Divya vs Union of India & Ors.

Held: The CSE-2022 Rules have the force of an enforceable law – They are traceable to the All India Services Act, 1951 r/w the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 r/w the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955 and all this r/w Article 73 of the Constitution of India – The CSE Rules do not in any manner supplant any of the provisions of the All India Service Act or the IAS Recruitment Rules or the IAS (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations – They only supplement them – While the manner of conduct of examinations is clearly traceable to Regulation 3, it is untenable to say that since Regulation 4 in the conditions of eligibility does not prescribe EWS category and EWS certification and hence they do not qualify as part of eligibility – The EWS category itself came in 2019 – If this contention was to be right, then there could be no EWS category at all in CSE-2022 – Hence, the contention that rr.13, 27 and 28 of the CSE-Rules, 2022 cannot be given a status of rules cannot be countenanced – Additionally, these are rules traceable to the executive power of the Union which are duly traceable to Article 73 – These rules are duly gazetted and are set out well before the selection process begins and candidates are put to notice before the commencement of the process – It is too late in the day to contend that these rules have no sanctity or the force of an enforceable law– All India Services Act, 1951 – Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 – Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955 – Constitution of India – Article 73. [Paras 49, 50, 86(iii)] Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022 – rr.13, 27(3) and 28 – Plea to declare the said Rules to be ultra vires Article 14 to the extent it prescribes that candidate must be in possession of a EWS certificate as on the closing date of the application for preliminary examination: Held: Rejected – There is no case made out to show that the cut-off of 22.02.2022 was picked out of the hat – That was the last date for submission of the application and it was a validly prescribed cut-off – Where there is absence of any rule or absence of any prescription, the last day for fulfilling the eligibility is the last date of submission of the application – This is a judicially recognized default date – In this case the last date for filing of the application was prescribed as the cut-off in the Rules – rr.13, 27(3) and

28 are constitutionally valid – Constitution of India – Article 14 – Service Law. [Paras 61, 86(iv)]

Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022 – r.13 – Petitioners argued that being from the “EWS” category is a status and thus, the Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC) to be produced was only a proof and could have been produced at any stage:

Held: Such argument cannot be accepted in the teeth of the clear prescription in the Office Memoranda r/w the CSE-2022 Rules – Further, as required u/r.13, at the stage of Detailed Application Form–I (DAF-I), the document had to be submitted on-line before the prescribed date (for CSE-2022, the date was 15.07.2022) and that any delay in submission of DAF-I or document beyond the prescribed date was not allowed – These clear stipulations run counter to the submissions that on the rectification of a certificate it relates back to the date of the certificate. [Para 41] Service Law – Appointment/Recruitment/Selection – Date on which the eligibility should be possessed:

Held: If there are relevant rules which prescribe the date on which the eligibility should be possessed, those rules will prevail – In the absence of rules or any other date prescribed in the prospectus/advertisement for determining the eligibility, there is a judicial chorus holding that it would be the last date for submission of the application – Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022. [Para 46]

Service Law – Appointment/Recruitment/Selection – Selective Relaxation – Impermissibility:

Held: Determination of eligibility cannot be left uncertain till the final stages of selection, since that would lead to uncertainty – Further, if rules prescribe the last date on which eligibility should be possessed, any relaxation would prejudice non-applicants who for want of possession of eligibility would not have applied – Relaxation would then be selective, leading to discrimination – In the present case, rules clearly exist in the form of CSE-2022 – As is clear from r.13, by 15.07.2022, the certificates disclosing eligibility had to be uploaded with Detailed Application Form–I (DAF-I) and it was expressly stipulated that delayed submission of the DAF-I or documents in support will not be allowed – Further, much water has also flown under the bridge – The UPSC has made the cadre allocations and the EWS candidates against the 298 vacancies have also been allotted their respective cadres – Accepting the contention of the petitioners would also result in administrative chaos and will prolong the selection process indefinitely – It is legally not permissible and administratively not feasible for the UPSC – Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022 – r.13 . [Paras 51-53] Service Law – Appointment/Recruitment/Selection – Decision of the Selecting Body – Interference with – Impermissible – Petitioners argued that with regard to four candidates there was relaxation inasmuch as they were allowed to rectify the defects in the EWS and I&AC:

Held: UPSC considered these omissions as trivial and as not going to the root of the eligibility, unlike in the case of the petitioners herein – In the present case, it did not consider the defects as insignificant – Thus, this Court has no option but to reject the writ petitions of all the petitioners – Neither the Office Memorandum nor the rules in question can be construed as directory – They clearly prescribe the eligibility criterion, the date before which the certificate should be possessed and submitted – They also prescribe the consequence for the omission – The petitioners who did not possess the valid documentation determining their eligibility, before the prescribed cut-off date, cannot complain, if their claim for categorization as EWS was rejected – UPSC justified in denying the petitioners the benefit of categorization as EWS candidates – Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022. [Paras 74, 78, 80 and 81]

Constitution of India – Article 142 – Power under – When not to be exercised – Petitioners contended that in the event of this Court upholding the Rules and the action of the UPSC, it should exercise its power u/Article 142 and to do complete justice, the Petitioners should be treated as an EWS category Candidate:

Held: Petitioners cannot be granted refuge u/Article 142 – In the present case, by the rightful application of the OM and the CSE-Rules 2022, complete justice has been done to all – Exercise of power u/Article

142 should be done with great caution and circumspection – The present case is not the one warranting the invocation of that power – Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022. [Para 85]

Words and Phrases – “eligible” – Meaning – Discussed – Civil Services Examination Rules, 2022. [Para 44]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

Ram Kumar Gijroya vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr. (2016) 4 SCC 754; Charles K. Skaria & Others vs. Dr. C. Mathew & Others [1980] 3 SCR 71 : (1980) 2 SCC 752; Deepak Yadav & Others vs. Union Public Service Commission and Another (2021) SCC OnLine SC 709; Dolly Chhanda vs. Chairman, JEE and Others [2004] 5 Suppl. SCR

79 : (2005) 9 SCC 779; Dheerender Singh Paliwal vs. Union Public Service Commission (2017) 11 SCC 276; Alok Kumar Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2018) 18 SCC 242 – distinguished. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Others vs. Chander Shekhar and Another [1997] 2 SCR 896 : (1997) 4 SCC 18; Union Public Service Commission vs. Gaurav Singh & Ors. Decision of Supreme Court dtd.18.05.2022 in C.A. No.4152 of 2022 – relied on.

Karn Singh Yadav vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1472 (two-Judges) and 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1341(threeJudges); Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan [1993] 1 SCR 186 : 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168; Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab (2000)

5 SCC 262; Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India [2007] 3 SCR 95 : (2007) 4 SCC 54; Mohan Kumar Singhania and Others vs. Union of India and Others [1991] 1 Suppl. SCR 46 : 1992 Supp (1) SCC 594; A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra [1990] 2 SCR 463 : (1990) 2 SCC 669; T. Jayakumar vs. A. Gopu and Another [2008] 13 SCR 791 : (2008) 9 SCC 403; Ajay Kumar Mishra vs. Union of India [2016] SCC OnLine Del 6563 – referred to.

OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES