule 13 of the CSE Rules, 2022 at the stage of DAF-I, the document in possession as on 22-2-2022 in the prescribed format, had to be submitted online before the prescribed date. UPSC was justified in rejecting the candidature of those candidates claiming benefit under the EWS category if they had submitted their I&AC beyond the stipulated deadline. This conclusion has to be read with the reasoning in the judgment, particularly in paras 42 to 45 under the heading "Eligibility for EWS category candidates for CSE-2022".

94.2. As a sequel to the conclusion in para 94.1 above, we record that UPSC was justified in prescribing the cut-off date for possession and for uploading of the I&AC in the prescribed format for claimants

claiming benefits under the EWS category. This flows from the OM dated 19-1-2019 and 31-1-2019 read with Rules 13, 27(3) and 28 of the CSE Rules, 2022 and the long line of judgments in which principles for prescription of cut-off for eligibility are laid down.

94.3. ........

94.4. Rules 13, 27(3) and 28 of the CSE Rules, 2022 are constitutionally valid for the reasons set out in para 68 hereinabove under the sub-heading "Validity of the CSE Rules, 2022 -- Validity of the cut-off date".

94.5. UPSC was justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners, for consideration under the EWS category in CSE-2022."

11) Following the afore mentioned judgments of the Hon'ble

Apex Court, a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1364 of

2024 dated 10.1.2025 at paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13 held as

under:

"7. It is relevant to refer to para-10 of G.O.Ms.No.65, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 19.03.2021, which reads as hereunder:

"The crucial date for submitting Income and Asset Certificate by the candidate may be treated as the closing date for receipt of application for the post, except in cases where crucial date is fixed otherwise."

8. It is further apt to note that in the notification dated 01.11.2024, whereunder candidates were short listed for Certificate verification, the candidates were required to submit certain Original certificates and at SL.No.11 it is mentioned as under:-

"EWS Certificate for the financial year i.e., 2021-22 prior to the year of application issued by the competent authority of Telangana Government for claiming EWS reservation through Mee-seva."

9. In the case on hand, the notification was issued on 23.12.2022 and the last date for submission of application was 27.01.2023 and admittedly, the appellant has submitted his application on 26.01.2023.

10. A reading of para-10 of G.O.Ms.No.65, General Administration (Ser.D) Department, dated 19.03.2021, goes to show that in the instant case, the crucial date for submitting I & A Certificate by a candidate vis-à-vis the last date of submission of application is 27.01.2023, which impliedly provides that the candidate is required to submit the EWS Certificate for the financial year 2021-22.

13. In G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 19.03.3021, certain guidelines were issued for implementation of 10% reservation to EWS in respect of initial appointments and in the said G.O., it was categorically stated at Cause No.10 that the crucial date for submitting Income and Asset Certificate by the candidate may be treated as the closing date for receipt of application for the post. In the instant case, the notification dated 01.11.2024 is issued by following the aforesaid guideline. Therefore, the appellant cannot plead that it is impossible for him to obtain EWS Certificate for the financial year 2021-22 and as such, his prayer for issuance of direction to the authorities concerned not to insist upon production of such Certificate cannot be entertained."

12) From the above, it is clear that the persons who are

intending to avail the benefit of reservation under G.O.Ms.No.65,

GAD, 19.03.2021 and G.O.Ms.No.244, GAD, dated 24.08.2021

and apply to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, pursuant

to Notification No.12/2022, dated 03.09.2022, must have to

obtain/possess the Income Certificate prior to crucial date

i.e. the last date for submission of applications i.e. '14.10.2022'

in the present case.

13) Further, as per the Notification No.12/2022, dated

03.09.2022, the schedule for submission of online applications

starts from 22.09.2022 and ends by 14.10.2022. Therefore, as

per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred above

and also the Division Bench judgment of this Court in

W.A.No.1364 of 2024 and also in terms of G.O.Ms.No.65 dated

19.3.2021, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is

required to submit EWS Certificate for the financial year 2021-

2022 issued before the crucial date i.e. on or before 14.10.2022.

14) Here, this Court feels it apt to extract the relevant portion

of the additional counter affidavit, which putforth the specific

stand urged by the respondents as regards the EWS certificate

submitted by the petitioner herein and the same reads as

follows:

"10. Further, the candidate mentioned in her Application under EWS Column as YES, but she has failed to possess EWS MeeSeva Certificate at the time of submission of Application as required under IMPORTANT NOTE in Point 4, Para 1 of the Notification. It is also submitted that, the petitioner, M. Shruthi has submitted a recently issued and manually signed EWS certificate obtained after publication of General Ranking List and at the time of document verification which is contrary to the directions of the Government as well as the terms and conditions of the Notification as mentioned in Paras 6, 7 and 8 of this affidavit. Hence, her candidature was not considered against EWS quota."

15) Further, admittedly, the petitioner has submitted four

EWS Certificates; first and second certificates were issued on

27.9.2022 and 15.06.2023 respectively, however, in both the

said certificates financial year was not mentioned; third

certificate dated 26.7.2023 was issued for the financial year

2023-2024; and the last certificate was issued manually on

21.03.2024 for the financial year 2021-2022, but in view of the

law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Divya's case

(referred supra), the petitioner is required to submit EWS

MeeSeva certificate for the financial year 2021-2022 issued on

before the crucial date i.e.14.10.2022.

16) Therefore, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has not

fulfilled the requirement in producing the EWS certificate in

terms of in terms of G.O.Ms.No.65 dated 19.03.2021, as well as

para 10 (A) (xv) of the Notification dated 03.09.2022. When the

petitioner intends to avail the benefit of reservation under

G.O.Ms.No.65, dated 19.03.2021, she must have been diligent in

obtaining/possessing the EWS Certificate for the financial year

2021-2022 as on crucial date i.e.14.10.2022 itself.

17) For the afore-stated reasons, this Court does not find any

merit in the writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

18) Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any,

pending in this writ petition stand closed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

_____________________ PULLA KARTHIK, J Date: 13.03.2025.

Note: Issue C.C. in two weeks.

(b/o) DA/sur