W.P.(C)/4623/2020 of UNION OF INDIA Vs ABHIJEET ALKESH AND ORS

Writ Petition (Civil) No.

CERTIFICATE

1. The case is fit for consignment and that no proceedings are pendingeither in the High Court of Delhi or in the Supreme Court of India,in terms of rules as provided in Ch-5(C) of the High Court Rules &.Orders Vol.-V", as no communication has been received in thisrespect.either in the High Court of Delhi or in the Supreme Court of India,in terms of rules as provided in Ch-5(C) of the High Court Rules &.Orders Vol.-V", as no communication has been received in thisrespect.

2. it is also certified that al l the relevant papers including office notingpertaining to payments and return of FRD/Bank Guarantee or otherdocuments have been removed from Part 'B' and have been placedat the end of Part 'A' at pages -— topertaining to payments and return of FRD/Bank Guarantee or otherdocuments have been removed from Part 'B' and have been placedat the end of Part 'A' at pages -— to

3. During Covid Period, En-bloc dates W.E.F 17.03.2020 to 14.02.2022were given by the Hon'ble Court and for such period no court orderswere passed by the Hon'ble Court.were given by the Hon'ble Court and for such period no court orderswere passed by the Hon'ble Court.

I\ VPrepared by:

Dealing AssistantI.D No.

A.O.J(Writs)f

Asst. Regist|;ar/ Dy. Registrar,7^o\

(\fC\ ^ I /T^

1) Oir^:ije>L ^Kje_i^ Hp

$-5*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P. (C) 4623/2020 & CM APPLs. 16717-16720/2020

UNION OF INDIA Petitioner

Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG withMr. Sahaj Garg, Advocate.

versus

ABHIJEET ALKESH & ORS.

& ORS. ORS. RespondentsThrough: Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate for UPSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHANHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

ORDER

28.07.2020

The petition has been listed before this Bench by the Registry in view ofthe urgency expressed therein. The same has been heard by way of videoconferencing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the connected matters arelisted for hearing before the Division Bench-IV on 29^'°' July, 2020.

Accordingly, list the present writ petition along with W.P.(C)No.701/2020 and W.P.(C) No. 1158/2020, before the Division Bench-IV on29^ July, 2020, subject to orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. Copy of the order bealso forwarded to the learned counsel through e-mail.

MANMOHAN, J

SANJEEV NARUL.^

JULY 28,2020/Js

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) 4623/2020

Versus

ABHIJEET ALKESH AND ORS

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDULHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGHORDER%29.07.2020

The present matter has been taken up for hearing by way of VideoConferencing on account of COVlD-19 pandemic.

CM APPL.16717/2020 & CM APPL.16718/2020 (Exemption)

Exemptions granted subject to all just exceptions.

The applications are disposed of accordingly.

CM APPL.16720/2020 (Exemption)

The present application under Section 151 of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 has been filed on behalf of the applicant/petitioner seekingexemption from filing duly attested affidavits in support of theW.P.(C)4623/2020 Page 1 of 2

accompanying petition, as well as, applications and to pay the requisitecourt fees.

For the reasons stated in the application and in view of the presentprevailing situation, the same is allowed. The apphcant/petitioner ispermitted to file the duly attested affidavits within period of one weekfrom the date of resumption of regular functioning of the Court. Further,the applicant/petitioner is permitted to file the requisite court fee within aperiod of 72 hours from the date of resumption of regular functioning of theCourt.

With the above directions, the present application is disposed of.

W.P.(C) 4623/2020 & CM APPL.16719/2020 fStavf

The present writ petition has been received on transfer and is statedto be connected with W.P.(C) 701/2020 titled 'Satabdi Mazumder and Orsvs. Union Of India and Anr.\ and the other connected matters listed todayas Item Nos.4 to 7.

Renotify along with W.P.(C) 701/2020 and other connected matterson 04.08.2020.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

ANT SINCm, J

JULY 29,2020Afri/h«^

W.P.(C)4623/2020

u-try

$~9 to 13

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) 701/2020 & CM APPL. 16064/2020

SATABDIMAZUMDER AND ORS.

AND ORS. ORS. PetitionersThrough: Mr. Arpit Shukla, Ms. GargiSrivastava, Mr. J. Sai Deepak andMs. Mitali Chauhan, Advocates

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

AND ANR. ANR. RespondentsThrough: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocate for R-l/UOIMr. Naresh Kaushik, with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2/UPSCSahaj Garg, Advocate for R-l/UOIMr. Naresh Kaushik, with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2/UPSC

W.P.(C) 1158/2020 & CM APPL. 3855/2020

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION THROUGH THE^TT CHAII^JVIAN TT3Tv/r Tw Petitionernt-yA nt-yA AAr

Petitionernt-yA nt-yA AArThrough: Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates

Versus

SAUMYA PANDEY & ORS.

Respondents _

Through: Mr. Arpit Shukla, Ms. Gargi_Srivastava, Mr. J. Sai Deepak andMs. Mitali Chauhan, AdvocatesMr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocate for R-22Mr. Arunav Patnaik and Mr. ShikharSaha, Advocates forintervener/applicantSrivastava, Mr. J. Sai Deepak andMs. Mitali Chauhan, AdvocatesMr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocate for R-22Mr. Arunav Patnaik and Mr. ShikharSaha, Advocates forintervener/applicant

W.P.(C) 1195/2020

PetitionerPRINCE GARGThrough:Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natarajand Mr. Avinash K. Sharma,AdvocatesThrough:Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natarajand Mr. Avinash K. Sharma,Advocates

Versus

RespondentsAND ANR.ANR.Through:Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocate for R-l/UOIMr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2/UPSCSahaj Garg, Advocate for R-l/UOIMr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2/UPSC

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.ANR.

W.P.(C) 1365/2020

Petitioner

VIKAS AGARWAL

Through:Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natarajand Mr. Avinash K. Sharma,Advocatesand Mr. Avinash K. Sharma,Advocates

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

AND ANR. ANR. fc/?™^ mThrough: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocate for R-l/UOIMr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2/UPSCSahaj Garg, Advocate for R-l/UOIMr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2/UPSC

W.P.(C) 4623/2020 & CM APPL. 16719/2020

Petitioner

UNION OF INDIA

W.P.(C) 701/2020 and connected matters

Through; Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocate

versus

ABHIJEET ALKESH AND ORS RespondentsThrough: Mr. Arpit Shukla, Ms. GargiSrivastava and Ms. Mitali Chauhan,Advocates for R-1Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forUPSC/R-2

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDULHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGHORDER0/^ 04.08.2020

The present matters have been taken up for hearing by way of VideoConferencing on account of COVID-19 pandemic.

At joint request of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties,the hearing of the writ petitions is adjourned.

Renotify on 11.08.2020.

SIDDl^RTH MRIDUL, J

TALWANT SINte, J

AUGUST 04, 2020/cWpci.

rhrh hPTP. to check corrifrendum. if any

$~4 to 8*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(C) 701/2020SATABDI MAZUMDER AND ORS. PetitionersThrough: Mr. Salman Khurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advocates for P-2, 4, 6and 8Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natarajand Mr. Avinash K. Sharma,Advocates

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. RespondentsThrough: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocate for R-l/UOI.Mr. Naresh Kaushik, with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2/UPSC.

+W.P.(C) 1158/2020

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Petitioner

Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates.

Versus

SAUMYA PANDEY & ORS. RespondentsThrough: Mr. Salman Khurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advocates

W.P.(C) 701/2020, W.P.(C) 1158/2020, W.P.(C) 1195/2020,W.P.(C) 1365/2020 & W.P.(C) 4623/2020 Page 1 of 4

Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocate for R-22.Mr. Arunav Patnaik and Ms.Anandini Kumar, Advocates for R-23.

+W.P.(C) 1195/2020PRINCE GARGPetitionerThrough: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natraj andMr. Avinash K. Sharma, Advocates.VersusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. RespondentsThrough: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocate for R-l/UOI.Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates.

W.P.(C) 1365/2020

VIKAS AGARWALPetitionerThrough:Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natarajand Mr. Avinash K. Sharma,Advocates.

VersusUNION OF INDIA AND ANR. RespondentsThrough: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocate for R-l/UOI.Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates.W.P.(C) 4623/2020UNION OF INDIAPetitionerW.P.(C) 701/2020, W.P.(C) 1158/2020, W.P.(C) 1195/2020,W.P.(C) 1365/2020 & W.P.(C) 4623/2020Page 2 of 4

Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocate.

Versus

ABHIJEET ALKESH AND ORS RespondentsThrough: Mr. Salman Khurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advoeates for R-1.Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Mr.Vardhman^ Kaushik, Advocates forUPSC/R-2.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDULHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGH

ORDER%11.08.2020

The present matters have been taken up for hearing by way of VideoConfereneing on aecount of COVID-19 pandemic.

CM APPL.i7670/2020 & CM APPL.18644/2020 (Exemptions) inW.p.rci 701/2020

The present applications under Section 151 of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 have been filed on behalf of the applieants/petitionersseeking permission to file the documents without proper margin anduncertified copies, the duly affidavits without attestation in support of theaecompanying applications and to pay requisite court fees.

For the reasons stated in the applications and in view of theprevailing situation, the same are allowed. The applieants/petitioners arepermitted to file the duly signed and attested affidavits within period ofone week from the date of resumption of regular functioning of the Court.

W.P.(C) 701/2020, W.P.(C) 1158/2020, W.P.(C) 1195/2020,W.P.(C) 1365/2020 & W.P.(C) 4623/2020

The applicants/petitioners are also permitted to file the requisite court feewithin period of one week from the date of resumption of regularfunctioning of the Court. Further, the applicants/petitioners are permitted tofile the documents without proper margin and uncertified copies, subject toall just exceptions.

With the above directions, the present applications are disposed of.

W.P.(C) 701/2020, CM APPL. 16064/2020. CM APPL.18643/2020, CM

APPL.17669/2020

W.P.(C) 1158/2020 & CM APPL. 3855/2020

W.P.(C) 1195/2020

W.P.(C) 1365/2020

W.P.(C) 4623/2020 & CM APPL. 16719/2020

Re-notify for further hearing on 20.08.2020.

SIDBHARTH MRIDUL, J

TALWANT SINGH, J

AUGUST 11, 2020/cfri/pcu

$~3 to 7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) 701/2020, CM APPL. 16064/2020, CM APPL.18643/2020 & CM APPL. 17669/202018643/2020 & CM APPL. 17669/2020

SATABDIMAZUMDER AND ORS. PetitionersThrough: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natarajand Mr. Avinash K. Shanna,Advocates for P-1 ^Mr. Salman Khurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advocates for P-2, P-4,P-6 and P-8Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natarajand Mr. Avinash K. Shanna,Advocates for P-1 ^Mr. Salman Khurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advocates for P-2, P-4,P-6 and P-8

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Respondents

Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocate for R-1Sahaj Garg, Advocate for R-1

Mr. Naresh Kaushik, with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forVardhman Kaushik, Advocates for

W.P.(C) 1158/2020 & CM APPL. 3855/2020

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION PetitionerThrough: Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates

versus

SAUMYA PANDEY & ORS. RespondentsThrough: Mr. Salman Khurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,

W.P.(C) 1365/2020 & W.P.(C) 4623/2020

Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, AdvocatesChauhan, Advocates

Mr. Chetan Shanna, ASG with Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocate for R-22Anil Dabas, Advocate for R-22

Mr. Arunav Patnaik and Mr.Anandini Kumar, Advoeates forR-23

W.P.(C) 1195/2020

PetitionerPRINCE GARGThrough:Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natraj andMr. Avinash K. Sharma, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Respondents

Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advoeate for R-l/UOI.Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates.

W.P.(C) 1365/2020

Petitioner

VIKAS AGARWAL

Through:Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natarajand Mr. Avinash K. Sharma,Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Respondents

Through: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Advocate for R-1Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates

W.P.(C) 701/2020, W.P.(C) 1158/2020, W.P.(C) 1195/2020,W.P.(C) 1365/2020 & W.P.(C) 4623/2020

+W.P.(C) 4623/2020 & CM APPL. 16719/2020

UNION OF INDIA

Petitioner

Through:

Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG with Mr.Neeraj, Mr. Sahaj Garg, Mr. R.V.Prabhat, Mr. Amit Gupta and Mr.Avnish Roy, AdvocatesNeeraj, Mr. Sahaj Garg, Mr. R.V.Prabhat, Mr. Amit Gupta and Mr.Avnish Roy, Advocates

versus

ABHIJEET ALKESH AND ORS RespondentsThrough: Mr. Salman Khurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advocates for R-1Through: Mr. Salman Khurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advocates for R-1

Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forVardhman Kaushik, Advocates for

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDULHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGHOIUPERo/„ 20.08.2020

The present matter has been taken up for hearing by way of VideoConferencing on account of COVID-19 pandemic.

For further arguments, list on 26.08.2020.

SIDfflHARTH MRIDUL, J

TALWANT SINCm, J

AUGUST 20, 2020/dn/pa.

Click here to check corri2endum, if any

W.P.(C) 701/2020, W.P.(C) 1158/2020, W.P.(C) 1195/2020,W.P.(C) 1365/2020 & W.P.(C) 4623/2020

$~10tol4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

tW.P.(C) 701/2020, CM APPL.l6064/2020, CM APPL.l7669/2020& CM APPL.l8643/2020

SATABDI MAZUMDER AND ORS. Petitioners

Through: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Nataraj,Mr. Avinash K. Sharma and Mr. RAbhishek, Advoeates for P-1.Mr. Avinash K. Sharma and Mr. RAbhishek, Advoeates for P-1.

Mr. Salman Khurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advoeates for P-2, P-4,P-6 and P-8Advocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advoeates for P-2, P-4,P-6 and P-8

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Respondents

Through: Mr. Chetan Shanna,.ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr.Neeraj, Mr. R.V. Prabhat and Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocates for R-ISahaj Garg, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr.Neeraj, Mr. R.V. Prabhat and Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocates for R-IVMr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2

tW.P.(C) 1158/2020 & CM APPL. 3855/2020

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Petitioner

Through: Mr. Naresh Kaushik and Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, AdvoeatesVardhman Kaushik, Advoeates

versus

SAUMYA PANDEY & ORS. Respondents""fhrough: Mr. Salman Kdiurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advocates""fhrough: Mr. Salman Kdiurshid, SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava and Ms. MitaliChauhan, Advocates

Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG and Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocate for R-22Anil Dabas, Advocate for R-22

W.P.(C) 701/2020 and connected maltcrs

W.P.(C) 1195/2020

Mr. Arunav Patnaik and Mr.Anandini Kumar, Advocates forR-23.

PRINCE GARGPetitionerThrough;Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Nataraj,Mr. Avinash K. Sharma and Mr. RAbhishek, AdvocatesThrough;Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Nataraj,Mr. Avinash K. Sharma and Mr. RAbhishek, Advocates

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

Respondents

Through: Mr. Chetan Shanna, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr.Neeraj, Mr. R.V. Prabhat and Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocates for R-l/UOI.Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2Sahaj Garg, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr.Neeraj, Mr. R.V. Prabhat and Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocates for R-l/UOI.Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2

W.P.(C) 1365/2020

VIKAS AGARWALPetitioners

Through:Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Natarajand Mr. Avinash K. Shanna,Advocatesand Mr. Avinash K. Shanna,Advocates

Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

AND ANR. ANR. RespondentsThrough: Mr. Chetan Shanna, ASG with Mr.Sahaj Garg, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr.Neeraj, Mr. R.V. Prabhat and Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocates for R-1Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2Sahaj Garg, Mr. Amit Gupta, Mr.Neeraj, Mr. R.V. Prabhat and Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocates for R-1Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Mr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates forR-2

-I-W.P.(C) 4623/2020 & CM APPL. I67I9/2020

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUUHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TAUWANT SINGHORDER

26.08.2020

The present matters have been taken up for hearing by way of VideoConferencing on account of COVID-19 pandemic.

Arguments have been heard.

Judgement is reserved.

SIDDWARTH MRIDUL, J

TAUWANT SINGH, J

AUGUST 26, 2020/cin/pax

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment Reserved on: 26.08.2020Judgement pronounced on: 11.09.2020

W.P.(C) 1158/2020 & CM APPL. 3855/2020

UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

SERVICE COMMISSION COMMISSION PetitionerThrough: Mr. Naresh Kaushik andMr.Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates

versus

SAUMYA PANDEY & ORS.

Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG andMr.Anil Dabas, Advocate for R-22.Mr.Anil Dabas, Advocate for R-22.

Mr. Arunav Patnaik andMr.Anandini Kumar, AdvocatesforR-23.

+W.P.(C) 4623/2020 & CM APPL. 16719/2020

versus

ABHIJEET ALKESH AND ORS

Respondents

Through: Mr. Salman Khurshid,SeniorAdvocate with Mr. Arpit

Khurshid,

W.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 1 of 60

Shukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava andMs. MitaliChauhan, Advs for R-1.

Mr. NareshKaushik andMr.VardhmanKaushik,Advocates.

+W.P.(C) 701/2020, CM APPL.16064/2020,CMAPPL.17669/2020 & CM APPL.18643/2020SATABDIMAZUMDER AND ORS. PetitionersThrough: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G.Nataraj, Mr. Avinash K. Sharmaand Mr. RAbhishek, Advocates forP-1.

versus

Mr. Salman Khurshid,Senior Advocate with Mr. ArpitShukla,Ms. Gargi Srivastava andMs. MitaliChauhan, Advocates forP-2, P-4,P-6 and P-8.

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ' RespondentsThrough: Mr. Chetan Sharma, ASG withMr.Sahaj Garg, Mr. Amit Gupta,Mr.Neeraj, Mr. R.V. Prabhat andMr.Anil Dabas, Advocates for R-1.Mr. Naresh Kaushik withMr.Vardhman Kaushik, AdvocatesforR-2.

+W.P.(C) 1195/2020

PRINCE GARGPetitionerThrough:Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Mr. G. Nataraj,Mr. Avinash K. Sharma and Mr. R.Abhishek, Advocates.

versus

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.Respondents

W.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 2 of 60

JUDGMENT

TALWANT SINGH. J.

1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orderof leamed Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 13 thJanuary,2020 in batch of Original Applications (OAs) filed by candidatesbelonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of societyattempting the Civil Services Examination-2019 (CSE-2019). The UPSCand Union of India, who are the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.1158/2020 andW.P.(C) No.4623/2020 respectively,were the respondents before theW.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 3 of 60

CAT; and the respondents in these two writ petitions as well as thepetitioners in the other writ petitions bearing W.P.(C) Nos.701/2020,1195/2020 and 1356/2020 were the original applieants before the CAT.

2. Broadly speaking, the present matters relate to theCSE-2019 andthe applieants before CAT were the candidates for the said examinationbelonging to EWS category. It is to be noticed here that for the first timein the history of India, reservation for the EWS category was provided inthe CSE examination, on the basis of the Constitution (103''*)Amendment. The provision for reservation was notified vide OM dated31®' January, 2019 and the notification for holding CSE-2019 was issuedon 19"' February, 2019, on the basis of the Rules framed by Departmentof Personnel & Training (DoP&T) which were published on the sameday, i.e., 19"^ February, 2019. The detailed Rules provide forthe schemeof examination, the qualification which the candidates should possess andthe important dates in relation to the preliminary examination, mfiinexamination and interview etc. as well as the different stages at which theessential documents and their eligibility were to be submitted by thecandidates. As per the Rules notified by DoP&Tand the notificationissued by UPSC, all the candidates were required to possess the necessarydocuments to claim the exemptions/relaxations/edueational qualificationetc., on the last date of applying for preliminary examination, i.e., 18"'March, 2019. However, in the case of candidates who had alreadyappeared or were appearing in their final academic examination, theresult should have been in the candidate's possession before filling theDetailed Application Form-1 (DAF-1). Moreover, for candidatesclaiming EWS status, the UPSC noticed that the reservation was notifiedthrough Office Memorandumissued on 31®' January, 2019;henee it was

W.P.fC) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 4 of 60

provided that the said candidates may obtain the necessary certificate inthe prescribed format from the eoncemed authorities before 1®^ August,2019 and the same was to be uploaded along withDAF-1. Broadly, allthe applicants had approached the CAT with the grievance that, since theeoncemed authorities were not aware about the procedure to be followedfor issuing the requisite EWS certificates, there were administrativedifficulties, and resultantly they were unable to obtain the said EWScertificates, before the prescribed date i.e. E' August, 2019.

3. After hearing both the sides and on the basis of detailed argumentsaddressed by leamed counsel appearing for the contestants, CAT waspleased to partially allow the OAs thereby extending the stipulated datetill by which the candidates/applicants could have obtained the EWScertificate to the Ib'^ August, 2019, being the last date to upload DAF-1.There was class of candidates/applicants who could not obtain the saidcertificates even by 16'^ August, 2019 and, therefore, their prayer forextension of the last date for submission of EWS certificates, till the timeof final scmtiny after the mains examination, was rejected by CAT. Theoperative paragraph of the impugned order dated 13^'' January, 2020 ofthe CAT is reproduced hereunder:

"32. For the foregoing reasons, we partly allow these OAs,directing that the UPSC shall treat the EWS certificates issuedup to 16.08.2019 as valid, and accept the claims of suchcandidates. Necessary steps in this behalf shall be taken forthe purpose of declaration of results. We further direct that therelief in this batch of OAs is restricted only to such candidateswho have taken part in the final Examination, and not thosewho did not take part in it".directing that the UPSC shall treat the EWS certificates issuedup to 16.08.2019 as valid, and accept the claims of suchcandidates. Necessary steps in this behalf shall be taken forthe purpose of declaration of results. We further direct that therelief in this batch of OAs is restricted only to such candidateswho have taken part in the final Examination, and not thosewho did not take part in it".

4. Feeling aggrieved, not only the affected candidates, who were theoriginal applicants before the CAT, but also the UPSC and Union of Indiaoriginal applicants before the CAT, but also the UPSC and Union of India

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 5 of 60

have filed these writ petitions. The prayer of UPSC and Union of India isthat the order of CAT dated! S'*" January, 2020 extending the date forobtaining the EWS certificates from U' August, 2019 to lb"" August,2019 is contrary to law and the same is liable to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, the candidates/applicants who did not benefitfrom this extension of approximately 15 days given by the impugnedorder, for obtaining the EWS certificateshave approached this Courtmainly praying for allowing their original applications, and seekingmodification of the said order dated 13'^ January, 2020 passed by CAT, totreat their EWS certificates obtained even after lb"' August, 2019 asvalid.

6. Notices were issued in the writ petitions and after completion ofpleadings, the matters were heard at length. There were also certainintervention applications, filed in the meantime, in the lead writ bearingW.P.(C) No.1158/2020; the said applications were allowed and amendedmemos of parties were filed. The memo of parties available as on date onrecord have been reproduced in the title of the present order. After muchdiscussion, broadly the following three categories of candidates haveemerged;

Category No.l: The candidates who had obtained correct EWScertificates on or after August, 2019 upto 16"^ August, 2019 andthey had uploaded the said certificates along with their DAF-1forms.

Category No.2: The candidates who could not obtain EWScertificates before lb"' August, 2019 but they had obtained the

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 6 of 60

necessary certificates before the final scrutiny after the mainsexamination.

Category No.3: The candidates who had not obtained the EWScertificates in the prescribed format before E' August, 2019 (and assuch these certificates were faulty) but who had obtained thecertificates in the prescribed format thereafter and submitted thesaid certificates in correct format to UPSC later on.

7. As far as the third category is concerned, two candidatesmainlySatabdiMazumderand Sridhar Limbikai fall in that category andUPSC had graciously agreed to consider their correct certificatessubmitted after 16'^ August, 2019 as they had earlier submitted the EWScertificates obtained before V August, 2019 although not in theprescribed format. The claim of these two candidates stands satisfiedonthe basis of concession given by UPSC, leaving behind the candidatesbroadlyin the first two categories, i.e. the candidates who had obtainedthe certificates in prescribed format after July, 2019 but before 16""August, 2019 and the candidates who have obtained the EWS certificatesin prescribed format after 16"^ August, 2019. The candidates who hadobtained the EWS certificates in correct format before lb'*" August, 2019are the beneficiaries of the impugned order dated 13^*" January, 2020passed by the CAT and the said candidates are NavneetKaur,RavneetKaur, ShreyaSinghal and KhajanTiwari.

8. The main line of argument of all the candidates/applicants is thatthe reservation for EWS category was introduced for the first time inJanuary, 2019; the certificate issuing authorities were not aware about theformalities to be completed for issuing the said certificates, which

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/202O and connected matters Page 7 of 60

required them to not only assess the income of the candidate and hisfamily members but also the assets held by them. This was verycumbersome procedure which required long time to complete. It wasnot possible to complete all the formalities by the concerned authorities toissue the certificate before 1'' August, 2019 and as such they ought tohave been given time till fmal scrutiny to submit the said EWScertificates, because for all other concessions and reservations, the finalscrutiny is required to be done oply after mains examination stage.

9. On the other hand, the consistent stand of UPSC and Union ofIndia is that they themselves had realized that the reservation for EWScategory was provided for the first time in January, 2019, so instead ofensuring that the candidates ought to have been in possession of the saidcertificate on 18'*' March, 2019 itself, they had extended the time forsubmission of the same till August, 2019. Moreover, the CentralGovernment had informed all the State Govemments to notify theeoncemed authorities about the format in which the EWS certificate wasto be issued, the formalities to be completed and the conditions to befulfilled for obtaining the said certificate immediately after 3U' January,2019. Hence, there was no occasion for the CAT to extend the date forobtaining the said certificates from U'August, 2019 to Ib^*" August, 2019.Moreover, the other candidates, who had not obtained the said certificatestill 16 thAugust, 2019, have no legal or cogent ground in their favour toclaim that they can obtain and submit these certificates till the stage of thefmal scrutiny. It has also clarified on behalf of UPSC and Union of Indiathat although the final scrutiny takes place after the final examination butit has been specifically mentioned in the notification that the applicantsshould possess the qualifications and the certifieations on the date when

W.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 8 of 60

they file the form for preliminary examination of CSE-2019 and the saiddate was 18'Wch, 2019. It was extended only as one-time measurefor EWS candidates to V August, 2019. It has also been argued that thecut-off dates and different milestone in conducting the civil servicesexamination cannot be tinkered with by the courts or tribunals as the saiddates are based upon the Rules framed by DoP&T and duly publicisedvide examination notification issued by UPSC and if those dates are nottaken as sacrosanct, the entire process of civil services examination willgo haywire and UPSC will not be in position to fulfill its obligation ofconducting the examination and the interviews on time for the filling ofthe posts of the civil services of the Government.

10. On behalf of the candidates, the major thrust has been on theargument that the EWS category being introduced for the first time and acandidate and his family belonging to this category being required to beassessed for particular period — in this case for the financial year 2017-18 — it does not matter as to whether the said certificate was issued beforeE' August, 2019 or thereafter because the date of the said certificate willnot alter the economic status of the candidate and his family for thefinancial year 2017-18. Since the concemed authorities not only had toassess the income during the said financial year, i.e., 2017-18 but theyalso have to take into account all the assets held by the candidate and hisfamily members during the said financial year and the verificationprocess itself is very tedious, so naturally it would take more time and insome cases it has been mentioned that the concemed authorities were notavailable due to strikes etc. and that has resulted in delay in issuing theEWS certificates to the candidates.

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/2O2O and connected matters Page 9 of 60

11. The CAT has considered all these grounds in detail and have goneinto the basis as to why the goalpost to have EWS certificate was changedfrom 18 March, 2019 to 1 August, 2019 and the rationale behind thechange of the last date to obtain the EWS certificate and why the EWScertificate could not have been obtained before submitting the same alongwith DAF-1 form on 16 August, 2019. The conclusion arrived by CATis that UPSC and Union of India have not been able to substantiate thereason for fixing the cut-off date to obtain the EWS certificate before VAugust, 2019 whereas the said certificate was to be submitted only withDAF-1 form by the Ib^'August, 2019. The CAT has given reference tothe cut-off date of IS^Mareh, 2019 being the date on which all thecandidates should have obtained the certificates as required for claimingthe reservations/relaxations. The second stage in this regard or secondgoalpost established by UPSC is only on 16^ August, 2019, that is thedate on which the candidates who have qualified in the preliminaryexamination have to submit their DAF-1 form, so creating an artificialgoalpost in-between, i.e.,on U' August, 2019 has no rational basis. TheCAT has also kept in view that it is not interfering or changing the dateson which the forms have to be submitted or the examinations have to beheld or scrutiny of documents has to take place.

12. To discuss the various aspects of the matter, it is necessary to havea glimpse of the circumstances under which the controversy arose. Abrief history of the dispute in hand is detailed in the followingparagraphs.

13. On S"" January, 2019, to comply with the mandate of Article 46 ofthe Constitution of India to give fair chance to economically weaker

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 10 of 60

sections of society to participate in gaining higher edueation andemployment, the State Bill no.3 of 2019 or the Constitution (103"^)Amendment Bill, 2019 was introduced in Parliament by UnionGovernment for providing reservation for economically weaker sectionsof society in edueational institutions as well as in initial appointments inserviees under the Govemment.

14. The Constitution (103^^) Amendment Act, 2019 was enacted by theParliament, which provided for insertion of Clause (6) in Article 15 andClause (6) in Article 16 of the Constitution of India to enable the State tomake provision for reservation in admission to educational institutionsand in public employment for persons belonging to economieally weakerseetions of society. The notification of the said Amendment isreproducedhereinbelow;

"Notification dated 12.01.2019

An Aet further to amend the Constitution oflndia.BE it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-ninthYear of theRepublic oflndia as follows: ■—

1. (1) This Act may be called the Constitution(OneHundred and Third Amendment) Act, 2019.

(2) It shall come into force on sueh date astheCentral Govemment may, by notification intheOfficial Gazette, appoint.

2. In article 15 of the Constitution, after clause(5),—the following clause shall be inserted, namely:

'(6) Nothing in this artiele or sub-elause (g) ofclause (1) of artiele 19 or elause (2) of article 29-shallprevent the State from making,

(a) any speeial provisionfor the advancementofany economically weaker sections ofcitizens otherthan the elasses mentioned inclauses (4) and (5); and

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 andconne;ctedmatters Page 11 of 60

(b) any special provision for the advancement of anyeconomically weaker sections ofcitizens other thanthe classes mentioned inclauses (4) and'(5)' insofaras sueh speeialprovisions relate to their admissiontoedueational institutions includingprivateeducational institutions, whether aided orunaided by State, other than the minorityeducational institutions referred toin clause (1) ofarticle 30, which in the caseof reservation would bein addition to the existing reservations and subject toamaximum of ten per cent of the total seats ineachcategory.

Explanation: For the purposes of this articleandartiele 16, economically weaker sections"shall hesueh as may be notified by the Statefrom time totime on the basis of family incomeand other:indicators. - of economicdisadvantage,'.

3. In article 16 of the Constitution, after clause(5),-the following clause shall be inserted, namely;

"(6) Nothing in' this-article shall prevent theStatefrom making any provision for the reservationofappointments or posts in favour of anyeconomicallyweaker sections of citizens other thanthe classesmentioned in clause (4), in addition to theexistingreservation and subject to maximum of tenper centof the posts in eaeh category".

15. In pursuance thereto, the Department of Social JusticeandEmpowerment, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment,Government of India issued Memorandum no.F.20013/01/2018-BC-II dated 1?"^ January, 2019 in order to enable persons fromeconomically weaker sections of society to receive the benefits ofreservation in admissions in educational institutes as well as inappointments to civil posts and services under the Government of

W.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 12 of 60

India. The reservation for EWS was capped at 10%, provided thesaid persons are not covered under the existing scheme of reservationfor the Scheduled Castes. The said OM dated 17"" January, 2019 isreproduced herein;

"(For Internal Circulation only)F.No. 20013/01/2018-BC-llGovemment of IndiaMinistry of Social Justice and EmpowermentDepartment of Social Justice and Empowerment

1?"^ January, 2019

ShastriBhawan, New Delhi

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Sub: Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections(EWSs) in civil posts and services in theGovernment of India and Admission inEducational Institutions

In pursuance of insertion of clauses 15 (6) and 16 (6) inthe Constitution vide the Constitution (One Hundredand Third Amendment) Act, 2019 and in order to enablethe Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) who are notcovered under the existing scheme of reservations forthe Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and theSocially and Educationally Backward Classes, toreceive the benefits of reservation on preferential basisin civil posts and services in the Govemment of toprovide 10% reservation to EWSs in civil posts andservices in Govemment of India and admission inEducational Institutions.

2. Persons who are not covered under the existingscheme reservations for the Scheduled Castes, theScheduled Tribes and the Socially and EducationallyBackward Classes and whose family has gross annualincome below Rs. 8.00 lakh are to be identified asEWSs for the benefit of reservation. Family for this

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 13 of 60

purpose will include the person who seeks benefit ofreservation, his/her parents and siblings below the ageof 18 years as also his/her spouse and children below theage of 18 years. The income shall include income fromall sources i.e. salary, agriculture, business, professionetc. and it will be income for the financial year prior tothe year of application. Also, persons whose familyowns or possess any of the following assets shall beexcluded from being identified as EWSs, irrespective ofthe family income:

(i) 5 acres of Agricultural land and above;

(ii) Residential flat of 1000 sq. ft. and above;

(iii) Residential plot of 100 sq. yards and above innotified municipalities;

(i) Residential plot of 200 sq. yards and abovein areas other than the notified municipalities.

3. The income and assets of the families as mentionedin para 2 would be required to be certified by an officernot below the rank of Tehsildar in the States/UTs. Theofficer who issues the certificate would do the sameafter carefully verifying all relevant documentsfollowing due process as prescribed by the respectiveState/UT.

4. Every Educational Institution shall, with the priorapproval of the appropriate authority, increase thenumber of seats over and above its annual permittedstrength in each branch of study or faculty so that thenumber of seats available, excluding those reserved forthe persons belonging to the EWSs, are not less than thetotal seats available in the academic sessionimmediately preceding the date of coming into force ofthis OM.

5. Instructions regarding reservation in employment andadmission to educational institutions will be issued byDoP&T and Ministry of HRD respectively.

B.L. Meena

Joint Secretary to Government of India"

W.P.(C) Nos. 1158/2020 and connected matters Page 14 of 60

16. Since the concerned Department to look after the recruitment isDepartment of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, PublieGrievances, Pensions, Government of India, so this Department issuedOM No.36039/l/2019-Estt.(Res.) dated 19'^ January, 2019, providing10% reservation for EWS in Central Government posts and serviees indirect recruitment w.e.f. E' February, 2019.

17. detailed notification in this regard was issued by DoP&T dated3E' January, 2019 in which the eontents of the earlier notification dated19"^ January, 2019 were reiterated and details were given as to how thestatus of an economically weaker person shall be determined on the basisof income in partieular year and the assets owned by the said person andhis family; the authorities were prescribed for issuing the said certificateand format of the said Ineome & Assets Certificate was also enclosedwith this OM. It was also provided that the said certificate issued for theprevious financial year would be valid for period of one year and theunfilled seats reserved for EWS will not be carried forward to the nextyear. The relevant portions of OM dated 3E' January, 2019 along withthe performa of the Income & Assets Certificate are reproducedhereunder:

"No. 36039/1/2019-Estt (Res)

Government of IndiaMinistry of Personnel, Public Grievances &PensionsDepartment of Personnel & TrainingNorth Block, New DelhiDated the 3 January, 2019OFFICE MEMORANDUM

SubjectrReservation for Economically Weaker Sections(EWSs)in direct recruitment in civil posts andservices in the Government of India

In continuation of the Department's OfficeMemorandum of even number dated 19.01.2019, thefollowing instructions are issued in eonsultation withMinistry of Social Justice and Empowerment andDepartment of Legal Affairs regarding reservation forEWSs not eovered under the reservation seheme forSCs/STs/OBCs in respect of direct recmitment in civilposts and services in the Government of India.

2. QUANTUM OF RESERVATION

The persons belonging to EWSs who are notcovered under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs and.OBCs shall get 10% reservation in direct recmitment incivil posts and services in the Govemment of India.

3. EXEMPTION FROM RESERVATION

3.1 "Scientific and Technical" posts which satisfy all thefollowing eonditions can be exempted from the purview ofthe reservation orders by the Ministries/Departments.

(i) The posts should be in grades above thelowest grade in Group of the servieeconcemed.

(ii) They should be classified as "seientific ortechnical' in terms of Cabinet Secretariat [OMNo. 85/ll/CF-6(l) dated 28.12.1961],according to which scientific and technicalposts for which qualifications in the naturalsciences or exaet seiences o applied seienees orin technology are prescribed and theineumbents of which have to use thatknowledge in the discharge of their duties.

(iii) The posts should be 'for conductingresearch' or 'for organizing, guiding and directresearch'.

3.2 Orders of the Minister concerned should be obtainedbefore exempting any posts satisfying the above conditionfrom the purview of the scheme of reservation.

4.CRITERIA OF INCOME &

ASSETS

4.1 Persons who are not covered under the scheme ofreservation for SCs, STs and OBCs and whose family hasgross annual income below Rs. 8.00 lakh (Rupees eightlakh only) are to be identified as EWSs for benefit ofreservation, Income shall include income from all sourcesi.e. salary, agriculture, business, profession etc. for thefinancial year prior to the year of application.

Also, persons whose family owns or possess any ofthe following assets shall be excluded from beingidentified as EWS, irrespective of the family income.

i. 5 acres of agricultural land and above;ii. Residential fat of 1000 sq. ft. and above;iii. Residential plot of 100 sq. yards andabove in notified municipalities;ii. Residential fat of 1000 sq. ft. and above;iii. Residential plot of 100 sq. yards andabove in notified municipalities;iv. Residential plot of 200 sq. yards andabove in areas other than the notifiedmunicipalities.above in areas other than the notifiedmunicipalities.

4.2 The property held by "Family" in different locationsor different places /cities would be clubbed while applyingthe land or property holding test to determine EWS status.

4.3 The term "Family"for this purpose will include theperson who seeks benefit of reservation, his/her parentsand siblings below the age of 18 years as also his/herspouse and children below the age of 18 years.

5. INCOME AND ASSET CERTIFICATE ISSUINGAUTHORITY AND VERIFICATION OFCERTIFICATE

5.1 The benefit of reservation under EWS can be availedupon production of an Income and Asset Certificate issuedby Competent Authority. The income and AssetCertificate by any one of the following authorities in theprescribed format as given in Annexure-I shall only beaccepted as proof of candidate's claim as belonging toEWS;-

(i) District Magistrate/Additional DistrictMagistrate/Collector/DeputyCommissioner/Additional DeputyCommissioner/E' ClassStipendiaryMagistrate/Sub-DivisionalMagistrate/T aluka Magistrate/ExecutiveMagistrate/Extra Assistant Commissioner(ii) Chief Presidency Magistrate/AdditionalChief Presidency Magistrate/PresidencyMagistrate

(iii) Revenue Officer not below the rank ofTehsildar and

(iv) Sub-Divisional Officer or the area wherethe candidate and/or his family normallyresides.

5.2 The officer who issues the certificate would be thesame after carefully verifying all the relevant documentsfollowing the due process as prescribed by the respectiveState/UT.

5.3 The crucial date for submitting income and assetcertificate by the candidate may be treated as the closingdate for receipt of application for the post, except in caseswhere crucial date is fixed otherwise.

5.4 The appointing authorities should, in the offer ofappointment to the candidates claiming to be belonging toEWS, include the following;-

"The appointment is provisional and issubject to the Income and asset certificate

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 18 of 60

being verified through the proper channelsand if the verification reveals that the claim tobelong to EWS is fake/false the services willbe terminated forthwith without assigning anyfurther reasons and without prejudice to suchfurther action as may be taken under theprovisions of the Indian Penal Code forproduction of fake/false certificate. "

5.5 Instructions referred to above should be strictlyfollowed so that it may not be possible for an unscrupulousperson to secure employment on the basis of false claimand if any person gets an appointment on the basis of suehfalse claim, her/his services shall be terminated invokingthe eonditions contained in the offer of appointment".

XXX

"10. LIAISON OFFTCER

Ministries/Departments/Attached and Subordinate Officesshall appoint Liaison Offieer to monitor the implementation ofreservation for EWSs.

XXX

"Annexure-I

Government of....(Name 4& Address of the authority issuing thecertificate)

INCOME & ASSET CERTIFICATE TO BEPRODUCED BY ECONOMICALLY WEAKERSECTIONS

Certificate No.

Date

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/202O and connected matters Page 19 of 60

Village/Street_PostOfficeDistrictin the State/UnionTerritory^Pin Codewhosephotograph is attested below belongs to EconomieallyWeaker Sections, since the gross annual income * ofhis/her "family"** is below Rs.8 lakh (Rupees Eight Lakhonly) for the financial year . His/her family doesnot own or possess any of the following assets*OfficeDistrictin the State/UnionTerritory^Pin Codewhosephotograph is attested below belongs to EconomieallyWeaker Sections, since the gross annual income * ofhis/her "family"** is below Rs.8 lakh (Rupees Eight Lakhonly) for the financial year . His/her family doesnot own or possess any of the following assets*

I. 5 acres of agricultural land and above;II. Residential flat of 1000 sq. ft. and above;III. Residential plot of 100 sq. yards and above;IV. Residential plot of 200 sq. yards and above;

2.Shri/Smt./Kumaribelongs to thecaste which is notrecognised as aScheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other BaekwardClasses (Central List)caste which is notrecognised as aScheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other BaekwardClasses (Central List)

Signature with seal of

OffieeNameDesignation_Recent Passport sizeattested photographof the applicant*Note 1; Income covered all sources i.e. salary,agriculture, business profession etc.

** Note 2: The term "Family" for this purpose includethe person, who seeks benefit of reservation, his/herparents and siblings below the age of 18 years as alsohis/her spouse and children below the age of 18 years.

*** Note 3: The property held by "Family" in differentlocations or different places/cities have been clubbed whileapplying the land or property holding test to determineEWS status."

18. DoP&T issued notification no.F. 13018/07/2018-ASl (I) dated 19"^February,2019 framing Rules for Civil Services Examination-2019. Forthe present discussion,Rule2 of this notification is relevant which isreproduced hereunder:

"2. (1) For the Main Examination, Candidateshall berequired to submit online; DetailedApplication Form-I(DAF-I) along with scanned documents/certificates insupport of date of birth,category [viz. SC/ST/OBC(without OBC Annexure)/EWS: [Economically WeakerSection] (without EWS Annexure)/PwBD/Ex-Serviceman)and educational qualification withrequiredExamination Fee.

(2) candidate shall be required to mandatorily indicateorder of preferences only for those servicesparticipating inthe Civil Services Examination for the year, for which heis interested to be allocated to,in the online DetailedApplication Form-II (DAF-II), before the commencementof Personality Test (Interviews) of the examination. Withthis Form, candidate will also be required touploaddocuments/certificates for' higher education,achievements in different fields, service experience,OBCAnnexure (for OBC category only), EWSAnnexure (forEWS category only), etc.

(3) In case of recommendation of his name byUPSC forservice allocation, the candidate shall beconsidered forallocation to one of those services bythe Govemment forwhich he shall indicate hispreference subject to fulfilmentof other conditions .No change in preferences of servicesonce indicatedby candidate would be permitted.

(4) candidate who wishes to be considered forlndianAdministrative Service or Indian PoliceService shall be

required to indicate in his on-lineDetailed; ApplicationForm-II his order ol^references for various Zones andCadres for whichhe would like to be considered forallotment in casehe is appointed to the IndianAdministrative Serviceor Indian Police Service and nochange in preferenceof Zone and Cadre once indicated bya Candidatewould be permitted.

Note 1: The candidates are advised to be very careful whileindicating preferences for various services or posts. In thisconnection, attention is also invited toclause (i) of rule 19;

Note 2; The candidates are advised to visitDepartment ofPersonnel and Training website www.dopt.gov.in forinformation or details aboutservice allocation, Cadreallotment and serviceprofile.

Note 3: The candidates who wish to indieatelAS/IPS astheir Service preference are advised toindicate all theZones and Cadres in the order oQ^reference in their on-lineDetailed ApplicationForm-n as per the extant CadreAllocation Policyapplicable for the Civil ServicesExamination, 2019."

19. On the basis of Rules framed by DoP&T, UPSC issuedexamination notice no.04-2019-CSP dated 19"" February, 2019 intimatingthe general public regarding holding the examination for Civil Servicesand providing for the detailed guidelines for the examination. Therelevant portions of these guidelines are reproduced hereunder:

"(HI) Minimum Educational Qualifications:The candidatemust hold degree of any ofUniversities incorporated byan Act of the Central or State Legislature in India or othereducational institutions established by an Act ofParliament or declared to be deemed as University UnderSection-3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956,or possess an equivalent qualification.

Note I:—Candidates who have appeared at an examinationthe passing of which would renderthem educationally

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 22 of 60

qualified for the Commission's examination but havenotbeen informed of theresult as also the candidates whointend to appear at such qualifying examination will alsobeeligible for admission to the Preliminary Examination.

All candidates who are declared qualified by theCommission for taking the Civil Services [Main]Examination will be required to produce proof of passingthe requisite examination alongwith their application (i.e.;Detailed Application Form-1] for the Main Examination,failing which such candidates will not be admitted to theMain Examination. Such proof of passing therequisiteexamination should be dated earlier than the duedate [closing date] of Detailed ApplicationForm-1 of theCivil Services [Main] Examination."

Xxx

"NOTE 6; Candidates are notrequiredto submit alongwiththeir applications any certificate insupport of their claimsregarding Age, Educational Qualifications, ScheduledCastes/ ScheduledTribes/Other Backward Classes/Economically Weaker Sections and Persons withBenchmarkDisability etc. which will be verified at the timeof the Main examination only. The candidatesapplying forthe examination should ensure that they fulfill all theeligibility conditions foradmission to the Examination.Their admission at all the stages of examination for whichthey areadmitted by the Commission viz. PreliminaryExamination, Main [Written] Examination and InterviewTest, will be purely provisional; subject to their satisfyingthe prescribed eligibilityconditions. If on verification atanytime before or after the Preliminary (written) Examination,and Interview Test, it is found that they do not fulfil any ofthe eligibility conditions; their candidature for theexamination will be cancelled by the Commission".

xxx

"9. candidate will be eligible to get the benefit ofcommunity reservation only in case theparticular caste towhich the candidates belong is included in the list of

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/202O and connected matters Page 23 of 60

reserved communitiesissued by the Central Government.The candidates will be eligible to get the benefit oftheEconomically Weaker Section reservation only in casethe candidate meets the criteria issued bythe CentralGovernment and in possession of such eligibilitycertification. If candidate indicatesin his/her applicationform for Civil Services [Preliminary] Examination thathe/she belongs toGeneral category but subsequently writesto the Commission to change his/her category to areservedone, such request shall not be entertained by theCommission. Further, once candidatehas chosen areserved category, no request shall be entertained forchange to other reservedcategory viz.,SC to ST, ST toSC,OBC to SC/ST or SC/ST to OBC, SC to EWS; EWS toSC, ST to EWS,EWS to ST, OBC to EWS, EWS to OBC.No reserved category candidates otherthanthoserecommended on General Merit shall be allowed tochange his/her category from Reserved toUnreserved orclaim the vacancies [Service/Cadre] for UR category afterthe declaration of fmalresult by UPSC."

XXX

"10. Candidates seeking reservation/relaxationbenefitsavailableforSC/ST/OBC/EWS/PwBD/Ex-servicemen must ensure that they are entitled tosuchreservation/relaxation as per eligibility prescribed inthe Rules/Notice. They should also be inpossession of allthe Requisite certificates in the prescribed format inSupport of their claim asstipulated in the Rules/Notice forsuch benefits, and these certificates should be dated earlierthanthe due date [closing date] of the application of CivilServices [Preliminary] Examination, 2019.

Provided further that EWS Candidates can Submit theirIncome and Assets Certificate (certificate ofeligibility) atthe time of submission of online Detailed ApplicationForm; [DAF-1]. The Income andAsset Certificate must bedated earlier than 1st August, 2019. Since reservation forEWS categorycandidates has been notified recently,therefore this extension for submission of certificate

forEWS category candidates is one-time relaxationapplicable for CSE 2019 only".

20. On the basis of the advertisement issued by UPSC, the aspirantswere ealled upon to fill the forms for preliminary examination till 18"^March, 2019 and the preliminary examination was accordingly heldthroughout the country on 2"^^ June, 2019; the result of the preliminaryexamination was declared by UPSC and the same was duly published onits website on H^'July, 2019.

21. It was provided in the notification dated 19'^ February, 2019 thatthe EWS candidates, who were successful in preliminary examinationshould have an Ineome and Asset Certificate (EWS certifieate) issuedprior to August, 2019. The relevant rules being Rule nos.24 and 25 arequoted hereunder:

"24. Candidates seeking reservation/relaxationbenefitsavailable for SC/ST/OBC/EWS/PwBD/Ex-servieemenmust ensure that they are entitled tosuchreservation/relaxation as per eligibilityprescribed in theRules/Notice. They should also be in possession of all therequisite certificates in theprescribed format in support oftheir claim asstipulated in the Rules/Notice for suchbenefits, andthese certificates should be dated earlier thanthe duedate (elosing date) of the application of CivilServices(Preliminary) Examination, 2019.

Provided further that EWS Candidates shallsubmit their'Income and Asset Certificate'(certifieate of eligibility) atthe time of submission ofonline Detailed Application Form(DAF-I). 'Thelncome and Asset Certifieate' must be datedearlierthan 1st August, 2019. Since reservation forEWS category candidates has been notifiedreeently,therefore this extension for submissionofcertificatefor EWS category candidates is one-timerelaxationapplicable for CSE 2019 only."

25. The closing date fixed for the receipt of theapplicationwill be treated as the date fordetermining the OBCstatus (including that of creamy layer) of the candidates".

22. It is pertinent to note here that all the candidates ought to have theeducational qualifications and certification of their castes etc. to claimreservation as on the last date of filling the preliminary examinationforms, i.e., on 18^^ March, 2019 but keeping in view the fact that the EWSreservation was provided for the first time, an exception was carved outand the candidates belonging to this category were given time till ST'July, 2019to obtain the Income and Assets Certificate and file the samealong with Detailed Application Form (DAF-1). One point to be notedhere is that as per the said rules dealing with educational qualifications, ifa candidate had appeared or was going to appear in the examination, buthis result was not declared before the last date of filling the applicationform i.e. on 18'^ March, 2019, the said candidate was given the option toobtain the necessary certificate of educational qualification till the closingdate of DAF-1, i.e., 16"^ August, 2019.23. The UPSC, therefore, opened window from 01.08.2019 to16.08.2019 for the successful candidates in the preliminary examinationto fill up the DAF-1 form online and to upload the requisite certificates insupport of their claims made in the online preliminary application.

24. On S"' August, 2019, one of the applicants (who later onapproached CAT) filled the DAF-1 form stating that although he hadEWS certificate but the same was issued after SD'July, 2019. On 9^*^August, 2019, some of the applicants filed representations before DoP«feTto allow them to appear in the main examination as they had obtained the

W.P.(C) Nos.J158/2020 and connected matters Page 26 of 60

EWS certificates after 31'' July, 2019. On 12* August, 2019, theapplieants submitted representation to UPSC not to reject theircandidature on this ground. On 23* August, 2019, UPSC issued showcause notiees to all the applicants who claimed in their DAF-1 form to bein possession of Income and Assets Certificate dated 3l" July, 2019 orearlier but they indicated the date of their Income and Assets Certifieatewas l" August, 2019 or later. They were asked to explain as to whyaction be not taken against them as per Rule 14 of the Rules for CivilServiees Examination.

25. The UPSC rejeeted the candidature of applicants vide e-mail dated30* August, 2019 on the basis that applicants did not possess the Incomeand Assets Certificate issued on or before 31" July, 2019, hence theircandidature for Civil Services (Mains) Examination 2019, was cancelled.The affected applicants again gave representations to DoP&T on2"''September, 2019 to allow them to appear in the examination as theyhad obtained the Ineome and Assets Certificates after 31" July, 2019.

26. The writ petition bearing no.9751 of 2019 was filed by theapplicantsbefore this Court challenging the caneellation of theircandidature by UPSC on the ground that the Ineome and AssetsCertificates filed by them were dated after 31" July, 2019. This writpetition was dismissed; however, liberty was given to the affeetedpersons to approach CAT for appropriate relief and accordingly theapplicants had filed their respeetive OAs before CAT on 12* September,2019.

27. Vide interim order dated 18* September, 2019, the CAT directedUPSC that applicants be permitted to appear in the mains examination ifW.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 27 of 60

the only dis-qualificationis that their EWS certificates were issuedbeyond V August, 2019. UPSC contested the said OA by filing counterreply on 13^^ November, 2019, to which rejoinder was filed on 28^^November, 2019. Vide order dated 09'^ December, 2019, CAT directedthat the results of the mains examination of the applications be declaredsubject to outcome of the OAs. Detailed arguments were heard by CATon6"" January, 2020and vide impugned order dated IS"" January, 2020, theCAT directed UPSC to treat the EWS certificates issued upto the last dateof submission of DAF-1 form, i.e., 16"^ August, 2019 as valid. Therelevant portion of the impugned order dated 13'^ January, 2020 isreproduced hereunder:

"24.A semblance of distinction needs to be maintainedbetween the reservations based on the social status, on theonehand, and the economic status, on the other hand.While the former is static in nature, the later is dynamic.To be precise, acandidate belonging to particular socialcategory, continues tobe so, even with the passage of time,whereas the economicstatus keeps on changing, and isrequired to be certified for therelevant period. personwho is certified to be EWS for aparticular year, may ceaseto be so in the next year andconversely, candidate whowas otherwise ineligible to claimthe benefit of EWS in aparticular year, may become eligible inthe subsequentyear. While the law that provides forreservation in favourof particular category, is 'constitutive' inits nature, thecertificate issued to candidate enabling him toclaimreservation is 'cognitive' in its purport. Though, acandidatemay actually belong to social or economic category,hecomes to be recognized only on being issued acertificate.Therefore, the date of issuance has its ownsignificance.

25. Whatever may have been the circumstancesunderwhich theHon'ble Supreme Court or the High Courtheld thattheclaim of SC, ST or OBC candidate can beaccepted even ifa certificate in that behalf is issued long

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/202O and connected matters Page 28 of 60

after the last date forsubmission of the application, we areof the view that thestipulation madeby the UPSC that acertificate claiming thebenefit of reservation must be theone obtained before the dateof submission of the relevantapplication, cannot be ignored.Once the EWS certificate ispermitted to be submitted alongwith DAF-1, the stipulationof 01.08.2019 as the relevant date,would virtually becomeself-contradictory and redundant. Rule 24 of the Rules hasalready been taken note of. In additionto that, thenotification issued by the UPSC contains clause 10,whichreads as under:

"10. Candidates seeking reservation/relaxation of benefitsavailable forSC/ST/OBC/EWS/PwBD/Ex-servicemenmustensure that they are entitled to suchreservation/relaxationas per eligibility prescribed in thcRules/Notice. Theyshould also be in possession of all therequisite certificatesin the prescribed format in support oftheir claim asstipulated in the Rules/Notice for suchbenefits, and thesecertificates should be dated earlier thanthe due date(closing date) of the application of CivilServices(Preliminary) Examination, 2019.

Provided further that EWS Candidates can submit theirIncome and Asset Certificate Ccertificate of eligibilitvl atthe time of submission of online Detailed ApplicationForm IDAF-D The Incomeand Asset Certificate must bedated earlier than August,2019. Since reservation forEWS category candidates hasbeen notified recently,therefore this extension forsubmissionof certificate forEWS category candidates is aone-time relaxationapplicable for CSE 2019 only."

26. The first sentence of the proviso to clause 10 makesthethings clear and categorical. EWS certificate can befiledalong with DAF-1. The next sentence, however,virtuallynegatesand waters down the very facility createdunder thefirst sentence.

27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hirandra Kumar'scasetook note of quite large number of judgments on thesamesubject, particularly the judgment in Council of Scientific

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 29 of 60

and Industrial Research v Ramesh Chandra Agarwal[(2009) 3SCC35i, wherein it was held as under;

"29. "State" is entitled to fix cut-off date.Such decision can be struck down onlywhen it isarbitrary. Its invalidation may alsodepend uponthe question as to whether it hasa rational nexuswith the object sought, to beachieved. 2-5-1997was the date fixed as thecut-off date in terms ofthe Scheme. Thereason assigned therefore wasthat this was thedate when this Court directedthe appellants toconsider framing of aregularisation scheme.They could havepickedup any other date.They could have even Pickedup date of thejudgment passed by theCentral AdministrativeTribunal. As rightlycontended by MrPatwalia, by choosing 2-5-1997as the cut-offdate, no illegality was committed.Ex facie,itcannot be said to be arbitrary.

30. The High Court, however, proceeded onthe basisthat the cut-off date should have beenthe date ofissuance of the notification. Theemployer in thisbehalf has choice. Itsdiscretion can be held to bearbitrary but thenthe High Court only with view toshowsympathy to some of the candidates couldnothave fixed another date, only becauseaccording to it,another date was moresuitable. In law it was notnecessary. TheCourt's power of judicial review inthis behalfalthough exists but is limited in the sensethatthe impugned action can be struck downonlywhenit is found to be arbitrary. It ispossible that byreason of such cut-off datean employee misses hischance very narrowly.Such hazards would be therein all theservices. Only because it causes hardship toafew persons or section of the employeesmay notby itself; be good, ground fordirecting fixation of another cut-off date."

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 30 of 60

Their Lordship observed as under:

"...We are adverting to this aspect only to emphasisethatthe validityof the Rule, cannot be made todepend on casesof individual hardship whichinevitably arise in applying aprinciple of generalapplication. Essentially, thedetermination of cut-offdates lies in the realm of policy. Acourt in theexercise of the power of judicial review doesnot takeover that function for itself. Plainly, it is for therule making authority to discharge that function whileframing the Rules."

We are not referring to in detail the observations made bythcHon'ble Supreme Court in various other Judgments,only toavoid repetition of what is already clear and glaring.

28. We are not at all making any effort to meddle with thescheme of the Examination or the calendar thereof. But forthe fact that the Govemment as well as the UPSC haverecognized that the reservation in favour of EWS wasintroduced in the recent past, and have created the facilityof submission of the certificates in relation thereto, at acomparatively later stage, we would not have gone into theaspect in detail, at all: Once the submission of certificatesclaiming benefit of reservation is linked to the last date ofsubmission of the application, at whatever stage,stipulation of an intermediary date, especially, for EWScertificate, has no meaningful purpose to serve. On theother hand, permittingthe certificates obtained up to thelast date of submission of theconcemed applications wouldensure uniformity, consistencyand faimess.29. Things would have been different altogether had itbeena case where the date 01.08.2019 stipulated in the laterpartof the proviso to Rule 24 of the Rules, or clause 10 ofthenotification issued by the UPSC, had rational nexuswith anylogical, objective to be achieved. In spite of our|best efforts toverify from the leamed counsel for therespondents, we are notable to get any defmite answer asto the relevance of that date. Segregation of the certificatesreferable to EWS from the rest ofthe certificates was on

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/2O2O and connected matters Page 31 of 60

account of the requisite machinery beingnot in plaee, bythe time the notification was issued by theUPSC. The nextdate, for submission of the same wasinvariably, the onestipulated for DAF-1, and accordingly it wasidentified. It isnot as if the candidatescould have filed EWS certificatesseparately and independent of the DAF-1. Once theonlymethod for filing them is by enelosing with DAF-1, thereisno reason why certificate issued up to that date cannotbetaken into account.

30.The statistics placed before us do diselose that while insome States, the facility and mechanism was made readywithin few months; from the date of issuance ofthenotification in this behalf, i.e., 31.01.2019, other Stateslaggedbehind. This is not case in which one social groupwas addedto the existing category of reservation. In suchcases, the machinery which is already in place, can handlethe situation.What is introduced is an altogether newcategory ofreservation. The verification is also somewhatcomplicated.Not only the income but also the assets of thecandidates andtheir parents are to be verified. For thispurpose, the certifyingauthority has to depend upon theground staff. Theprocess isbound to take some time.Therefore, we are of the view that itwould be proper,reasonable and just to treat the EWScertiflcates issued upto the last date of submission of DAF-l,i.e., 16.08.2019, asvalid.

31. Though extensive arguments are advanced toconvinceus to take view that the EWS certificates issued up tothefinal stageof the selection, i.e., personal interview, canbetaken into account, we are not inclined to agree. Thereason is that such concession would disturb the entireprocess whichis in vogue for the past several decades.

32. For the foregoing reasons, we partly allow theseOAs,directing that, the UPSC shall treat the EWScertificatesissued up to 16.08.2019 as valid, and accept theclaims of such candidates. Neeessary steps in this behalfshall be taken for thepurpose of declaration of the results.We further direct that therelief in this batch of OAs isrestricted only to such candidateswho have taken part in

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/2O2O and connected matters Page 32 of 60

the final Examination, and not thosewho did not take partin it".

28. The UPSC and the Union of India have challenged the impugnedorder on the grounds that the Tribunal did not refer to the plea of estoppelraised by UPSC and Union of India specifically relying on the decision ofthe Hon'bleSupreme Court in the matter of Madras InstituteofDevelopment Studies &Anr. vs. Dr. K. Sivasubramaniyan&Ors.,(2016) 1 see 454dLnd the OAs were not maintainable because all thecandidates had applied under CSE Rules, 2019 and later on they cannottum around and challenge the said Rules itself. It has been furthersubmitted that the Tribunal erred in not adverting to the settled principleof law that rules of game notified at the time of initiation ofexamination/selection process cannot be changed midway. The Tribunalalso did not consider the plea of infringement of Article 14 and 16 of theConstitution as privileged treatment was given only to those candidateswho had approached CAT causing gross injustice to other candidates,who have been discriminated against by the order of the Tribunal. TheTribunal also did not adhere to the principle laid down by Hon'bleSupreme Court in respect of maintaining the sanctity of the cut-off date,which is policy matter under the domain of the employer. The Tribunalalso did not consider that rules and instructions have to be applieduniformly without any deviation therefrom as held by Hon'ble SupremeCourt from time to time andindividual hardships cannot be considered tobe relevant ground to carve out an exception as the same would result innullification of entire process and derailment of larger public interest ofconducting time bound examination/selection process. It is furthersubmitted that the Tribunal did not consider that cut-off date fixed toobtain qualification was same for all the candidates, i.e., the last date of

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 33 of 60

submission of online application and it was only by way of one timerelaxation that extra period of about four and half months was allowedto EWS category candidates to obtain Income and Assets Certificates,which was quite reasonable and sufficient. It has also been submitted thatthe learned CAT has wrongly relied upon the decision of Hon'bleSupreme Court in the matter of Ram Kumar Gijroya vs.DelhiSubordinate Services Selection Board & others(2016) 4 SCC 754as the same was not applicable to the facts of this case as in the said casethe recruitment was for Group 'C employees, which is not held annuallyand the cut-off date was declared while declaring the results and in theabsence of cut-off dates it was not considered that theexamination/selection process cannot be completed in time boundmanner. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not adverted to theprinciples laid down in Ashok Kumar Sharma vs.Chandra Shekhar1997(4)SCC18sind Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India (2007) 4SCC 54 wherein it was specifically laid down that the 'certain'cut-offdate is sine qua nan for completing any examination/selection process.Moreover, the said decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya's casehasalreadybeen referred to alarger bench by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide itsorder dated 24'''January, 2020. It has been further submitted on behalf ofUPSC that the Tribunal did not consider that the larger public interest andlarger public equity have to prevail over individual interest/individualequity and any interference caused midway in examination process wouldcause substantial harm to the larger public interest.29. On behalf of Union of India, it has been submitted that the limitedchallenge to the Rules and the notice of examination based on the CSERules had not been supported by any valid ground. Further,participatingin the recruitment process on the basis of Rules 25, the candidates areW.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/202O and connected matters Page 34 of 60

estopped from challenging the already settled norms mainly because theydid not qualify the required standards with reference to the possession ofvalid EWS certificate by the cut-off date.Sympathy itself cannot be theground to be entertained by the court of law and compliance of rules is tobe enforced including the instructions detailed in the advertisement issuedby UPSC. The sanctity of the cut-off date is to be maintained, which is amatter of policy and any interference by the Tribunal midcourse in theexamination process concerns larger public interest as against individualinterest of the applicants. Moreover, the candidates had participated inexamination knowing well the rules which cannot be challenged midwayas the plea of estoppel comes in their way. No reason has been assignedby CAT for interfering with the mles in question and any suchinterference is not conducive in maintaining the integrity, transparency,predictability and faimess of the examination process.

30. The candidates, who are petitioners in their respective petitions andare respondents in the writ petitions filed by UPSC and Union ofIndia,have supported the impugned order dated 13'^ January, 2020 to theextent it extended the date for obtaining the EWS certificates till 16''^August, 2019, but have assailed the rejection by the impugned order oftheir claim to extend the same benefit to the candidates who obtainedtheir EWS certificates after August, 2019; and submitted that theTribunal failed to appreciate that the EWS scheme is new policy whichwas launched only in January2019, and there was lack of awareness aboutthe procedural formalities to be completed on the part of Stateauthoritiesempoweredto issue EWS certificates. Moreover, moral code ofconduct was imposedby the Election Commission of India dueto generalelections held in 2019 and the concemed officials were pre-occupied inelection duties, which caused delay in issuance of the said certificates.W.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 35 of 60Sinc6 there were no clear instructions,sothe concerned State authoritiesrefused to take any action for issuing EWS certificates. On the otherhand, UPSC itself had acknowledged that there would be delay inissuance of such certificates and had granted extension of time asprovided in proviso to Rule 24 but UPSC failed to consider that there wasno delay being caused by the candidates and the entire delay wasattributed to the administrative difficulties on the part of the Stateauthorities who were given the task to issue said certificates. It has beenfurther submitted by the candidates that guidelines were issued bydifferent States at different times as to how the EWS certificates were tobe issued. In Tamil Nadu,the notification was issued only on 4^*" May,2019; in Delhi, the notification was issued on 4^'' June, 2019 and inPunjab, the amended notification was issued as late as on 15'^ July, 2019.The Tribunal has granted the relief only to the candidates, who hadobtained certificates till 16"^ August, 2019, butit failed to consider thataround 327 candidates,i.e., 33% of the total candidates, could not obtainthe EWS certificates although they had applied and had made sincereefforts within time to obtain the said certificates. There was systematicfailure on the part of the competent authorities who were assigned thetask of issuing the said certificates. It is further submitted that evenextending this benefit of belonging to EWS category to the candidateswho had obtained their certificates later on will not affect the results asthe cap of 10% of the seats is already fixed for the EWS categorycandidates in the examination but the Tribunal did not acknowledge thisfact in its impugned order. The candidates have reiterated that lawregarding issue of recognition of status by means of certificate has beenclearly laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of RamKumar Gijroya{s[x^xdi), which referred to the judgment of this Court in

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 36 of 60

Ms.Pushpa vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and others 2009, SCCOnLine Del 281. As per them, an EWS certificate merely recognise theexisting financial status of the applicant, which is valid for singlefinancial year and this certificate is in essence cognitive in nature,although the general principle of reservation is broadly constitutive innature. The certificate does not bestow any status to the holder. It isfurther submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly drawn distinctionbetween the social status and economic status of the candidate. Thefinding of the learned Tribunal that social status is static is untenable as aparticular caste can be delisted from the reserved category at any point oftime. Since the EWS certificate is valid for one year from the last date ofthe financial year for which it was issued then in that case the date of thecertificate is not relevant and there is no rationale in fixing date beforewhich the said certificate is to be obtained. It has also been submittedthat the reservation for EWS category is beneficial policy andadministrative andtechnical difficultiesshould not come in its way. Thejudgments cited by UPSC are not applicable as the examination schedulefixed by the authorities was not departed from.

31. The submissions made by the intervenersarealso on the same lines.It has been reiterated that the EWS certificate was to be uploaded alongwith DAF-1, which is similar to the education qualification certificate ofthe graduates whose result was awaited and they were to file theeducational qualification certificates obtained upto the date of DAF-1,i.e.,16'^ August, 2019. Hence, fixing the date of E'August, 2019 forobtaining the EWS certificate is arbitrary and the time period of four andhalf months is grossly inadequate as totally new policy of reservationwas formulated for issuing the said certificates by authorities at District

fV.P.(C) Nos. 1158/2020 and connected matters Page 37 of 60

and Tehsil levels. The EWS eertificates are issued for particularfinancial year and there is no ground to fix date by which the saidcertificate should be issued keeping in view the technical problems beingfaced while issuing the said certificates. Since the difficulties to be facedwhile getting the EWS certificates were not known at the time of fillingof CSE- 2019 form, so the UPSC cannot take the stand that the candidatesare estopped from challenging the cut-off date mentioned in theexamination notice issued by UPSC. Moreover, UPSC cannot take theground that the relief confined only to the candidates who hadapproached the CAT will prejudice other equally placed candidates asthesettled law of the land is that no relief needs to be given to the personswho failed to approach the court in time and seek parity only aftersimilarly placed persons have been granted relief by the Court.

32. It has also been argued on behalf of the candidates that UPSC isgiving time to other candidates to rectify the mistakes in their eertificatesat scrutiny stage after the final results and before holding the interviews,hence the same facility should be extended to the candidates who hadapproached CAT and their EWS certificates were issued upto the datewhen result of the final examination was declared and the said certificatesbe accepted as proof of them belonging to EWS category. The responseof UPSC in this regard, when two instances were brought to its notice,was formulated and submitted to the Court in the form of letter datedJuly, 2020 addressed to ShriNareshKaushik, learned counsel for theUPSC. The said letter is reproduced hereunder:

"F. No. 7/13/2019-E-III

Union Public Service CommissionDholpur House, Shahjahan RoadNew Delhi - 110069Dholpur House, Shahjahan RoadNew Delhi - 110069

IV.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 38 of 60

Dated: July, 2020

ToShriNareshKaushik, Advocate,Supreme Court of India,703, 7th Floor, Nilgiri Apartment,9, Barakhamba Road,New Delhi - 110 001.

Sub.rWP (C) No. 701/2020 titled "SatabdlMazumdar-vs.UOI&Ors." before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi reg.

Sir,

I am directed to refer to the above mentioned case, inwhich thcHon'ble High Court of Delhi has expressed itsviews on the two EWS certificates relied upon by thePetitioner Ms.SatabdiMazumdar duringthe course ofhearing on 23.07.2020 and to say that the Commissionhashighest regards for the Hon'ble Court's said views andhas taken seriousnote of the same.

2. So far as the two EWS certificates relied upon by thePetitioner Ms.SatabdiMazumdar are concemed, theCommission, in deference to theviews expressed by theHon'ble Court, has given due focus to the issueand isrespectfully inclined to take fair reasonable andflexibleapproach in the matter. Given the views of theHon'ble Court, followingtwo options are available beforethe Commission in this case:

(a) Either by issuing Show Cause Notice forcancellation of thecandidature of the said twocandidates (the candidature beingprovisional); orcancellation of thecandidature of the said twocandidates (the candidature beingprovisional); or

(b) By extending similar benefit to similarly placedpetitioners, whohad submitted faulty/incorrectcertificates issued to them priorto OH' August, 2019and uploaded the said certificates alongwith theirrespective DAFs-I by indicating "Yes" in therelevantcolumn with regard to the availability of thecertificates withthem.petitioners, whohad submitted faulty/incorrectcertificates issued to them priorto OH' August, 2019and uploaded the said certificates alongwith theirrespective DAFs-I by indicating "Yes" in therelevantcolumn with regard to the availability of thecertificates withthem.

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 39 of 60

3. The Commission has decided to take fair, positive,reasonableand flexible approach in the matter and, thus, itintends to implementthe aforesaid option (b) in this case.However, the Commission willrespect and implement thedecision of the Hon'ble Court on the aboveavailable twooptions.

4. It may also be submitted before the Hon'ble Court thatthecandidature of all the candidates is kept provisional bythe Commissionat all stages by clearly specifying in itsinstructionsto the Notice so thatthe errors/mistakes, if any,can be reviewed at any stage even after thecompletion ofthe selection process.

5. So far as the main important aspect/issue of the cut-offdate isconcemed, it is not feasible for the Commission todepart from the cut-off date fixed by the Rules of theExamination notified by theGovemment of India(Department of Personnel & Training) in the GazetteofIndia. It would also not be in consonance with the settledprinciplelaid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on therelevance andimportance of the cut-off date as well as itssanctity. The far-reachingimplications/consequences thatmay result by tinkering with the cut-offdate have duly beenexplained by the Commission in its applicationmovedbefore the Hon'ble Tribunal by explaining in detail that theveryexamination process and its integrity would bederailed if the sanctity ofthe cut-off date is not maintained.Therefore, the Hon'ble Court mayplease be requested toconsider to retain the cut-off date mentioned inthe Rules ofthe Examination of the Civil Services Examination, 2019forthe Income and Asset Certificate in respect of the EWSclaim i.e. datedprior to E^August, 2019.

6. It may further be mentioned that the conduct ofthe CivilServicesExamination is governed by the aforesaid Rules,notified by theGovemment of India and which is pre-stage process with therequirement of determination ofexact number of candidates to qualify ateach stage as afactor which goes to the very root of the process. Theotherapplication which was filed by the Commission before the

W.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 40 of 60

Hon'bleTribunal has been placed on record of the Hon'bleHigh Court also inW.P.(C) No.l 138/2020 (UPSCVs.SoumyaPandey&Ors.). The sameapplication may beplaced for considerationby the Hon'ble High Courttoexplain the peculiar nature and structure of the CivilServicesExamination to enable the Hon'ble Court to takeconsidered view in thematter.

7. At the cost of repetition, the Commission reiterates itsdeference tothe Hon'ble Court and is obliged to the Hon'bleCourt for showing dueindulgence to the Commission in thelarger public interest and in theinterest of justice.

8. It is requested that the Hbn'ble Court may be apprisedabout theabove position/stand of the Commission on thenext date of hearing i.e.27''^ July, 2020. It is also requestedthat the Commission may be keptposted about thedevelopments in the case.

Yours sincerely,

(Paramj eetChadha)Under Secretary (CSM)"

33. On the basis of this letter, the UPSC,while relying upon clause 2(b), extended the benefit provided thereby only to two candidates namelySatabadiMazumdar and Sridhar Limbikaiin these petitions as they hadsought parity with other candidates who were given option of submittingEWS certificate in correct form because they had submitted the EWScertificates in wrong form at the time of submitting DAF-1. Since thesetwo candidates were similarly placed,i.e., they had also submittedcertificates in wrong format obtained before U'August, 2019 and later onthey had submitted the EWS certificates in correct format, hence theywere extended the benefit of EWS category.

34. At this stage, questions to be decided by this Court can be dividedin two parts as under;

Question no.l:

Whether learned CAT was in right extendingthe date for obtaining EWS certificates from1''August, 2019 to lb"" August, 2019?

Question no.2: Whether learned CAT was wrong in notextending the period for obtaining andsubmitting the EWS certificate from 16"'August, 2019 till the date when result of thefinal examination was announced and thescrutiny of the documents submitted by thesuccessful candidates started?extending the period for obtaining andsubmitting the EWS certificate from 16"'August, 2019 till the date when result of thefinal examination was announced and thescrutiny of the documents submitted by thesuccessful candidates started?

35. Let us discuss these two questions separately.

36. As far as question no.l is concerned, in our view the CAT hasgiven detailed reasons for^extending the date for obtaining the EWScertificates from L' August, 2019 to lb'" August, 2019. It is to be notedhere that apart from reasons given in the impugned order as detailedabove, there is an additional ground for extending the said date from l"August, 2019 to 16'" August, 2019:

(a). It is an admitted fact that the Central Government hadnotified the rules for grant of EWS certificates in lateJanuary, 2019 and detailed instructions in this regard wereissued only in February, 2019. The last date forsubmission of the form for preliminary examination forCSE-2019 was 18'" March, 2019 and all the candidatesshould have the certificates regarding education

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 42 of 60

qualification and being belonging to reserved elass (ifapplieable) with them as on that date. The exeeptions werecarved out only for two eategories,i.e., the eandidateselaiming EWS reservation and the candidates who haveappeared or likely to appear in final examinations and theirresults werenot declared. Thereafter, betweenthese twocategories, the UPSC intentionally or unintentionallyereated distinetion as it fixed the date of T' August, 2019as the cut-off date for obtaining the EWS certificate, inview of the difficulties being faced by the candidates toobtain the same, as one-time measure but on the other handthe eandidates who had appeared or were going to appearin their final examinations in 2019, they were given timetill 16^'' August, 2019 for obtaining the final certificateseertifying their educational qualifications. It is pertinentagain to note here that the last date for submission of theEWS certificates as well as the educational qualificationcertificates is the same,i.e., 16"' August, 2019.

(b) In ease of educational qualifications, there is no cut-offdate for obtaining the said certifieates meaning thereby thatif the University had issued the said certificate on16'"August, 2019 itself, the said educational qualificationcertificate is valid whereas in case of EWS candidates anartifieial date,without any basis, was introdueed as E'August, 2019. Hence benefit was extended to one class ofcandidates but hardship was caused to other class ofcandidates belonging to EWS category without any

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/202O and connected matters Page 43 of 60

reasonable ground. It is not case of reasonableclassification.

(c) The CAT has rightly observed that the learned counselappearing for UPSC and UOI were unable to give anyjustification for fixation of date, i.e., T' August, 2019 asthe date before which candidates should have obtained theEWS certificates pertaining to the financial status of theapplicant for the financial year 2017-18. The said artificialcut-off date, which is not grounded in reality and whichhas no justification but it deprives many eligible candidatesfrom availing the benefit given under the beneficialConstitution provision is unreasonable, unwarranted and isliable to be set aside.

37. In both the cases, i.e. submission of the educational qualificationsas well as submission of EWS certificates, the last date for uploadingthese certificates along with DAF-1 form was 16"" August, 2019, hencethe certificates issued between V' August, 2019 to 16"" August, 2019certifying the financial status, i.e., income and assets of the candidatesand his family for the financial year 2017-18 areproper and legal andjudicial intervention by CAT was warranted and as such the order of theCAT in this regard is upheld. It is to be reiterated here that neither thedates for submission of any form, i.e., the application form forpreliminary examination, DAF-1 or DAF-2 have been interfered with byCAT nor the dates of preliminary examination or the final examination orthe subsequent interviews have been postponed. These dates aresacrosanct as per various pronouncements of Hon'ble . Supreme Court andthe different High Courts and CAT while passing the impugned order hasW.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 44 of 60

followed the said mandate. Neither the process of holding holding theexaminations nor the process of conducting the interviews has beeninterfered with and the said examinations and interviews have taken placeas per the schedule fixed by the Rules propagated by DoP&T as well asthe notification issued by UPSC. Hence, we do not find any infirmity orillegality in the order of leamed CAT to that extent.

Neither the process of holding holding the

38. As far as the second question is concemed, the leamed CAT has

specifically observed as under;

"28. We are not at all making any effort to meddle with thescheme of the Examination or the calendar thereof. But forthe fact that the Govemment as well as the UPSC haverecognized that the reservation in favour of EWS wasintroduced in the recent past, and have created the facilityof submission of the certificates in relation thereto, at acomparatively later stage, we would not have gone into theaspect in detail, at all. Once the submission of certificatesclaiming benefit of reservation is linked to the last date ofsubmission of the application, at whatever stage,stipulation of an intermediary date, especially, for EWScertificate, has no meaningful purpose to serve. On theother hand, permitting the certificates obtained up to thelast date of submission of the concemed applicationswould ensure uniformity, consistency, and faimess".

39. It is nobody s case that all the dates can be left open and candidatescan submit the EWS certificates or other certificates as and when theywish. Throughout the case, stand of UPSC and Union of India is that,all

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 45 of 60

the dates fixed stipulated in the subject notification, including that of fAugust, 2019 are sacrosanct, so the EWS certificates ought to have beenobtained before this date. On the other hand, the petitioners who are notcovered in the CAT's order of extending the date of Ib^'^August, 2019 forsubmission of EWS certificates, have pleaded their case throughMr.Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Advocate and other learned counsel tothe effect that since the scrutiny of all the certificates and documents hasto take place after declaration of final results of the written examinations,therefore, the candidates should be given opportunity to submit theirEWS (Income and Assets) Certificate till that time. It has been alsovehemently argued on behalf of this group of candidates that even at thescrutiny stage, theUPSC is permitting successful candidates to rectify themistakes in their certificates by submitting fresh certificates; andtherefore,no prejudice would be caused if the candidates who had failedto upload their certificates alongwith DAF-1 form, are given furtheropportunity to submit their certificates till that stage. Learned counselappearing for UPSC has submitted that at the final stage after declarationof results of the final written examination, the candidates are givenopportunity to rectify the mistakes in their documents,which are found tobe non-compliant in terms of format during scmtiny,but the stage of filingof the documents cannot be extended to the said date as it will causedisarray and disturb the entire schedule of the conduct of CSEExaniination,2019. It has been specifically pleaded that none of thecandidates has been given the concession of submitting their EWScertificate for the first time at the scrutiny stage and only the opportunityhas been given to candidates to formally correct mistakes in theircertificates already submitted, and in terms of the said concession, thesame opportunity has been extended to the two candidates as mentioned

W,P,(C) NosJ158/2020 and connected matters Page 46 of 60

hereinabove since the UPSC has taken sympathetic view of the situationwhere certificates in the wrong format were submitted at DAF-1 stage butcertificates in correct format were submitted after 16 thAugust, 2019. Mr.Salman Khurshid, learned Senior Advocate has argued that the financialstatus of person in financial year will remain same and any change inthe date of issuing of the said certificates and late submission of the saidcertificates will not change the financial status of the candidate. The delayin their submission,was caused due to the administrative difficulties facedby the certificate issuing authorities and the said certificates could not beissued in time, so the opportunity to submit the same as one-time optionmay be granted to all the candidates. This plea has been again stronglyopposed by the leamed ASG and the counsel appearing for UPSC.

40. In our view, the dates fixed for the stages at which the documentscan be submitted, the dates on which examinations have to be held aswell as the prescribed qualifications enabling the candidates to sit in aparticular examination, may be for admission in an educational institutionor for appointment in civil posts under the State, are sacrosanct and thesaid dates cannot be interfered with by the leamed CAT or by this courtin judicial review. It is clarified that by extending the date fromAugust, 2019 to 16"" August, 2019 for obtaining the Income and AssetsCertificate(EWS Certificate), the CAT has not extended the date forsubmission of the said certificate, which is sacrosanct as fixed by UPSCfor submission of DAF-1 form, being Ib^'' August, 2019 and thecertificates were to be uploaded along with DAF-1 form. The remainingpetitioners are now praying to this court for shifting of the goalpost and tointerfere in the conduct of civil services examination by tinkering withthe schedule or dates for submission of documents, which in our

W.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 47 of 60

considered view is not permissible and this eourt refrains itself fromdoing so. The candidates have also challenged the distinetion pointed outby learned CAT between the social status of candidate and economicstatus of candidate,who claim reservations based upon castes andreservations based upon the economic criteria. We are in agreement withCAT that the casteor the social criteria for reservation remains same as aperson eannot be overnight changedofhis or her caste or the socialcriteria. But as far as the eeonomic status is coneemed, it may changefrom year to year and that is the reason that the Income and AssetsCertificate is to be obtained year-wise and onee certifieate is issued, itremains valid only for the period one yearfrom the end of the financialyear to which it relates. The arguments on behalf of the candidates thateven reservation for particular caste may be withdrawn and thus thesocial status of person may change which may disentitle candidate toclaim reservation based upon the soeial status is far-fetched argumentwithout any logical basis and the same cannot be aceepted. The statutoryrules have provided for validity of the income eertificate for one year andit reeognises that the said certificate has fixed validity because there arechanees of change in the economic status of person. For example, ifany of the candidates belonging to the EWS category is selected in civilservices examination and is appointed toone of the eadres, his socialstatus will change immediately and stating that even after ehange in theeconomic status one can claim the benefit of belonging to EWS categoryfor period of one year is neither logieal nor correct nor ethical. Thisbeneficial legislation by way of the Constitutional amendment wasaxiomatically brought about with view to help the downtrodden andeconomieally weaker sections of society,for which no reservation wasprovided earlier and accordingly this benefit is to be enjoyed only by the

fV.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 48 of 60

candidates who actually belong to the economically weaker sections andas soon as they come out of this economic condition, there is nojustification for them to claim benefit of reservation based upon theirhistorical deprivation of income or lack of assets, which wasprevalent atthe time when the said certificate was issued.

41. Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocate for the candidates urgedthis Court to differentiate between cognitive and constitutive recognitionand referred to para no.24 of the impugned order where the CAT hasobserved that while the law that provides for reservation in favour of aparticular category, is 'constitutive' in its nature; the certificate issued toa candidate enabling him to claim reservation is 'cognitive' in its purport.He relied upon judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) 5492/2019 titledAmrit Singh vs. Union of India&AnrAQcided on 23'^'^ August, 2019 inthis behalf. The relevant paragraphs are 13 and 17 of this judgmentwhich are reproduced hereunder:

13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon aDivision Bench judgment of this Court W.P.(C)No.5364/2015 titled Ravinder Kumar v. Union ofIndia andAm. dated 31st May, 2017, wherein this Court has referredto judgments titled Ram Kumar Gijroya v. DelhiSubordinate Services Selection Board &Anr., (2016) 4see 754; ManjushaBanchhore v. Staff Selectioneommission &Anr. W.P.(C) No.7304/2010 decided on06.05.2013; Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board&Anr. V. Anu Devi &Anr. W.P.(C) No. 13870/2009 dated17.02.2011; Anil Kumar v. Union of India W.P.(C)No.405/2013 and Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India andOrs. W.P.(C) No.5416/2012 and held as under:

"13. The Petitioner, in the present case, submitted the OBCcertificate dated 21.05.2002 along with the application form.This certificate was not in the prescribed format. The secondOBC certificate dated 13.07.2010 was fumishedat the time

of the interview, before the preparation of the final merit listand was as per the prescribed format. Identical undertakingshave been adversely commented upon inManjushaBanchhore (supra) and rejected on the ground offorce and coercion. When candidate is informed thatunless an undertaking is furnished, he/she would be treatedas disqualified, the same amounts to leaving the candidatewith no choice or option. It would be unjust and unfair to pindown the Petitioner for the said reason, for consent to suchan undertaking would not be free, having been obtainedunder the threat of disqualification. Hence, the same, cannotbe said to have any legal and binding effect to negate thelegal claim and right. Entitlement for consideration forappointment under the reserved categories is by virtue of thesaid status being by birth, and when the status and certificateis not in dispute, relief should be granted as held in AnuDevi &Anr. (supra). The certificate issued by the competentauthority, to this extent, is thus only an affirmation anddeclaration of the status already in existence.

14. Accordingly, we allow the present Writ Petition and setaside the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Respondentsare directed to take into account the marks obtained by thePetitioner, treating him as an OBC candidate and thereafteraccordingly process his candidature as per the order ofpreference, subject to character and antecedent verification.The Petitioner, on appointment, would be entitled toconsequential benefits with regard to seniority, notionalincrements eounting of period for further promotion etc. ThePetitioner, however, would not be entitled to back wages.Compliance shall be made within 8 weeks from the date ofthis judgement. The parties are left to bear their own costs."

XXX

17. It is admitted case of the Respondents that even as ondate, out of 23 total vacancies of generator operator, only 11vacancies have been filled up and specifically in OBCcategory 11 vacancies were notified and only 5 vacaneieswere filled up. During the arguments, it has been alsonoticed that these vacancies have not been re-advertised till

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page SO of 60

date. The Petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria and he haspassed the wntten examination, physical endurance test, andmedical examination and has obtained fresh OBCcertificate dated 26|''February, 2019 which specificallymentions that he is still not covered under the creamy layerprescribed for OBC candidates and in view of the judgementof this Court in Ravinder Kumar's case ^supra), this Courtis of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to hisappointment as Constable (Generator Operator) in BorderSecurity Force under the OBC category".

42. In our view, the ratio of this judgment is not applicable to the factsof this case as the said is in relation to candidate who wasjudgment belonging to other backward class (OBC), which envisages static stateof affairs as caste of will not with thethroughout, person change passage of time, whereas the present writ petitions in hand deal with thefinancial status of the candidates and their families, which is dynamic innature and it may change from year to year and as such the candidatescannot take any benefit of the said judgment.

43. Mr. Salman Khurshid, Senior Advocate reiterated that thejudgment in the case of Ram Kumar Gi7/'oyfl(supra)isrelevant to decidethe present dispute in hand and the CAT has rightly relied upon the saidjudgement. The relevant extract of the said judgment is as under:

In our considered view, the decision rendered in the caseof Pushpa(supra) is in conformity with theposition of lawlaid down by this Court, which havebeen referred to supra.The Division Bench of theHigh Court erred in reversingthe judgment andorder passed by the learned single Judge,withoutnoticing the binding precedent on the questionlaiddown by the Constitution Benches of this Court inthecases of IndraSawhney and Valsamma Paul(supra) whereinthis Court after interpretation ofArticles 14, 15,16 and 39A

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/202O and connected matters Page 51 of 60

of the Directive Principlesof State Policy held that theobject of providingreservation to the SC/ST andeducationally andsocially backward classes of the societyis to removeinequality in public emplo5anent, ascandidatesbelonging to these categories are unable tocompetewith the candidates belonging to thegeneralcategory as result of facing centuries ofoppressionand deprivation of opportunity. Theconstitutionalconcept of reservation envisaged in thePreamble ofthe Constitution as well as Articles 14, 15, 16and39A of the Directive Principles of State Policy istoachieve the concept of giving equal opportunity toallsections of the society. The Division Bench, thus,erred inreversing the judgment and order passed bythe learnedsingle Judge. Hence, the impugnedjudgment and orderpassed by the Division Bench inthe Letters Patent AppealNo. 562 of 2011 is not onlyerroneous but also suffers fromerror in law as it hasfailed to follow the binding precedentof thejudgments of this Court in the cases of IndraSawhneyand Valsamma Paul (supra). Therefore, theimpugnedjudgment and order passed by theDivision Bench of theHigh Court is liable to he setaside and accordingly setaside. The judgment andorder dated 24.11.2010 passed bythe learned singleJudge in W.P. (C) No. 382 of 2009 isherebyrestored."44. Countering the submission made on behalf of the candidates, Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advocate appearing on behalf of UPSC has submittedthat the decision in Ram Kumar Gijroya{mpy:d) has been referred to alarger bench, hence the candidates cannot take any benefit of the same.Even reference to larger bench does not take away the guidingprecedent of judgment, unless and until the larger bench has eitherstayed the operation of the said judgment or it has set aside or varied thedecision of the case, which was referred to it. None of such conditionshave been brought to our notice. Hence, we reiterate that the leamed CAThas rightly relied upon the judgment in the case of Ram KumarGijroya{s,VL^rQ).

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 52 of 60

45. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for UPSC hassubmitted long list of judgments, specifically 14 in number, but be hasparticularly referred to the judgment in the case of Hirandra Kumar vs.

High Court of Judicature at Allahbad&Anr. [(2019) (2) SCALE 752]

wherein it was held as under;

"24. In Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (supra), the date withreference to which the ageeligibility of person desirousof sitting in the competitive examination forrecruitment tothe Indian Administrative Service/Indian Foreign Servicewas fixed as 1 August of every year. The preliminary examwould normally be held annuallybefore 1 August.Rejecting the contention that that the cut-off dateisarbitrary and hence ultra vires, two judge Bench of thisCourt held thus:

5. As to when choice of cut-off date can be interferedwas opined byHolmes, J. In Louisville Gas & Electric Co.V. Clell Coleman [277 US 32: 72 Led. 770 (1927)] bystating that if the fixation be "very wide of anyreasonablemark, the same can be regarded arbitrary. Whatwas observed by Holmes, J.was cited with approval by aBench of this Court in Union of India v.ParameswaranMatch IForfo[MANU/SC/0094/l 974 ;(1975) 1 see 305: AIR1974SC 2349] (in paragraph 10)by also stating that choice of date cannotalways bedubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason isforthcoming forthe choice unless it is shown to becapricious or whimsical in thecircumstances. It was furtherpointed out where point or line has to be,thereis nomathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, and so,thedecision of the legislature or its delegate must beaccepted unless it can besaid that it is very wide of anyreasonable mark.

6. The aforesaid decision was cited with approval in D.G.Gouse and Co. v. State of Kerala [MANU/SC/0330/1980 :(1980) 2 see 410 : AIR 1980 SC271]; so also in State, of

Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad [MANU/SC/0418/1990 • 11990') 3see 368] ... ' ^

7. Inthis context, it would also be useful to state that whena court is calledupon to decide such matter, mere errorsare not subject to correction inexercise of power of judicialreview; it is only its palpable arbitrary exercisewhich canbe declared to be void...

8. ...As to why the cut-off date has not been changeddespite the decision tohold preliminary examination, hasbeen explained in paragraph 3 of thespecial leave petition.The sum and substance of the explanation isthatprelimmary examination is only screening test andmarks obtained in thisexamination do not count fordetermining the order of merit, for whichpurpose themarks obtained in the main examination, which is stillbeingheld after l^^August, alone are material. In view ofthis, it cannot be held that continuation of treating 1®'August as the cut-off date, despite the UnionPublic ServiceCommission having introduced the method ofpreliminaryexamination which is held before V August,can be said to be "very wide off any reasonable mark"or socapricious or whimsical as to permit judicial interference".

46. We have gone through this judgment. In our view, the observationsmade in the above judgment are not relevant to the dispute in hand as thesaid matter pertains to the Higher Judicial Service in the State of UttarPradesh and the specific question to be decided was in respect of anumber of attempts candidate could get as per the rules in the HigherJudicial Service and the said number of attempts were to be determinedon the basis of the respective age of the candidates and the category towhich they belong. The present dispute is in respect of submission ofEWS certificates, which were obtained after the cut-off date notified byUPSC. Hence the ratio of the above judgment is not applicable to thefacts of the present case.

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/202O and connected matters Page 54 of 60

47. Mr. Naresh Kaushik, Advocate has also relied upon the judgmentof the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Bakshi&Ors. vs. State ofJammu & Kashmir (2019) 3 SCC 511 and specifically referred to para 13.which is reproduced hereunder:

"13. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we areinclined to grant relief tothe Appellants against their beingousted after serving for nearly two decades. We arenot fora moment doubting the eorrectness of the reasoning of theDivision Bench in this case, that eligibility of thecandidates must be decided with reference to thequalification possessed as on the cut-off date and thequalification acquired later in point of time cannot make acandidate eligible. However, having regard to thefactsobtaining in this case, which we have set out and alsothe manner in which this Courthas decided the matterculminating in MANU/SC/1130/1997 : 1997 (4) SCC 18theinterests of justice would require the interference withthe judgment of the Divisionbench. We particularly notethat as far as the writ Petitioner is concerned more thantheeffluxof time, the fact is that he cannot possibly secureselection. Thus,havingalso regardto the fact that the writPetitioner would not stand to gain if we oustedtheAppellants having regardto his position in the selection, weallow Civil Appeal @SLP.(C). No. 7843-7844/2014 andthe judgment of the Division Bench will stand setaside andthe writ petition will standdismissed. Civil Appeal @SLP(C) No. 14660/2014 filed by the State will also standallowed. There shall be no order as to costs".

48. Again, the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in respectof eligibility of the candidates regarding qualifications on cut- off date.It is not in doubt that in the present case the eligibility of the candidatesbelonging to EWS category is to be seen for the year 2017-18, whichended on 31®^ March, 2018 and the said date remains as it is and therelevant question to be decided in the instant case,is the date on -which the

W.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 55 of 60

certificate from the concemed authorities certifying the financial status ofthe candidate was required to be obtained.

49. In the above cited case, the candidates obtained the necessaryqualifications for examination/interview after the cut-off date. That is notthe case here because EWS status was to be verified for the period whichwas more than one year old and the cut-off date is relevant only becausethe certificates were issued after the eut-off date.

50. Similarly, Mr. Kaushik has relied upon the judgment in the matterof Ashok Kumar Sonkar vs. Union of India(2007) 4 SCC thiscaseagain discusses the matter regarding essential educational qualificationbut the present case relates to EWS certifieates to be obtained from therelevant authorities. The matter of Zonal Manager, Bank ofIndia, ZonalOffice, Kochi &Ors. vs. Aarya K. Babu&Ors., (2019) 8 SCC 5«7alsodeals with the minimum qualification for applying for the post, whereasin the present case EWS certificate eannot be equated with essentialeducational qualification required for qualifying for the said post. Thecertificate stating an educational qualification is constitutive in nature andit certifies the date when particular candidate has acquired the minimumeducation qualification required to sit for an exam but on the other hand,EWS certificate is only cognitive in nature whieh eertifies financial statusof person within given financial year. In Madras Institute ofDevelopment Studies &Anr. vs. Dr.K. Sivasubramaniyan&Ors.(2016) 1SCC 454\hG Courtdealt with the selection process whereas the presentwrit petitions are with respect to dates of procuring EWS certificates.Hence, this judgment again is not applicable to the facts of this case. Thejudgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Surender Singh &Ors.,(2019) 8 SCC 67, deals with the merits of the candidates and not with the

W.P.(C) Nos. 1158/2020 and connected matters Page 56 of 60

issuance of valid EWS certificates after the cut-off date. Union of Indiavs. AnuKumari&Anr. Civil Appeal No.3877/2019 dated 11.04.2019,dealt with the non-uploading of cadre preference by the candidate onlinebefore certain date, which is nowhere related to the submission of EWScertificate which was obtained after the cut-off date. Again, in PraveenSharma vs. the Secretary, UPSC, W.P.(C) No.4569/2008 dated75.72.2005, issue in hand was the eligibility of candidate based on ageor number of attempts;whereas in the present ease dispute is regardingEWS status, which is not related to the age or number of attempts. Thecase of Satish Kumar vs. UPSC &Anr. W.P.(C) 8319/2014 dated28.11.2014 did not deal with the sanctity of cut-off dates in respect ofobtaining the EWS certificate. In the matter of The Secretary, M/oPersonnel, Public Grievances and Pensions vs. TanuKashyap&Ors.W.P.(C) 16191/2006 dated05.10.2007 the Court dealt with the creamylayer of OBC and the relevant cut-off date for determining thesame,whereas the present matter deals with the date of obtaining the EWScertificate; hence this judgment has no relevance. In the matter ofDr.Shamim vs. Union Public Service Commission &Ors. OANo. 1301/2019 dated 21.10.2019,issue was regarding possession ofrequisite educational qualification and the last date in the matter forsubmission of applications but here in this case the issue is regarding dateof obtaining the EWS certificate for the period 2017-18. In Jyoti Hankeyvs. Union Public Service Commission &Ors. W.P.(C) No.2342/2012dated 17.07.2013, the candidate was dismissed on the basis that theScheduled Tribe certificate was not in the prescribed format. However,the surviving issue in the present case is not the faulty format of the EWScertificate,as UPSC has already given concession to two such candidates,who earlier had submitted faulty certificates and later on submitted the

W.P.(C) N0S.IIS8/202O and connected matters Page 57 of 60

fNC

certificates in proper format, hence the said issue does not survive. Mr.Kaushik has also referred to Union of India &Ors. vs.UnicornIndustries,(2019) 10 SCC 575, whereinthe court observed that the publicinterest is superiorequity, which can overwrite an individual equity. Byextending date of obtaining EWS form ^'August, 2019 to 16"^ August,2019, the superiority of the public interest has not been undermined as theselection process or the dates of submission of forms or the dates ofholding the exams or the interviews has not been interfered with. Thesuperior public interest demands that the exams should be held on timeand the forms, duly filled along with documents, should have beensubmitted on the dates prescribed by UPSC so that no delay is caused inholding the said exams. This Court as well as the learned CAT has notinterfered in the dates mentioned for submission of DAT-1 and DAF-2 aswell as the examination calendar and the schedule of interview to be heldin CSE-2019 in the true sense of the acceptance of superior equity inpublic interest as held in Union of India &Ors. vs.UnicornIndustries{su^r?i).

51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again reiterated that theprocess of examination or selection, once set in motion, is not to beinterfered with and accordingly we are not inclined to do so by allowingthe petitioners,who did not claim EWS status by submitting theircertificates of Income and Assets along with DAF-1 form, to submit theircertificates till the scrutiny stage after the final examination. It is true thatthere may be difficulties at individual level in obtaining the EWScertificates but the common public interest demands that the dates fixedfor any important examinationlike CSE-2019 should not change and thesame should be respected, otherwise it will open flood gates for

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 58 of 60

candidates to approach the learned CAT or higher courts at the drop of ahat at every stage ofeivil services examination to interfere with or topostpone the dates of submission of formsor examinations and to claimother related reliefs and no finality can be attached to the saidexamination process or the dates prescribed for the same till the lastmoment, which will jeopardise careers of hundreds of young men andwomen, who aspireto join this service and work hard to attain their life-cherished goal. Moreover, the allocation ofcadres and training of theselected candidates has to start and it cannot be kept in limbo, hence thedates for submission of forms, certificates and the datesfixed forscheduling the examinations/ interviews are not to be interfered on anypretext, which does not servethe larger public interest.

52. In view of the above, we agree with the findings arrived at by theleamed CAT and we are not inclined to extend the date of submission ofthe requisite Income and Assets Certificates (EWS eertifieates) beyond16"^ August, 2019.

53. Keeping in view the above discussion, we do not find anyperversity, illegality orirregularity in the impugned order dated 13^^January, 2020 of the leamed CAT so as to warrant interference in thepresent writ petitions and the said order is accordingly upheld. As aresult, all the writ petitions filed by the candidates as well as UPSC andUnion of India are hereby dismissed.

54. It is to be noted that the benefit given to two candidates i.e.SatabadiMazumdar and Sridhar Limbikai in terms of para 2 (b) of letterof UPSC dated 27^^ July, 2020 shall remain as it is and their candidature

W.P.(C) Nos.1158/2020 and connected matters Page 59 of 60

hereby is directed to be considered for all intent and purposes as if theyhad submitted their EWS certificates in time.

55. The pending applications are also disposed of.

TALWANT SINGH(JUDGE)

SEPTEMBER 11, 2020

SIDDHARTH hrMRIDULI(JUDGE)

W.P.(C) Nos.l158/2020 and connected matters Page 60 of 60

$-3*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+W.P.(C) 4623/2020

UNION OF INDIA

Petitioner

Through:Mr. Ankit Raj, Advocate with Mr.Neeraj, Mr. Sahaj Garg, Mr. PiyushBeriwal, Ms. Damini Garg and Ms.Vandana Dewan, AdvocatesNeeraj, Mr. Sahaj Garg, Mr. PiyushBeriwal, Ms. Damini Garg and Ms.Vandana Dewan, Advocates

versus

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDULHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TALWANT SINGHORDER

%07.10.2020

The present matter has been taken up for hearing by way of VideoConferencing on account of COVID-19 pandemic.

CM APPL.25145/2020 (Directions)

The present application under Section 151 of the Code of CivilProcedure, 1908 has been instituted on behalf of the applicant/respondentNo.l praying as follows:-

"a) Issue direction to UPSC and DoPT tocomply with the judgment dated 11.09.2020and declare the results of the applicant herein,comply with the judgment dated 11.09.2020and declare the results of the applicant herein,

b) Pass any other order as may deem fit.

Mr. Salman Khurshid, leamed Senior Advocate appearing on behalfof the applicant/respondent No.l, on instructions, seeks leave to withdrawthis application with liberty to institute appropriate proceedings, as may beadvised, in accordance with law, in relation to our judgment dated11.09.2020 in W.P.(C) 1158/2020, titled as 'Union Public ServiceCommission vs. Saumya Pandey & Ors.' and other connected petitions.Leave and liberty granted.

The application is dismissed as withdrawn and disposed ofaccordingly.

SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J

OCTOBER 07, 2020/iin/

1ALWANT SINGHfj

Click here to check corrisendum, if any

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

FromThe Registrar GeneralHigh Court of DelhiNew Delhi

_/DHCAVRITS/D-9/2021DatedNDOH:

The Principal Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Copernicus Marg,New Delhi 110001

Petition against order dated , in 0. A. No. c? '

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. ^ ^ | 3 2o ,

AND

CM No.2^-

Please see Memo of Paities

Please see Memo of Parties

....Petitioner/s

....Respondent/s

'Sir,

I am directed to forward herewith copy of order dated hpassedby Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the above noted case along witha CODy of Memo ofParties for information and immediate compliance/necessary action.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Yours faithfully.

Administrative Officer (Writs)For Registrar General