Decisions on Certificate Submission

Can the Authorities Reject A Selected Meritorious Candidate Merely Because Candidate Could Not Submit Certificate For a Particular Financial Year 

Shivakant Shukla

IISER v. Dr. Smitha V S [2021] GCtR 3436 (Kerala) : The argument that non production of relevant category certificate for a particular financial year would lead to candidate being considered under General category was rejected. [para 8 and para 22]

Ram Kumar Gijroya v. DSSSB [2016] GCtR 5670 (SC) : In this case, Judgment of Hon'ble Delhi HC was set aside. The action of authorities in not accepting late submission of certificates was set aside and directions were issued for appointment. Further, the issue of certificates which were submitted after the cut off date was also clarified at page 5, para 6. 

State is meant to be a model employer and must give due importance to the fundamental rights of equality and opportunity in the matter of public appointment guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance placed on Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v Uma Devi & Ors [2006] GCtR 995 (SC)

Tej Pal Singh v. GNCTD ILR 2001 Delhi 298 to argue that Candidates are also permitted to submit certificates after the cut-off dates fixed by the advertisement. 

Neil Bruce v. State of Karnataka [2023] GCtR 2433 (Karnataka) : Reservation is available to EWS candidates. [page 8] This case also shows the difficulties in obtaining EWS Certificates. 

Gopajosyula Suryakantham v State of Andhra Pradesh [2024] GCtR 3230 (AP) : In this case also the issue was related to submission of EWS certificate. In this case, candidate obtained EWS Certificate afterwards ; however, authorities did not considered him eligible. The fact that the petitioner had less than the income / land required for EWS category was not refuted in counter-affidavit. Reliance is placed on page 4, para 6. 

Parveen v. Vishwakarma Skill University [2024] GCtR 3231 (P&H) : The issue at page 5 was whether merely because certificate of a particular year is unavailable, can the candidate be rejected ? Introduction an altogether new condition for joining was criticised and the writ petition was allowed and directions for appointment were issued by Hon'ble Court. 

Divya Kalia v. State of Haryana [2025] GCtR 673 (P&H) where Hon'ble HC has rightly imposed costs of Rs. 1.5 lacs and had allowed the writ petition where HPSC had rejected the candidature of candidate and the effect of inadvertent submission by candidate was explained at page 8. In that case, the PSC had argued that stipulations in the advertisement have the force of law. 

Charles K. Skaria v. Dr. C. Mathew [1980] GCtR 6004 (SC) : What is essential is the possession of qualification before the concerned date and the mode of proof thereof, is ancillary. 

Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner [1977] GCtR 4665 (SC) to argue that when the reasons for non rejection of candidate were not supplied or contained in the Order passed by the authorities, then such reasons or additional reasons cannot be supplied by way of affidavits. It was rightly held that "Law cannot be divorced from life and law lives not in a world of abstractions but in a cosmos of concreteness. It was held by Hon'ble J. Iyer that "when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out."

GNCTD v. Durgesh Kumar [2025] GCtR 1461 (Delhi) : Rejection of candidate under EWS category cannot be done merely because certificate was not issued for a particular year.

AIIMS v. Kiran Grover [2024] GCtR 3441 (Delhi) has upheld the findings of Tribunal. The rejection of EWS certificate because it was not issued for a particular period was found unsustainable. AIIMS tried to justify its stand by arguing that closing date of application should be the crucial date. However, the petition filed by AIIMS was dismissed.

UPSC v. Saumya Pandey [2020] GCtR 1081 (Delhi) where the candidates could not obtain EWS certificates before the date which was fixed in the advertisement itself. In the said case, the last date to obtain EWS certificate was clearly mentioned in the advertisement. It was also held that "even reference to a larger bench does not take away the guiding precedent of a judgment, unless and until the larger bench has either stayed the operation of the said judgment or it has set aside or varied the decision of the case, which was referred to it." It was held that "EWS certificate is only cognitive in nature which certifies financial status of a person within a given financial year." "EWS certificate cannot be equated with essential educational qualification required for qualifying for the said post." Further, public interest is not undermined by extending the cut off dates for obtaining certificates. It is also to be noted that UPSC filed an SLP against that decision but it was not set aside in UPSC v. Saumya Pandey [2024] GCtR 3544 (SC).