 due to a clerical error made in the certificate by the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC).){kind=link}
The Supreme Court issued notice on a plea alleging that three civil service aspirants were denied reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) due to a clerical error made in the certificate by the Union Public Services Commission (UPSC).
The petitioners alleged before the Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan that they were not selected in the Civil Services examination 2022 despite scoring more than EWS cutoff marks.
They claimed that after the declaration of results on May 23, 2023, their category was changed from EWS to General and consequently, they were not recommended.
The petitioners challenged the action of UPSC (respondent) in treating them as General category candidates after declaring results as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
The civil service aspirants submitted that they were successful candidates who had scored more than the EWS cutoff marks.
They further submitted that the respondent changed their category after the declaration of results by issuing a letter on May 24 and 30, without giving any reason. They contended that this was an arbitrary and discriminatory violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The aspirants submitted that they possessed the requisite income and asset certificate for the financial year 2020-21, as mandated by the respondent’s guidelines.
They maintained that their certificates were furnished well within the stipulated deadline of February 22, 2022.
Mentioning clause 9 (3) of the Examination notice, they contended that the change of category was a violation of the notice, which stated that the candidate will be eligible for EWS reservation if they have the Income and Asset certificate based on income of FY 2020-21.
The plea further alleged that the denial of EWS reservation was solely attributed to a clerical error committed by the competent authority.
This error was subsequently clarified and brought to the attention of the respondent, with supporting documentation submitted during the interview process, it noted.
The petitioners said the respondent had not only acknowledged the clarification, but also accepted the certificates as valid at the time of the interview.