EWS Income And Asset Certificate Meeting Reservation Eligibility Cannot Be Invalidated For Improper Format: J&K And Ladakh High Court
The High Court held that a certificate issued by a competent authority satisfying eligibility requirements under the Reservation Rules cannot be rejected merely because it was not issued in the prescribed format, since substantive compliance prevails over technical defects.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Justice Sanjay Parihar, Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that an income and asset certificate issued by a competent authority cannot be treated as invalid solely on the ground that it was not issued in the prescribed format, where the certificate otherwise fulfils the requirements of the Reservation Rules and establishes the applicant’s eligibility for reservation benefits.
The Court was hearing a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a service claim seeking selection and appointment as Assistant Professor (Botany) under the EWS category after the Tribunal declined relief.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar considered the dispute arising from a recruitment process where a competing candidate’s certificate was questioned despite having been issued before the cut-off date, and observed: “If the certificate issued by the competent authority, which is a certificate of income and assets, meets the requirements of Reservation Rules and makes the applicant eligible for obtaining such certificate, such certificate cannot be held to be invalid only on the ground that the issuing authority has not issued it on the proper format.”
Background
Posts of Assistant Professor (Botany) were referred to the Public Service Commission and notified through recruitment advertisements, after which a common written examination and interviews were conducted.
The petitioner and another candidate participated under the EWS category and were shortlisted for an interview, after which a provisional select list was issued.
The dispute arose because a competing candidate who secured a higher merit did not initially figure in the select list. His EWS certificate, dated before the cut-off date, had been submitted but was not accepted because it was not in the prescribed format, though later clarification from the issuing authority confirmed its conformity with the required format.
The Commission withheld a recommendation for one EWS post and considered the representation after hearing both sides.
The petitioner challenged this before the Tribunal, which rejected her claim. She then approached the High Court under Article 226.
Court’s Observation
The Court first addressed the legal issue of whether a reservation certificate can be rejected merely because it is not in the prescribed format, even though issued by a competent authority and meets substantive eligibility criteria. It held that if a certificate satisfies the Reservation Rules and establishes eligibility, its validity cannot be denied simply because the issuing authority used a different format.
The Bench emphasised that “It is the substance and not the form that should determine the validity of a particular certificate in contention.”
Applying this principle, the Court noted that technically the candidate did not possess a certificate in the correct format on the cut-off date, but the document had been issued before that date and satisfied eligibility requirements.
The Bench further held that denying appointment solely on this ground would be unjust, particularly when the issuing authority clarified its validity and there was no allegation that the candidate was ineligible or had procured the certificate improperly.
Distinguishing precedents cited by the petitioner, the Court observed that those cases involved certificates issued by incompetent authorities or explicit advertisement stipulations requiring a particular format, which were absent in the present case.
The Court also noted that the Tribunal and the Commission had arrived at a fair conclusion that the higher-merit candidate could not be denied selection merely because the certificate format differed.
In evaluating the reasoning, the Bench found no legal infirmity in the decision-making process of the authorities and held that their approach was consistent with fairness and the governing reservation framework.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and declined to interfere with the selection process, holding that rejection of a reservation certificate solely on technical format grounds is impermissible when the certificate is substantively valid and issued before the cut-off date.
The writ petition was therefore dismissed.
Cause Title: Priyanka Rakwal v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors.
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocates D.S. Chauhan with Damini Singh Chauhan
Respondents: Ravinder Gupta AAG, with Advocates M.Y. Akhoon, F.A. Natnoo and Amit Gupta