The Supreme Court has recently issued notice to Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on a petition filed by three civil service aspirants who argue that a clerical error in their Certificate, made by the competent authority, led to their denial of reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.
These petitioners reveal that despite surpassing the EWS cutoff marks, they were not selected in the 2022 Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC). Following the result announcement on May 23, 2023, their category was changed from EWS to General, resulting in their non-recommendation.
A bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice KV Vishwanathan was hearing a plea filed by the three candidates (Vimlok Tiwari & Ors), challenging UPSC’s action in treating them as candidates of the General category.
The petitioners assert that they were successful candidates with scores exceeding the EWS cutoff marks. They further argue that the respondent altered their category after result declaration, through letters dated May 24th and May 30th, 2023, without providing any justification. They contend that this change amounts to an arbitrary and discriminatory violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Stressing compliance with the respondent’s guidelines, they emphasize the possession of the necessary income and asset certificate for the financial year 2020-21. They confirm that these certificates were submitted well within the stipulated deadline of February 22nd, 2022.
The petitioners contend that the category alteration contradicts clause 9(3) of the Examination notice, which outlines EWS reservation eligibility criteria based on the Income and Asset certificate of the financial year 2020-21.
Furthermore, they claim that their denial of EWS reservation solely stems from a clerical error made by the competent authority. They underline that this error was subsequently clarified and brought to the respondent’s attention, along with supporting documentation during the interview phase.
The respondent not only acknowledged this clarification but also accepted the certificates’ validity during the interview.
On January 30, 2023, the respondent informed the petitioners that their EWS certificates incorrectly indicated the year 2021-22. They were advised to provide the original certificate with the correct financial year, i.e., 2020-21, during the interview.
The competent authority issued a clarification rectifying the clerical error, affirming that the certificate should reference the Financial Year 2020-21. At the interview stage, the petitioners submitted their certificates along with this clarification. Subsequently, when the results were announced, they discovered that their scores were 951, 953, and 943, respectively, exceeding the EWS cutoff of 926.
In light of the clarification by the competent authority, they requested UPSC to reconsider their candidature under the EWS category. However, the respondent responded that their certificates did not adhere to the prescribed format and returned the original certificates on June 19, 2023.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, they filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court.
