Rashmi Supyal v. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the

counter affidavits. It is the contention of the respondents that the petitioner had procured EWS category certificate on

18.02.2021, which was based on the family income of the petitioner in the Financial Year-2019-20. This certificate dated 18.02.2021 could have been valid till 31.03.2021 and not beyond that. It is the contentions of the respondents in their pleadings that since the petitioner did not have any valid EWS category certificate for the Financial Year 2021-22, therefore, her candidature was rightly rejected.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was under the bonafide belief that she is being treated under EWS category because for mains examination, she was issued an admit card by the respondent no.3, the Commission and in that also, she has been shown under EWS/Uttarakhand Female category. Learned counsel would raise the following points also:- (i) The Uttarakhand Public Services (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2019 4 (“the Act”) provides procedure on the subject. Reference has been made to Section 3 of the Act, which reads as follows:- “Reservation in favour of economically weaker section

3. (1) In public Services and posts, on the order of direct recruitment vacancies to be roster accordance with specified in sub-section (4), 10 percent shall be reserved in the favour of concerned persons of the economically weaker sections. recruited (a) In public services and (2) posts, the reservation in favour of economically weaker sections shall be given to such permanent residents Uttarakhand, which are not existing included reservations Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes Educationally Backward Classes. schemes Socially State The persons of (b) economically weaker sections are identified for the reservation as section, economically weaker whose gross annual income of family, from all sources is less than Rs. 8.00 (Rs. eight lakh). Family income includes income received from all source namely- salary, agriculture, profession, business etc. The said income shall be income of the previous financial year, from the year of application, by the beneficiary; Provided that the person or their family possess any property, following properties, shall not be eligible reservation economically weaker sections:- (i) 5 acre of agricultural land or above; or (ii) Residential building of 1000 sq. Feet or above; or (iii) Residential plot of 100 sq. Yards or above in notified municipalities; or 5 (3) If, in respect of any year of recruitment, any vacancy reserved for any category or persons under sub-section (1) remains unfilled, the special recruitment shall be made for filling such vacancy amongst persons belonging to that category. (4) The State Government shall, for applying the reservation under sub-section (1), by notified order issue a roaster shall which continuously apply, till it is exhausted. (5) If a person belonging economically weaker sections as mentioned in sub-section (1), get selected on the basis on merit general completion with candidates, he/she shall not be adjusted against vacancies, reserved for such category, under sub-section (1).” (ii) Learned counsel would submit that in Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act, in the last sentence, the word “application” relates to the application which a person submits for obtaining the EWS category certificate. He would submit that word “application” does not relates to an application which a candidate files in response to an advertisement for recruitment. (iii) Government Order dated 29.04.2019, (“GO dated 29.04.2019”) which prescribes format for EWS category certificate in para 5 also records that the EWS category certificate, 6 which is issued till the date of advertisement, may only be valid. (iv) There was some confusion with regard to the implementation of the Act, because the format is enclosed with the GO dated

29.04.2019 does not specifically writes financial year on its top, instead a word “year” has been included and pursuant to it, the respondent no.4, the Tehsildar, Almora had issued a certificate to the petitioner under the EWS category on 18.02.2021 marking it as valid for one year. It is argued the certificate should be considered for next one year i.e. till

18.02.2022 and according to it, on the last date of submission of the application form i.e. on 29.02.2021, the petitioner had a valid certificate.

7. Learned counsel for the State would submit that along with GO dated 29.04.2019, the format is categorically clear and in its body it records the income of the particular financial year. It is argued that this GO dated 29.04.2019 is to be read alongwith Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act, which makes it abundantly clear that EWS category certificate is always issued depending upon previous year’s financial condition of a person. It could be valid for one year from the financial year in which the income has been assessed. It is argued that it is 7 true that the format which was issued alongwith GO dated

29.04.2019 was clarified by the Government on 09.11.2021, but it has not made any modification as such. The petitioner has no claim.

8. On behalf of the respondent no.3, the Commission it is argued that the petitioner did not have any valid EWS certificate on the last date when the applications were to be submitted.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, who has been selected under the EWS category, would submit that the candidature of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. He would submit that the Act is clear. There is no ambiguity in it. If there was any confusion and clarification has been issued to clarify the format enclosed with GO dated 29.04.2019, it does not make any difference. The clarification issued on

09.09.2021 does not make any modification or amendment in the initial GO dated 29.04.2021. Therefore, it is argued that the clarification would relate back.

10. Learned counsel would submit that Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act is quite clear. In this sub-Section, the word “application” in the last sentence relates to application of a candidate who seeks recruitment in the public services. It is argued that a candidate should possess EWS category certificate on the last date of submission of the application 8 form, which should be based on the income assessed in the previous financial year of the year of recruitment.

11. In fact, the dispute is in a very short compass. Facts are not in dispute. The petitioner appeared in the examination. She cleared the mains examination. She had a EWS certificate issued by the respondent no.4, the Tehsildar, Almora on 18.02.2021. The dispute has its origin to the certificate that was issued to the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the certificate which was issued by the respondent no.4, the Tehsildar on 18.02.2021 is to be valid for one year. Whereas, on behalf of the respondents it is stated that the validity of the certificate may be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not as to what the competent officer writes on it.

12. It is true that in her admit card for mains examination, the respondent no.3, the Commission has categorised the petitioner under the EWS Uttarakhand Female category, but it has been responded to by the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 that these are the datas which are preserved at the time when a candidate fills up the form and for issuance of the admit card those datas are retrieved and admit cards are issued. He would submit that it does not give a right to the petitioner to claim her eligibility under EWS Uttarakhand Female category. This argument has force. Merely because under EWS category, the admit card is issued, the petitioner cannot claim her right. It has to be 9 independently established. The fact remains that admit card was issued showing the petitioner under EWS Uttarakhand Female category.

13. The interpretation of Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act would find some deliberations. A person whose gross income is less than Rs. 8 Lakh from all sources is considered, a person belonging to economically weaker section. Last sentence of Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act clarifies this further. It says that “the income shall be income of the previous financial year, from the year of application, by the beneficiary.” It makes everything crystal clear. Whenever an EWS Category certificate is issued, it may relate back to the financial year. There is no confusion to it. For example, if in the month of April, 2020 a certificate under EWS Category is issued, based on the income of a person for the Financial Year 2019-2020. Such certificate shall definitely has force for the next financial year i.e. from 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021.

14. In the instant case, apparently the petitioner was issued the EWS category certificate on 18.02.2021 by the respondent no.4, Tehsildar, Almora. It records the family income of the petitioner for the Financial Year 2019-2020 as Rs.8 Lakh. But, it is stated at the top of it that it is valid for one year. The reckoning period of one year has also not been mentioned in the certificate that was issued to the petitioner. One year from which date? Does it mean, one year from the financial year for which the income has been assessed? If it 10 so, it means that this certificate which was issued to the petitioner was valid for the Financial Year 2020-2021.

15. This format was subsequently clarified by the GO dated 09.09.2020 and a new format was issued. On the top of it, it marks that for which financial year it is valid. It does not add or modify anything.

16. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 would submit that such clarificatory GO has retrospective effect. He would submit that if clarificatory GO modifies some action or amends something and by the time right has already been accrued to some person, such GO shall have only prospective effect. In support of his contention, he would refer to the principles of law, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and others Vs. Dr. Manu and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 640.

17. In the case of Sree Sankaracharya University (supra), in para 45 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:- “45. It is trite that any legislation or instrument having the force of law, which is clarificatory or explanatory in nature and purport and which seeks to clear doubts or correct an obvious omission in a statute, would generally be retrospective in operation, vide Ramesh Prasad Verma. Therefore, in order to determine whether the Government Order dated 29th March, 2001 may be made applicable retrospectively, it is necessary to consider whether the said order was a clarification or a substantive amendment.” 11

18. In the instant case, the Act is quite clear. Section 3 (2) (b) of the Act, makes it abundantly clear that EWS category certificate pertains to the financial year only. It cannot have any life based on calendar year or for length of any year from the date of issuance. The GO dated 09.09.2021 by which the format of the EWS category certificate as enclosed with GO dated 29.04.2019 has been clarified does not add anything, merely it makes clarification. Therefore, it cannot be said that since there was any confusion, the petitioner may have any right to claim the validity of EWS category certificate issued by the respondent no.4 on 18.02.2021 for one more year from that date. The petitioner had EWS category certificate issued on 18.02.2021, passed on the income of the petitioner in the financial year 2019-20. Therefore, this EWS certificate is valid for the financial year 2020-21. It further makes it clear that on the last date of submission of the application form, in the instant case, the petitioner did not have any valid EWS certificate. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim her right under EWS category.

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to make any interference in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

20. The writ petition is dismissed. Jitendra (Ravindra Maithani, J)

10.03.2025