The Supreme Court of India has dismissed a batch of appeals filed by candidates seeking reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category for the post of Health Worker (Female) in Uttar Pradesh. The Court held that for claiming EWS reservation, a candidate must possess an Income and Asset Certificate for the specified financial year, in the prescribed form, on or before the cut-off date.
The bench, comprising Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, affirmed the judgment of the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, which had set aside a Single Judge’s order allowing candidates to submit fresh certificates after the selection process had commenced.
Background of the Case
On December 15, 2021, the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission issued an advertisement for 9,212 posts of Health Workers (Female), with 10% (921 posts) reserved for the EWS category. The last date for submitting applications was January 5, 2022.
The appellants applied under the EWS category but were not included in the final merit list declared on August 6, 2022. The Commission rejected their EWS claims because the certificates they submitted were either not for the correct financial year or were issued before the relevant financial year had concluded.
The appellants initially approached the High Court. A Single Judge directed the authorities to issue fresh certificates correctly indicating the income for the financial year 2020-2021. However, a Division Bench of the High Court reversed this decision, prompting the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants contended that any errors in the certificates were the fault of the state agencies that issued them. They argued that confusion was created by differing descriptions of the required “year” in Central and State government orders. Specifically, they claimed that since they were eligible and had secured higher marks than the last selected EWS candidate, they should not be deprived of the benefit due to technical errors by the Tehsildar’s office.
The State (Respondents) argued that the advertisement and the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2020 clearly mandated that income for the “financial year prior to the year of application” must be considered. They maintained that the appellants did not possess valid certificates for the Financial Year 2020-2021 as of the cut-off date of January 5, 2022.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court examined Clause 8.3 of the advertisement and Form-I (the prescribed EWS certificate). The Court noted that since the application deadline was January 5, 2022, the relevant preceding financial year was 2020-2021 (April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021). Therefore, a valid certificate had to be dated between April 1, 2021, and January 5, 2022.
Upon reviewing the individual certificates, the Court found:
- Several certificates were issued in January/February 2021, meaning they were issued before the financial year 2020-2021 had even ended.
- One candidate, Sunita Kumari, submitted a certificate for Financial Year 2021-2022 instead of 2020-2021.
The Court referred to its previous rulings in UPSC v. Gaurav Singh & Ors. (2024) and Divya v. Union of India and Others (2024). In Gaurav Singh, the Court held that a certificate for a different financial year “goes to the root of the eligibility of a candidate.” In Divya, it was established that the certificate must be in the candidate’s possession on or before the cut-off date.
Regarding the appellants’ argument that the state was at fault for issuing incorrect certificates, the Court observed:
“The argument… that the State should not have issued certificate(s) concerning financial year which had not closed by the date of issuance of those certificates is of no substance, because those certificates were obtained even before the date of publication of the advertisement.”
The Court emphasized that candidates could have applied for fresh, conforming certificates after the advertisement was published.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, concluding that the Commission was justified in rejecting the claims. The Court also issued a cautionary note regarding judicial interference in large-scale public recruitments.
The Court observed:
“Before parting, we would like to observe that in matters of public recruitment… applications are processed through computer applications/ software and therefore, any error in the application is bound to result in rejection of the candidature. Challenge to such a rejection must not ordinarily be entertained as it could stall expeditious completion of the recruitment process thereby frustrating thousands and lacs of aspirants.”
Case Details:
- Case Title: Poonam Dwivedi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
- Case No.: Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (@SLP (C) No. 4001-4002 of 2023)
- Bench: Justice Manoj Misra, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
- Date: April 10, 2026
