Date of the Judgment: October 9, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 900
Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J. and K.V. Viswanathan, J.
Can a candidate claim reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) if they fail to possess the required income and asset certificate by the stipulated deadline? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a batch of writ petitions, clarifying the eligibility criteria for EWS reservation. The court’s decision hinged on the interpretation of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022, and related office memoranda, ultimately upholding the Union Public Service Commission’s (UPSC) strict adherence to the prescribed deadlines. This judgment has significant implications for candidates seeking EWS benefits in future competitive examinations. The majority opinion was authored by Justice K.V. Viswanathan.
Case Background
Ms. Divya, the petitioner in Writ Petition (C) No. 724 of 2023, had previously qualified for the Indian Police Service (IPS) in the 2021 Civil Services Examination and was aiming for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in the 2022 exam. She sought consideration under the EWS category. The Civil Services Examination, 2022 (CSE-2022), is governed by rules promulgated on February 2, 2022. These rules, along with office memoranda from January 19, 2019, and January 31, 2019, laid down the criteria for EWS eligibility. The core issue was whether the UPSC was correct in denying the petitioner and others the benefit of EWS reservation due to non-compliance with the stipulated deadlines for possessing the necessary income and asset certificates.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| January 19, 2019 | Government of India issues Office Memorandum prescribing EWS eligibility criteria. |
| January 31, 2019 | Department of Personnel & Training issues Office Memorandum clarifying certificate issuing authority and verification. |
| October 9, 2020 | Ms. Divya obtains EWS certificate for the year 2019-2020. |
| February 2, 2022 | Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022, are promulgated. |
| February 2, 2022 | UPSC issues examination notice for CSE-2022. |
| February 22, 2022 | Last date for submission of application for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination -2022. |
| June 5, 2022 | Preliminary Examination for CSE-2022 is held. |
| June 22, 2022 | Results of the Preliminary Examination are declared; Ms. Divya qualifies. |
| July 6-15, 2022 | Ms. Divya submits Detailed Application Form-I (DAF-I), uploading her 2019-20 EWS certificate. |
| September 2022 | Main Examination for CSE-2022 is held. |
| December 6, 2022 | Results of the Main Examination are declared. |
| December 13, 2022 | Ms. Divya obtains EWS Certificate for the Financial Year 2021-2022. |
| January 5, 2023 | UPSC informs Ms. Divya that her EWS certificate is not in the prescribed format. |
| February 10, 2023 | Ms. Divya attends the interview, submitting EWS certificates for 2019-20 and 2021-22. |
| February 14, 2023 | Ms. Divya submits a letter with EWS certificates for the Financial Year 2019-2020 and Financial Year 2021-2022. |
| May 30, 2023 | UPSC informs Ms. Divya that her candidature has been converted to the General Category. |
| June 1, 2023 | Ms. Divya obtains the EWS Certificate for the Financial Year 2020-2021. |
| June 21, 2023 | Ms. Divya sends a representation to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking acceptance of her EWS Certificate for the Financial Year 2020-2021. |
| October 9, 2023 | Supreme Court delivers judgment dismissing the writ petitions. |
Legal Framework
The legal framework for EWS reservation in the CSE-2022 is primarily based on two Office Memoranda (OM) and the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022.
-
Office Memorandum dated January 19, 2019: This OM prescribed the criteria for EWS eligibility, including:
- Exclusion from existing SC/ST and Socially and Economically Backward Classes reservation schemes.
- Family gross annual income below ₹8 lakhs.
- Exclusion based on ownership of assets like agricultural land, residential flats, and plots.
- Certification of income and assets by an officer not below the rank of Tehsildar.
-
Office Memorandum dated January 31, 2019: This OM specified the authorities competent to issue the Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC), including:
- District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/Collector/Deputy Commissioner/Additional Deputy Commissioner/1st Class Stipendary Magistrate/Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Taluka Magistrate/Executive Magistrate/Extra Assistant Commissioner.
- Chief Presidency Magistrate/Additional Chief Presidency Magistrate/Presidency Magistrate.
- Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar.
- Sub-Divisional Officer of the area where the candidate and/or his family normally resides.
It also stated that the crucial date for submitting the I&AC is the closing date for receipt of applications, unless specified otherwise.
-
Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022:
- Rule 13: Requires candidates to submit an online Detailed Application Form-I (DAF-I) with scanned documents, including category certificates, within the prescribed time. Delay leads to cancellation of candidature.
- Rule 27(3): States that a candidate is eligible for EWS reservation only if they meet the criteria issued by the Central Government and possess the requisite I&AC based on the income for Financial Year (FY) 2020-2021.
- Rule 28: Mandates that candidates seeking reservation benefits must possess all requisite certificates in the prescribed format by the closing date of the application for the Preliminary Examination.
The court noted that the rules clearly stipulate that for claiming reservation under the EWS category, the I&AC must be as per the prescribed norms and must be in the possession of the candidate on or before the cut-off date, which was February 22, 2022, for the CSE-2022.
Arguments
The petitioners argued that their categorization as EWS was not in dispute, and the mere delay in obtaining the certificate should not prejudice them. They contended that the delay did not affect the category-wise allocation process and that there was no rationale for insisting on a certificate dated before the cut-off date. The petitioners relied on several judgments, including Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (2016) 4 SCC 754, Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472, Charles K. Skaria & Others vs. Dr. C. Mathew & Others, (1980) 2 SCC 752, and others, to support their claim that the date of possessing the qualification should be considered, not the date of submitting the proof.
The UPSC, on the other hand, argued that the rules clearly prescribe that eligibility for EWS is acquired only when a candidate meets the criteria and possesses the requisite I&AC based on the income for FY 2020-2021 before the cut-off date. The UPSC emphasized that Rule 28 mandates possession of all requisite certificates by the closing date of the application. They distinguished the cases cited by the petitioners, stating that those cases involved candidates who possessed the eligibility before the cut-off date, and the issue was only about the submission of proof. The UPSC relied on Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others vs. Chander Shekhar and Another (1997) 4 SCC 18 and Union Public Service Commission vs. Gaurav Singh & Ors. [C.A. No. 4152 of 2022 decided on 18.05.2022] to reinforce their submission that eligibility must be determined by the cut-off date.
The UPSC also argued that the petitioners should be estopped from challenging the validity of the selection process since they had participated in it. The UPSC also contended that the petitioner’s explanation for not obtaining the certificate within time was untenable, given that she had obtained a certificate during the pandemic for the previous year.
Summary of Arguments
| Main Submission | Sub-Submission (Petitioners) | Sub-Submission (UPSC) |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for EWS Category |
|
|
| Relevance of Cut-off Date |
|
|
| Validity of Selection Process |
|
|
| Impact of COVID-19 |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:
- What is the eligibility criterion for a candidate to stake a valid claim under the EWS Category as per the CSE Rules, 2022, read with OMs dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019?
- Was the UPSC justified in prescribing the cut-off date for possession and for uploading the I&AC certificates in the prescribed format to stake a valid claim under the EWS category?
- Are the CSE-Rules 2022 enforceable in law?
- Are Rules 13, 27(3), and 28 of the CSE-Rules 2022 constitutionally valid?
- Was the UPSC justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for consideration under the EWS category?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates how the Court decided the issues:
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Eligibility Criteria for EWS | Eligibility requires meeting Central Govt. criteria and possession of I&AC for FY 2020-2021 by 22.02.2022. | Rules and OMs clearly stipulate possession of certificate by the cut-off date. |
| Justification of Cut-off Date | UPSC was justified in prescribing the cut-off date. | Cut-off date was the last date for application, and is a validly prescribed cut-off. |
| Enforceability of CSE Rules | CSE-2022 Rules have the force of law. | Rules are traceable to the All India Services Act, 1951, and Article 73 of the Constitution. |
| Constitutional Validity of Rules | Rules 13, 27(3), and 28 are constitutionally valid. | No violation of Article 14; cut-off date was validly prescribed. |
| Justification of UPSC’s Rejection | UPSC was justified in rejecting the petitioners’ claims. | Petitioners failed to meet the eligibility criteria by the cut-off date. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How the Authority was Used |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (2016) 4 SCC 754 | Supreme Court of India | Relaxation of cut-off dates | Distinguished; held inapplicable due to specific rules in this case. |
| Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472 | Supreme Court of India | Relaxation of cut-off dates | Distinguished; relief denied despite reference to Ram Kumar Gijroya. |
| Charles K. Skaria & Others vs. Dr. C. Mathew & Others, (1980) 2 SCC 752 | Supreme Court of India | Distinction between eligibility and proof of eligibility | Distinguished; the candidates in the cited case possessed eligibility before the cut-off date. |
| Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 | Supreme Court of India | Distinction between eligibility and proof of eligibility | Distinguished; the candidates in the cited case possessed eligibility before the cut-off date. |
| Dheerender Singh Paliwal vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2017) 11 SCC 276 | Supreme Court of India | Distinction between eligibility and proof of eligibility | Distinguished; the candidates in the cited case possessed eligibility before the cut-off date. |
| Alok Kumar Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 242 | Supreme Court of India | Distinction between eligibility and proof of eligibility | Distinguished; no rules like the present case were shown to have existed. |
| Deepak Yadav & Others vs. Union Public Service Commission and Another, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 709 | Supreme Court of India | Relaxation of cut-off dates due to COVID-19 | Distinguished; confined to special facts of the COVID year. |
| Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others vs. Chander Shekhar and Another (1997) 4 SCC 18 | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off dates for eligibility | Followed; reiterated the principle that eligibility must be judged with reference to the prescribed date. |
| Union Public Service Commission vs. Gaurav Singh & Ors. [C.A. No. 4152 of 2022 decided on 18.05.2022] | Supreme Court of India | Importance of I&AC for the correct financial year | Followed; held that I&AC for the correct financial year goes to the root of eligibility. |
| Yogesh Kumar vs. GNCTD, (2003) 3 SCC 548 | Supreme Court of India | Impermissibility of selective relaxation | Followed; deviation from rules allows entry to ineligible persons. |
| Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168] | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off dates for eligibility | Followed; if rules prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. |
| Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 262] | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off dates for eligibility | Followed; if rules prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. |
| Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54 ] | Supreme Court of India | Cut-off dates for eligibility | Followed; if rules prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. |
| Mohan Kumar Singhania and Others vs. Union of India and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594 | Supreme Court of India | Executive power under Article 73 | Followed; executive power under Article 73 is co-extensive with legislative power and CSE Rules are traceable to Article 73. |
| A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra (1990)2 SCC 669 | Supreme Court of India | Determination of eligibility | Followed; determination of eligibility cannot be left uncertain till the final stages of selection. |
| T. Jayakumar vs. A. Gopu and Another, (2008) 9 SCC 403 | Supreme Court of India | Defect in application form | Followed; the examining body can hold a candidate ineligible even at a later stage if a defect in the application comes to light. |
| Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6563 | Delhi High Court | Material and immaterial errors | Followed; the examining body has the right to decide which errors are material and which are trivial. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and authorities, upheld the UPSC’s decision to reject the petitioners’ claims for EWS reservation. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules and the cut-off date for possessing the necessary certificates.
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ claim that their EWS categorization was not in dispute and delay in certificate submission should not prejudice them. | Rejected. The court held that eligibility crystallizes only when the I&AC is issued and possessed before the cut-off date. |
| Petitioners’ reliance on cases like Charles K. Skaria, Dolly Chhanda, and Dheerender Singh Paliwal. | Distinguished. The court noted that those cases involved candidates who possessed eligibility before the cut-off date, and the issue was only about submission of proof. |
| Petitioners’ argument that CSE Rules have no statutory force. | Rejected. The court held that the CSE Rules are traceable to the All India Services Act, 1951 and Article 73 of the Constitution, and have the force of law. |
| Petitioners’ challenge to the constitutional validity of Rules 13, 27(3) and 28. | Rejected. The court held that the rules are constitutionally valid and the cut-off date was validly prescribed. |
| UPSC’s argument that eligibility for EWS is acquired only when a candidate meets the criteria and possesses the I&AC for FY 2020-2021 before the cut-off date. | Accepted. The court upheld the UPSC’s interpretation of the rules and OMs. |
| UPSC’s argument that the petitioners should be estopped from challenging the selection process after participating in it. | Not examined. The court did not need to examine this argument as the case was decided on other grounds. |
| Petitioners’ argument that COVID-19 prevented timely certificate acquisition. | Rejected. The court found the petitioner’s explanation untenable, as she had obtained a certificate during the pandemic for the previous year. |
| Petitioners’ plea for relaxation under Article 142 of the Constitution. | Rejected. The court held that complete justice had been done by the application of the rules and did not find the case warranting the invocation of Article 142. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
| Authority | Court’s View |
|---|---|
| Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (2016) 4 SCC 754 | Distinguished; held inapplicable due to specific rules in this case. |
| Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472 | Distinguished; relief denied despite reference to Ram Kumar Gijroya. |
| Charles K. Skaria & Others vs. Dr. C. Mathew & Others, (1980) 2 SCC 752 | Distinguished; the candidates in the cited case possessed eligibility before the cut-off date. |
| Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 | Distinguished; the candidates in the cited case possessed eligibility before the cut-off date. |
| Dheerender Singh Paliwal vs. Union Public Service Commission, (2017) 11 SCC 276 | Distinguished; the candidates in the cited case possessed eligibility before the cut-off date. |
| Alok Kumar Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 18 SCC 242 | Distinguished; no rules like the present case were shown to have existed. |
| Deepak Yadav & Others vs. Union Public Service Commission and Another, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 709 | Distinguished; confined to special facts of the COVID year. |
| Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others vs. Chander Shekhar and Another (1997) 4 SCC 18 | Followed; reiterated the principle that eligibility must be judged with reference to the prescribed date. |
| Union Public Service Commission vs. Gaurav Singh & Ors. [C.A. No. 4152 of 2022 decided on 18.05.2022] | Followed; held that I&AC for the correct financial year goes to the root of eligibility. |
| Yogesh Kumar vs. GNCTD, (2003) 3 SCC 548 | Followed; deviation from rules allows entry to ineligible persons. |
| Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993 Supp (3) SCC 168] | Followed; if rules prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. |
| Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab [(2000) 5 SCC 262] | Followed; if rules prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. |
| Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India [(2007) 4 SCC 54 ] | Followed; if rules prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail. |
| Mohan Kumar Singhania and Others vs. Union of India and Others 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594 | Followed; executive power under Article 73 is co-extensive with legislative power and CSE Rules are traceable to Article 73. |
| A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra (1990)2 SCC 669 | Followed; determination of eligibility cannot be left uncertain till the final stages of selection. |
| T. Jayakumar vs. A. Gopu and Another, (2008) 9 SCC 403 | Followed; the examining body can hold a candidate ineligible even at a later stage if a defect in the application comes to light. |
| Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6563 | Followed; the examining body has the right to decide which errors are material and which are trivial. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strict interpretation of the rules and the need to maintain the integrity of the selection process. The courtemphasized the following points:
- Strict Adherence to Rules: The court underscored that the rules for the CSE-2022, along with the OMs, clearly mandated the possession of the I&AC by the cut-off date. Any deviation would undermine the fairness and transparency of the selection process.
- Cut-off Date as a Determinant: The court reiterated that the cut-off date is not merely a procedural formality but a substantive requirement for determining eligibility. It ensures a level playing field for all candidates.
- Importance of I&AC: The court emphasized that the I&AC is not just a proof of status but an essential document that goes to the root of eligibility for EWS reservation.
- Consistency in Application: The court highlighted the need for consistent application of rules to all candidates. Relaxing the cut-off date for some would be unfair to others who adhered to the rules.
- Distinction from Previous Cases: The court distinguished the cases cited by the petitioners, noting that those cases involved situations where candidates possessed the eligibility before the cut-off date, and the issue was only about the submission of proof.
- Rejection of COVID-19 Argument: The court found the petitioner’s explanation for the delay due to COVID-19 untenable, as she had obtained a certificate during the pandemic for the previous year.
Implications of the Judgment
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Divya vs. Union of India has significant implications for candidates seeking EWS reservation in future competitive examinations:
- Strict Compliance with Deadlines: Candidates must strictly adhere to the prescribed deadlines for obtaining and submitting all necessary documents, including the I&AC.
- Importance of Financial Year: The I&AC must be for the correct financial year as specified in the rules.
- No Relaxation of Rules: The court’s decision indicates that there will likely be no relaxation of the rules or cut-off dates, except in extraordinary circumstances.
- Thorough Preparation: Candidates need to be well-prepared and ensure they have all the necessary documentation well in advance of the application deadlines.
- Awareness of Rules: Candidates must be fully aware of the rules, OMs, and notifications related to the examination and reservation policies.
- Impact on Future Exams: This judgment sets a precedent for future competitive examinations, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to rules and cut-off dates.
EWS Reservation Process Flowchart
Ensure your family meets the income and asset criteria as per the Government of India’s guidelines.
Get the I&AC from the competent authority for the correct financial year (FY) before the cut-off date.
Fill out the application form and declare your EWS status.
Upload the scanned copy of your I&AC within the prescribed time.
Attend the preliminary, main, and interview stages as required.
Ensure all documents, including the I&AC, are in the prescribed format and valid.
If all criteria are met, you will be considered for selection under the EWS category.
EWS Reservation Ratio
The EWS reservation is typically 10% of the total seats, subject to availability.
| Category | Reservation Percentage |
|---|---|
| General | 50.5% |
| OBC | 27% |
| SC | 15% |
| ST | 7.5% |
| EWS | 10% |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Divya vs. Union of India underscores the importance of strict adherence to the rules and cut-off dates for claiming EWS reservation in the Civil Services Examination. The court’s decision emphasizes that eligibility for EWS is not merely a matter of belonging to the category, but also of possessing the necessary income and asset certificate by the prescribed deadline. This judgment serves as a crucial reminder for future aspirants to be diligent in their preparation and to ensure they meet all the requirements before the cut-off date. The court’s interpretation of the rules and OMs, as well as its rejection of the petitioners’ arguments, highlights the legal framework’s commitment to maintaining a fair and transparent selection process. Candidates must be fully aware of the rules, OMs, and notifications related to the examination and reservation policies and must ensure that all necessary documentation is in place before the cut-off date.
Source: Divya vs. Union of India