AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) : In the present Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“i.Quash and set aside the order dated 05.03.2024 whereby the candidature of the Applicant was rejected·
ii.Declare that the Applicant is entitled to consideration under the EWS category for the post of TGT (Hindi) Female Post Code 33/21;
iii.Direct the Respondents to consider and appoint the Applicant to the post of TGT (Hindi) Female under Post Central Administrative TribunalCode 33/21 if otherwise eligible·
iv.Extend to the Applicant the benefit of the judgments passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA No. 1524/2022 OA No. 1551 /2022 and OA No. 2334/2024 as affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and left undisturbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of lndia;
v.Grant notional seniority and all consequential service benefits from the date similarly situated candidates were appointed; and
vi.Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the interests of justice”
Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the present O.A. has been filed challenging the rejection of the applicant’s candidature for the post of TGT (Hindi) Female under the EWS category, despite the applicant having been selected, issued an offer of appointment dated 25.10.2022 and called for document verification.
Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant’s qualifications, age, merit, eligibility and economic status were never disputed; the only objection was regarding the date of issuance of theCentral Administrative Tribunal EWS certificate. Learned counsel added that the applicant had duly clarified the discrepancy in her name as appearing in certain educational documents and had also furnished EWS certificates pertaining to the relevant financial years.
It was further submitted by learned counsel that similarly situated candidates were granted relief by this Tribunal in OA No. 1524/2022 & connected matters vide judgment dated 08.08.2023, and OA No. 1551/2022 vide order dated 13.10.2023, holding that genuine EWS candidates could not be denied reservation merely on account of delayed
issuance of the certificate. The said view was upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C.) No. 2814/2024 and connected matters by order dated 19.07.2024, and subsequently this Tribunal granted similar relief in OA No. 2334/2024. The challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 13026/2025 was dismissed on 04.09.2025, thereby lending finality to the issue. Further, in contempt proceedings arising out of OA No. 2334/2024, this Tribunal by order dated 11.03.2026 clarified that non-availability of an EWS certificate for FY 2019-20 could not be made a ground to deny consideration of candidature.
Learned counsel argued that despite the aforesaid binding judicial pronouncements,Central Administrative Tribunal the applicant has been denied the same benefit, although she is identically situated to the successful candidates. It is further argued that the respondents themselves reopened the applicant’s document verification by memorandum dated 05.02.2026 and the applicant appeared on 13.02.2026. Moreover, the Corrigendum dated 19.01.2026 to Advertisement No. 06/2025 records that 13 EWS vacancies remain available for TGT (Hindi) Female. Thus, there is no impediment or prejudice in granting appointment to the applicant.
Pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal dated 27.07.2026, learned counsel for the applicant filed a brief note dated 18.08.2026
specifically addressing the issue as to whether non-possession of an EWS certificate for Financial Year 2019-20 would disentitle the applicant from relief. Learned counsel relied upon the order dated 11.03.2026 passed by this Tribunal in C.P. No. 41/2025 in OA No. 2334/2024, wherein it was specifically held that non-availability of an EWS certificate for FY 2019-20 should not be treated as an impediment to consideration of candidature. It was further submitted that the said order was never stayed, recalled or set aside and that the contempt proceedings were subsequently closed vide order dated 16.04.2026 after the respondents filed a compliance affidavit and the applicants expressed satisfaction with the compliance.
2.5.Central Administrative Tribunal Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant possesses EWS certificates for the subsequent financial years, i.e. 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24, and contended that the objection regarding non-possession of the FY 2019-20 certificate, having already been considered by this Tribunal, cannot by itself defeat the applicant’s claim for consideration.
Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents, raised an objection as to the maintainability of the present O.A. It was submitted that the candidature of the applicant was rejected on account of non-compliance with the prescribed cut-off date for submission of the
requisite EWS certificate. It was contended that the crucial date for receipt of the requisite documents and certificates was the final date prescribed under the recruitment process and, therefore, the action of the respondents in rejecting the candidature could not be faulted.
It was argued that the applicant cannot seek a fresh consideration of her candidature by relying upon subsequent orders passed in other proceedings, particularly when her candidature had already been rejected in accordance with the terms and conditions governing the recruitment process.
It was further argued that the benefit of the orders relied upon by the applicant cannot be claimed as a matter of right unless the applicant is Central Administrative Tribunal shown to be similarly situated in all material particulars and otherwise satisfies the eligibility conditions prescribed for the post. It was also argued that the issue of availability/validity of the requisite EWS certificate has to be examined with reference to the applicable recruitment advertisement and the facts of applicant’s own case.
Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
5. ANALYSIS :
The short question which arises for consideration is whether the applicant, who admittedly did not possess an EWS certificate for the relevant Financial Year 2019-20, can claim consideration under the EWS category merely on the strength of EWS certificates issued for the subsequent financial years, by relying upon the decisions rendered by this Tribunal in OA No.1524/2022 & connected matters, OA No.1551/2022 and OA No.2334/2024.
It is well settled that the eligibility of a candidate for public employment has to be determined with reference to the relevant cut-off date prescribed under the applicable Rules/Advertisement. Where no Central Administrative Tribunal such date is specifically prescribed, the last date for submission of applications ordinarily furnishes the relevant and definite point of reference. This principle has been consistently recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhupinderpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 262, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India, (2007) 4 SCC 54, and has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the recent decision in Sakshi Arha & Ors. v. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (CA No. 3957/2023) as under:
“27.On the subject of absence of last date to showcase their eligibility by a candidate apropos their equivalent claim, this Court clarified the correct position of law in its decision in Bhupinderpal Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others11, where, while upholding the view taken by High Court of Punjab and Haryana, held that the eligibility criteria for candidates aspiring 11 (2000) 5 SCC 262 public employment shall be determined pertaining to the cut-off date as outlined in the applicable rules of their respective service. In case the rules are silent, the decisive date is, ideally, indicated in the advertisement for recruitment. However, in case of absence of specifications in both context, the eligibility is to be adjudged in lieu of the last date of submission of applications before the concerned authority or institute. This, thereby, ensures a clear temporal reference point for evaluating qualifications of a Central Administrative Tribunal candidate as per the concerned advertisement.
28.This derivation of the position of law was from the decision of this Court in Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) v. University of Rajasthan and Others12 wherein the Bench explicitly observed that the proposition of assessing a candidate’s qualification with reference to the date of selection, as opposed to the last date of applications is untenable and must be unequivocally dismissed. The indeterminate nature of the date of selection renders it impracticable for applicants to ascertain whether they meet the prescribed qualifications, particularly if such
qualifications are yet to be attained. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as follows:
12 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168 “10. The contention that the required qualifications of the candidates should be examined with reference to the date of selection and not with reference to the last date for making applications has only to be stated to be rejected. The date of selection is invariably uncertain. In the absence of knowledge of such date the candidates who apply for the posts would be unable to state whether they are qualified for the posts in question or not, if they are yet to acquire the qualifications. Unless the advertisement mentions a fixed date with reference to which the qualifications are to be judged, whether the said date is of selection or otherwise, it would not be possible for the candidates who do not possess the requisite qualifications in praesenti even to make applications for the posts. The uncertainty of the date may also lead to a contrary consequence, viz., even those candidates who do not have the qualifications in praesenti and are likely to acquire them at an uncertain future date, may apply for the posts thus swelling the number of applications. But a still worse consequence may follow, in that it may leave open a scope for malpractices. The date of selection may be so fixed or manipulated as to entertain some applicants and reject others, arbitrarily. Hence, in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be
judged, the only certain date for the scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that when the Selection Committee in the present case, as argued by Shri Manoj Swarup, took into consideration the requisite qualifications as on the date of selection rather than on the last date of preferring applications, it acted with patent illegality, and on this ground itself the selections in question are liable to be quashed. Reference in this connection may also be made to two recent decisions of this Court in A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad v. B. Sarat Chandra [(1990) 2 SCC 669 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 377 : (1990) 4 SLR 235 : (1990) 13 ATC 708] and District Collector & Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Central Administrative TribunalResidential School Society, Vizianagaram v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 4 SLR 237 : (1990) 14 ATC 766] .”
29.This is now well-accepted, licit with clarification, also reiterated in Ashok Kumar Sonkar (supra), and was accepted as recently as in the decision of this Court in Divya v. Union of India and Others13, while dealing with crystallisation of right of EWS through issuance of Income and Asset Certificate, as issued by the competent authority.”
The principle emerging from the aforesaid decisions is that the subsequent acquisition or production of a certificate cannot, by itself,
retrospectively confer upon a candidate an eligibility or reservation status which was not established as on the relevant date. The relevant portion of Sakshi Arha (supra), reads as under:
“34.Moreover, the decisions of this Court have cleared the air of any doubt that the claim made by a candidate while filling his or her application as per the concerned advertisement are to hold good as on the date of his or her application or as per the last date of submission of applications prescribed by the concerned advertisement.”
We are of the view that the distinction between a case where the candidate had already acquired the requisite status and the issuance/production of the certificate was delayed for reasons attributable to the competent authority, and a case where the requisiteCentral Administrative Tribunal status itself had not been established at the relevant time, is of considerable significance.
In Sakshi Arha (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while considering claims under OBC-NCL/MBC-NCL/EWS categories, also examined the effect of a subsequent certificate and held that relaxation in the prescribed requirement cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of any enabling provision in the Rules, Advertisement or applicable instructions. The Hon’ble Court further emphasized that the requirements governing the concerned reservation category cannot be
divorced from the recruitment process merely because the candidate may subsequently satisfy such requirements. The relevant paras of Sakshi Arha (supra), reads as under:
“35.It is true that, the Advertisement, in itself, did not clearly mention the date with regard to issuance of category certificate, and that it came from the Subsequent Notice which ascertained a cut-off date for acceptable certificates.
36.The Subsequent Notice, which was issued by the Rajasthan High Court on 04.08.2022, cannot be said to be arbitrary or without any basis. It specified that the certificate belonging to the concerned reserved category should have been issued prior or upto 31.08.2021 i.e. the last date of receipt of the application in pursuance to the Central Administrative TribunalAdvertisement. This was because the Advertisement required a candidate to possess eligibility upto the cut-off date. As regards the specifications regarding a certificate issued between 31.08.2018 and 30.08.2020 along with the affidavit is concerned, this was based on the Government Circulars dated 09.09.2015 and 08.08.2019 (reproduced above) which clarified that the certificate issued will be valid for one year extendable by three years with affidavit. Thus, the Subsequent Notice issued was in consonance with law and as per the Advertisement, applicable Rules, instructions and circulars issued by the competent authority. The plea of the appellants is unsustainable and deserves to be rejected. No relaxation can be granted in the
given facts and circumstances of the case nor can it be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of any such discretionary clause in the Advertisement/Rules/Instructions.
37.The details of the candidates, category and the date of issuance of their respective certificates are as follows: S. Name of Appellants Category Date of No. and Civil Appeal certificate Numbers issuance 1. Sakshi Arha OBC-NCL 27.07.2016, [Civil Appeal No. 17.06.2022 & 3957 of 2023] 12.08.2022 2. Priyanka OBC-NCL 23.04.2018 & [Civil Appeal No. 20.06.2022 3958 of 2023] 3. Bhavya Kulhar OBC-NCL 19.09.2016 & [Civil Appeal Central Administrative TribunalNo. 16.06.2022 3959 of 2023] 4. Neha Batar OBC-NCL 28.06.2018 & [Civil Appeal No. 21.06.2022 3960 of 2023] 5. Nikhil Kataria OBC-NCL 16.07.2018 & [Civil Appeal No. 09.06.2022 3961 of 2023] 6. Sunil Singh Gurjar MBC-NCL 18.06.2018 & [Civil Appeal No. 16.06.2022 3962 of 2023] 7. Kuldeep Bhatia MBC-NCL 03.08.2012 & [Civil Appeal No. 09.03.2022 3963 of 2023] 8. Jyoti Beniwal OBC-NCL 22.06.2016 & [Civil Appeal No. 25.07.2022 3909 of 2023] The above details would make it
clear that none of the appellants had a valid certificate and/or accompanied by the affidavit as per the proforma at the relevant time as per the requirement referred to above.
38.Significant reliance is placed by the Appellants on the 2-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). A perusal of the decision rendered by the High Court of Delhi on the factual matrix therein is evidently distinct. The same, thus, cannot come to the rescue of the Appellants. In the instant case, it is not a contention of Appellants that they are missing a valid proof of attainment of their particular qualification or right. No candidate before us has a claim that they, to begin with, already availed and established their eligibility, or had applied for a NCL category certificate and issuance of the same is delayed at the behest of the competent authority. The ratio, therefore, in the relied judgment would not apply.
39.Ergo, the correct position of law is not in favour of the Appellants before us, and, relying on the precedents and the provisions of law governing the circumstances before us, the appeals ought to be declared devoid of merit.
40.Consequently, the Civil Appeals are dismissed, while upholding the decision rendered by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, impugned before us, as good in law.
41.No costs.
42.Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.”
The judgments relied upon by the applicants, particularly the judgment in OA No. 1524/2022 and connected matters, i.e. “Anju’s case”, do not lay down any inflexible proposition that every candidate possessing an EWS certificate pertaining to a subsequent financial year is necessarily entitled to the benefit of EWS reservation, irrespective of the certificate/status applicable to the relevant recruitment year. The issue before the Tribunal was essentially with regard to the relevant period for determination of EWS status, including the question as to whether the EWS certificate was required to relate to the financial year or the calendar year. It was observed in Anju’s case (supra) that there was no clear--cut instruction or stipulation in the advertisement as to which financial year was to be considered for determining the EWS category. The Tribunal, therefore, examined whether the eligibility was required to be determined with reference to the closing date of applications and whether the applicant could be denied consideration merely on the ground that she did not possess an EWS certificate for the period from 01.04.2021 to 26.06.2021. The Tribunal also considered whether the relevant period was to be reckoned as the financial year from 01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022 or the calendar year from 01.01.2021 to 31.12.2021. It was further noticed that Clause 6 relating to reservation benefit contemplated possession of the relevant certificate issued by the Competent Authority on or before the cut-off date, without expressly
stipulating whether the relevant period was to be reckoned with reference to the financial year or the calendar year. Further, the relief granted in the said matters was based upon the peculiar facts and circumstances noticed therein, and the said decision cannot be read divorced from its factual foundation or construed as laying down a general rule applicable to all cases irrespective of the facts and recruitment conditions involved.
Likewise, reliance upon OA No.2334/2024 and the order dated 11.03.2026 in CP No.41/2025 cannot advance the applicant's case unless it is first demonstrated that the applicant stands on the same factual and legal footing as the applicants therein. An order passed in contempt proceedings essentially in the context of implementation/compliance ofCentral Administrative Tribunal the directions issued in the original proceedings cannot be construed as laying down a universal rule.
Parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis of similarity in the nature of the grievance; what is required is identity of the material facts and the governing eligibility conditions. The applicant, therefore, cannot claim automatic extension of the benefit of the aforesaid judgments.
The fact that the applicant was shortlisted, issued an offer of appointment, or subjected to document verification also does not create an indefeasible right to appointment. Such participation remains subject to verification of the candidate's eligibility. Equally, the subsequent availability of 13 EWS vacancies cannot cure a defect in eligibility. Availability of a vacancy and eligibility for appointment are two distinct requirements; the existence of a vacancy cannot confer eligibility where the candidate otherwise fails to satisfy the prescribed conditions.
Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, the applicant's reliance upon EWS certificates pertaining to FY 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 and 2023-24 cannot, by itself, establish her entitlement to claim EWS status for FY 2019-20. A subsequent certificate may demonstrate the applicant's economic status during the year to which such certificate relates; however, it cannot retrospectivelyCentral Administrative Tribunal establish the requisite EWS status for an earlier financial year unless the applicable Rules/Instructions or the recruitment advertisement expressly permit such retrospective recognition.
We are also mindful that reservation is a benefit regulated by constitutional and statutory/executive provisions and must necessarily operate within the parameters prescribed for its availment.
6. CONCLUSION :
In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the present O.A. is devoid of merit and is not maintainable. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.