Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shashi Shekhar vs Home Affairs on 30 May, 2025
Item No. 22/C-2 1 OA No. 1544/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O. A. No. 1544/2024
Reserved on: 16.05.2025.
Pronounced on: 30.05.2025.
Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Shashi Shekhar
S/o. Sri Ajay Kumar
Aged about 32 years
R/o. Village-Aira, Post Office-Aira,
Police Station- Shakurabad,
Sub-Division- Jehanabad,
District- Jehanabad, Bihar
Pin Code- 804421. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Kumar Shandilya with Mr.
Adit Srivastava)
Versus
1. Department of Personnel and Training
Through Secretary, DoPT,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pension,
North Block, New Delhi.
Pin Code- 110001
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Brijendra Chahar, Sr. Adv. (ASG),
assisted by Mr. Hanu Bhaskar and Mr. Pradeep Kumar
Sharma)
2025.05.30
RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30'
Item No. 22/C-2 2 OA No. 1544/2024
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present O.A. filed u/s 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, the applicant, in para 8 of the O.A., has prayed for the following reliefs: -
"I. Issue an order or direction that the Applicant is a candidate in the Economically Weaker Section Category and consequently set aside and quash the letter/order dated 23.10.2023 issued by Respondent No. 2;
II. Issue an order or direction to the Respondents to include the name of the Applicant for the Service Allocation, in accordance with his rank in CSE-2022;
III. Issue an order or direction to the Respondents to provide seniority to the Applicant in consonance with the list of officers from CSE-2022;
IV. Issue such other and further direction (s), which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems just and proper protecting the rights and interest of the Applicant in the circumstances of the instant case;
V. Award costs of Original Application in favour of the Applicant."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. The Union Public Service Commission issued an advertisement for the Civil Services Examination, 2022 (CSE-2022) on 02.02.2022. The last date for submission of the applications for the said examination was 22.02.2022. It is stated that at the time of filling up the form for the examination in question, the applicant was in possession of a valid EWS certificate issued to 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 3 OA No. 1544/2024 him by the competent authority dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure A-4). The applicant submitted that he filled out the application form under the EWS category for the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2022, scheduled to be conducted on 05.06.2022. The result of the preliminary examination was declared on 22.06.2022, and the applicant successfully cleared the exam. Thereafter, he appeared in the Civil Services (Main) Examination and was declared successful. The final results of the Civil Services Examination, 2022 were declared on 23.05.2023, and the applicant successfully cleared CSE-2022, securing the 240th rank (Roll No. 0850491). The First Service Allocation List for successful candidates in CSE-2022 was issued by respondent. However, his name was not included in the aforesaid Service Allocation List. 2.1 Aggrieved of, he submitted various representations dated 27.07.2023, 21.09.2023, 13.11.2023, and 26.02.2024 to the Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, stating his grievance and providing clarifications, to the best of his knowledge, regarding his eligibility to be considered under the EWS category. The applicant, after making the necessary corrections, filed an updated Income Tax 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 4 OA No. 1544/2024 Return (ITR) on 29.07.2023, aimed at rectifying an inadvertent error in the earlier ITR filed on 26.10.2021. 2.2 The Under Secretary of the Department of Personnel and Training wrote a letter dated 19.09.2023 (Annexure A-17) to Shri Ajay Kumar Singh of Ajay Vision Education Private Ltd., i.e., the applicant's employer, requesting confirmation of the authenticity of the documents submitted by the applicant along with his representation dated 11.09.2023. The applicant's employer responded on 21.09.2023 stating that the documents submitted by the applicant were as per records, valid and authentic copies of the company's records. On 31.10.2023, the applicant received a letter dated 23.10.2023 from the Under Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, stating that the representation dated 04.08.2023 had been examined in light of the Office Memorandums dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019, and was found not feasible for consideration.
2.3 Aggrieved by the above decision of the respondent, the applicant had filed a Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, being W.P. (C) No. 6/2024, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, challenging the letter dated 23.10.2023 issued by respondent. However, 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 5 OA No. 1544/2024 the said Writ Petition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide judgment dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure A-20) with the following observations:
"2. The instant Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution has been filed, questioning the communication dated 23.10.2023 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, informing the Petitioner that his representation/email dated 04.08.2023, claiming EWS status in the Civil Services Examination-2022, was not found feasible for consideration.
3. In our considered view, the Petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution to approach the appropriate High Court.
4. Having regard to the nature of the relief sought by the Petitioner, we request the High Court to hear the matter expeditiously.
5. With the aforesaid request, the Writ Petition stands disposed of with liberty to avail of the alternative remedy."
2.4 The applicant further stated that, in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's order, he deemed it appropriate to approach the respondent once again, in the hope of resolving the matter amicably and avoiding litigation. Accordingly, the applicant submitted a detailed representation to the respondent, seeking service allocation and addressing the concerns previously cited by the respondent in rejecting his candidature. However, there was no response to the same.
2025.05.30
RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30'
Item No. 22/C-2 6 OA No. 1544/2024
2.5 It is further submitted that the applicant obtained a fresh certificate from the Income Tax Department, certifying that, as per the Department's records, his salary income for the Financial Year 2020-21 (relevant to Assessment Year 2021-22) was ₹5,43,425/-, and his income from other sources was ₹7,000/-. Relying on this new document, dated 01.04.2024, which substantiates his eligibility under the EWS category, the applicant submitted another representation to the respondent, enclosing the said certificate. However, the same was also not responded to by the respondent. 2.6 Being aggrieved by the arbitrary decision of respondent, and in view of the fact that this Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the present issue, the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking the reliefs as quoted above.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPLICANT
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has raised the following grounds in support of the claim of the applicant, challenging the arbitrary and unjust denial of service allocation despite his successful qualification in the Civil Services Examination, 2022 under the EWS category:-
2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 7 OA No. 1544/2024 a. The disclosures made by the applicant regarding the financial position of his father/family and himself, as submitted to UPSC are true and correct. The total income is below ₹8 lakh, entitling the applicant to be considered under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category. b. Due to an inadvertent error on the part of the applicant's employer, Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) was applied to the entire amount paid to the applicant, which erroneously included a portion of the loan granted to him during the COVID-19 lockdown period.
c. The applicant, an EWS category candidate, successfully cleared the Civil Services Examination, 2022, securing the 240th rank. The rejection of his claim by way of a non-speaking letter/order dated 23.10.2023 issued by Respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable, and in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent is duty-bound to provide cogent reasons for rejection.
d. The applicant submitted all requisite documents and completed Detailed Application Form-I and Form-II in the prescribed format and within the stipulated cut-off dates. Therefore, his 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 8 OA No. 1544/2024 candidature ought to have been considered on merit by the respondent.
e. A perusal of the Income and Asset Certificate dated 25.10.2021 establishes that the applicant has a valid claim for inclusion in the Service Allocation List. Despite qualifying in the Civil Services Examination, 2022, he has been unjustly denied selection.
f. All candidates, who possess a valid Income and Asset Certificate and submit it within the prescribed time, form a single class. The selective acceptance of certificates, without providing reasons for exclusion, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
g. The certificate dated 01.04.2024, issued by the Income Tax Department, certifying the applicant's income at the relevant time, is a valid and official document. It ought to have been duly considered by the respondent.
h. The applicant has no further opportunity to appear for the Civil Services Examination. The respondent's arbitrary actions threaten to derail the career of an eligible and meritorious candidate.
2025.05.30
RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30'
Item No. 22/C-2 9 OA No. 1544/2024
i. It is a well-settled principle under Article 14 of the Constitution, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that every governmental action must be informed by reason. Any administrative action that is not guided by reason is liable to be struck down as arbitrary.
j. The applicant, in his representations dated 04.08.2023, 11.09.2023, and 13.11.2023, clarified that the discrepancy arose due to a bona fide mistake by his employer and the individual responsible for filing his Income Tax Return (ITR). No allegation is made against these individuals; this explanation merely provides context. A candidate's career should not be jeopardized due to a bona fide error, especially when supported by official records beyond the applicant's control. k. The letter dated 19.09.2023 and the employer's response dated 21.09.2023 confirm the authenticity and validity of the documents submitted by the applicant. This is further corroborated by the Income Tax Department's certificate dated 01.04.2024. These establish that the applicant belongs to the EWS category and must be considered accordingly.
2025.05.30
RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30'
Item No. 22/C-2 10 OA No. 1544/2024
l. Even if the revised ITR is disregarded, Form 16 (Part A and Part B) issued by the employer, along with the balance sheet as of 31.03.2021, clearly demonstrate that the applicant's income falls within the threshold prescribed under the EWS criteria.
m.In his representation dated 02.04.2024, the
applicant submitted additional supporting
documents, including:
(a) Form 26AS (Annual Tax Statement);
(b) Taxpayer Information Summary (TIS); and
(c) Annual Information Statement (AIS).
These documents confirm that the gross salary income for the relevant period was ₹5,43,425/-. n. As such the respondent's actions are arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the legislative intent of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. Denying the applicant his rightful claim lacks a rational nexus with the objective of EWS reservation.
o. The Income Tax Act provides for the correction of errors through the filing of updated ITRs. The applicant availed this statutory remedy to rectify a genuine and inadvertent mistake. The updated ITR, once accepted by the Income Tax 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 11 OA No. 1544/2024 Department, must be treated as valid and binding. Respondent lacks authority to question its validity.
p. The applicant's corrected and updated ITR has been duly processed, assessed, and accepted by the Income Tax Department, lending further credibility to his claim.
q. The applicant complied with all relevant cut-off dates by submitting the necessary documentation within the prescribed timelines. The respondent's actions amount to a violation of his Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
r. The audited balance sheet of the applicant's employer, Ajay Vision Education Private Ltd. (operating Vision IAS Coaching Centres), as of 31.03.2021, and its accompanying notes clearly record the loan provided to the applicant. Being externally audited, no changes can be made post- facto, confirming the applicant's account of events.
s. The applicant fully satisfies the criteria laid down in the Office Memoranda dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019 concerning issuance of Income and Asset Certificates. His gross annual family income 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 12 OA No. 1544/2024 remains below ₹8 lakh. Denial of inclusion in the merit list has, therefore, resulted in grave and manifest injustice by the respondent to the applicant.
SUBMISSIONS MADE BY RESPONDENT
4. The respondent filed a counter reply on 21.08.2024, wherein they stated that the applicant appeared in the Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2022. In the application forms for both the Preliminary and Main levels of the aforesaid examination, he claimed the benefit of reservation under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category for services/posts advertised through the UPSC's notification dated 02.02.2022. The applicant was recommended by the UPSC at Serial No. 240 in the merit list of candidates on the basis of CSE- 2022 under the EWS category. A candidate who claims the benefit of reservation under the EWS category is required to provide complete details regarding the Gross Annual Income of his/her family for the prescribed financial year (FY), in support of the EWS reservation claim, as per the relevant proforma given in the EWS Annexure, to be submitted along with the Detailed Application Form-II (DAF-II).
2025.05.30
RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30'
Item No. 22/C-2 13 OA No. 1544/2024
4.1 In the EWS Annexure to DAF-II of CSE-2022, the applicant has provided the following details in respect of his family income, as given below:
Income Details Name, Annual income of the family Whether the Relationship with members (including candidate and the candidate, candidate) for the FY 2020- their family Date of Birth and 21 from all sources i.e. members, PAN salary, agriculture, business, whose names profession, other sources are mentioned etc. (In Rs.) in Col. 3(ii) filed ITRs Father SALARY : 230000 YES Ajay Kumar AGRICULTURE: 0 01-04-61 BUSINESS: 0 BNOPK7429K PROFESSION: 0 OTHER SOURCE: 0 TOTAL INCOME: 230000 Self SALARY: 479270 YES.
Shashi Shekhar AGRICULTURE: 0
26-12-91 BUSINESS: 0
CKWPS0263B PROFESSION: 0
OTHER SOURCE: 0
TOTAL INCOME: 479270
GROSS FAMILY INCOME : Rs. 709270/-
4.2 Income details column of the aforesaid EWS
Annexure of DAF-II, the applicant provided Annual Income for the prescribed FY 2020-21 as Rs. 2,30,000/- for his father and Rs. 479270/- for himself. Accordingly, his Gross Family Income was shown as Rs. 709270/- in DAF-II. However, as per ITR as provided by CBDT for the FY 2020-21, the applicant's own gross annual income was Rs.7,48,425/-. Taking his father's 2025.05.30 income as Rs.2,30,000/-, as declared by RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 14 OA No. 1544/2024 him in his DAF-II, the gross annual family income was considered as Rs. 9,78,425 /-.
4.3 The EWS status of all the candidates claiming benefit of reservation under EWS category is determined as per guidelines contained in DOPT's OMs dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019. If a candidate is found to be falling under EWS category by applying the criteria enlisted in the aforesaid O.M., he/she is treated as falling under EWS category and thus, becomes entitled to the benefit of reservation. If a candidate is NOT found to be falling under EWS category, he/she is NOT entitled to the benefit of reservation. As per the aforesaid guidelines, the applicable FY of the I & AC for claiming EWS reservation for CSE-2022 is FY 2020-21 and the gross annual income of the candidate must be below Rs. 8.00 lakhs.
4.4 The same OMs dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019 enunciate income and other criteria as follows:
"Persons who are not covered under the scheme of reservation for SCs or STs or OBCs and whose family has gross annual income below Rs. 8.00 lakh (Rupees eight lakh only) are to be identified as EWS for getting the benefit of reservation. Income shall also include income from all sources i.e. salary, agriculture, business, profession, etc. for the financial year prior to the year of application for public employment."
2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 15 OA No. 1544/2024 Furthermore, persons whose family owns or possesses any of the following assets shall be excluded from being identified as EWS, irrespective of the family income:-
i. 5 acres of agricultural/and and above ii. Residential flat of 1000 sq. ft. and above; iii. Residential plot of 100 sq. yards and above in notified municipalities;
iv. Residential plot of 200 sq. yards and above in areas other than the notified municipalities." The property held by a "Family" in different locations or different places/cities would be clubbed while applying the land or property holding test to determine EWS status.
4.5 The respondent, during the process of service allocation of recommended candidates, undertook a verification of the gross annual family income of the applicant for the applicable FY i.e. 2020-21 so as to corroborate the details of annual family income for FY 2020-21 as provided by the candidates in the EWS annexure of DAF-II. For the purpose of verification, ITR details of the applicant and his family members (including parents/spouse/siblings) for the FY 2020-21 were also sought from Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) under Ministry of Finance so as to clearly assess the family income of the applicant.
4.6 In this respect, CBDT provided the information regarding the ITR details for the FY 2020-21 of the 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 16 OA No. 1544/2024 applicant only wherein it was found that as per the ITR, the applicant's own gross annual income is Rs. 7,48,425/-. Taking his father's income as Rs. 2,30,000/-, as per his DAF-11, the gross annual family income was considered as Rs. 9,78,425. It may be seen as under:-
Income details Name & Date of Gross Annual Gross Annual Relationship Birth & PAN Income of Income of with the candidate and his candidate and candidate family members his family for FY 2020-21 members for from all sources, FY 2020-21 i.e., salary, as per ITR agriculture, received from business, CBDT (In Rs) profession, etc as per DAF-11 (In Rs.) Ajay Kumar 01-04-1961 2,30,000 ITR not Father BNOPK7429K available 2,30,000* Shashi 26-12-91 4,79,270 7,48,425/-
Shekhar, CKWPS0263B
Self
Gross Family Income : 7,09,270 9,78,425
Due to unavailability of ITR, the applicant's father's annual income was considered as provided in DAF-II. 4.7 As per the Income details provided in EWS column for Financial Year 2020-21, the income of applicant's father and self is Rs. 2,30,000/- and Rs. 4,79,270/-
respectively whereas as per ITR provided by CBDT, the income of applicant for Financial year 2020-21 is Rs. 7,48,425/-. The respondent took into account the applicant's own gross annual income (Rs. 7,48,425/-) 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 17 OA No. 1544/2024 as per ITR received from CBDT and his father's income as Rs. 2,30,000/-, as declared by him in his DAF-II for the FY 2020-21. Thus, the gross annual family income of the applicant for the FY 2020-21 was considered as Rs. 9,78,425/-, which is more than the applicable benchmark of Rs. 8 lakhs for getting benefit of EWS category. As the family income of the applicant was more than Rs. 8 lakhs (i.e. the prescribed limit as per DoP&T's O.M. No. 36039/1/2019- Estt.(Res) dated 31.01.2019), he was NOT found to be an EWS category candidate and as such, he was NOT entitled for grant of benefits of reservation available to EWS category candidates only. It is explicitly clear that he has availed the benefit of EWS reservation during the process of examination in cut off marks level and was not recommended by UPSC as a General Merit (GM) candidate, therefore, he was NOT entitled for Service Allocation under the Unreserved/General category. Accordingly, he was not considered for service allocation with the approval of Competent Authority on the basis of CSE Rules, 2022.
4.7 The allocation of service (based on the provisions of CSE Rules of the relevant year examination) to the candidates recommended by UPSC is a time bound process and is to be completed as soon as possible. It 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 18 OA No. 1544/2024 is submitted that the overall process of Service Allocation not only involved the document verification of recommended candidates, including their Income and Asset Certificate for the applicable FY 2020-21, but it also involved verification in respect of annual family income of the candidate for the same applicable FY. This was done to ensure that the real benefit of reservation is available only to genuine candidates. It is reiterated that the gross annual income of family of the applicant for Financial Year 2020-21 was Rs.9,78,425/-, which is more than the applicable benchmark of Rs. 8 lakhs as also in contradiction to the information provided by the applicant in her DAF- II. Accordingly, he was not eligible for service allocation under EWS category on the basis of CSE-2022.
REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE
RESPONDENT
5. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondent, the applicant has also filed rejoinder on 17.09.2024 refuting the same. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is pertinent to highlight the applicant's candid acknowledgment of his father's financial status, despite being aware that his father had not filed any Income Tax Returns (ITRs). In such circumstances, there was no mechanism through 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 19 OA No. 1544/2024 which the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) could have independently assessed or reported the income of the applicant's father. Notwithstanding this, the applicant voluntarily and truthfully disclosed his father's income in the Detailed Application Form (DAF) submitted to the UPSC. The applicant is now being unfairly penalized for his honesty. It is respectfully submitted that had the applicant harbored any intent to conceal, or had he believed that the loan amount formed part of his income, he would have claimed EWS status without disclosing his father's income. The applicant's candid declaration, rather, clearly reflects his bona fides and absence of mala fide intent. Hence, the contention that the subsequently filed ITR was an afterthought aimed at availing the benefits under the EWS category is devoid of merit. It appears to be a retrospective justification by the respondent in an attempt to artificially equate the applicant's case with previously adjudicated matters, which were based on entirely different factual matrix and legal considerations.
5.1 Learned counsel also submitted that the applicant is well within his legal rights to revise or update his Income Tax Return (ITR) within the prescribed statutory time frame, particularly in cases 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 20 OA No. 1544/2024 where any inadvertent error or omission has occurred. Such revision is permissible under the law, provided it is supported by sufficient corroborative material, which, in the present case, the applicant has duly submitted. It is important to underscore that the process of filing an ITR is inherently technical and often complex for a layperson to navigate. This complexity significantly increases the possibility of errors, especially when the filing is undertaken not by a qualified professional but by an untrained intermediary, such as a cyber cafe operator, which was the situation in the applicant's case. These circumstances illustrate the genuine challenges the applicant faced in ensuring complete and accurate compliance with tax filing requirements. Furthermore, it is submitted that the respondent Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), by initiating an inquiry into the applicant's income based on his representations, has implicitly acknowledged that the matter warranted further verification. If the respondent truly regarded the updated ITR as a disqualifying afterthought, the need for such an inquiry would not have arisen. The very act of initiating this inquiry reflects that the respondent was open to considering the applicant's updated disclosures for the 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 21 OA No. 1544/2024 purpose of determining eligibility and service allocation. Accordingly, it is submitted that the updated ITR cannot now be construed as an impediment to the applicant's eligibility. Rather, the inquiry process undertaken by the respondent reinforces the legitimacy of the updated ITR and supports the applicant's claim for rightful allocation of service under the relevant rules and policy framework. 5.2 The following two judgments relied upon by the respondent to discredit the case of the applicant are distinguishable on the facts and their applicability, as the respondent contended that the case of the applicant is fairly covered under them and deserves to meet the same outcome as them wherein it was held that the revision made to the ITRs was an afterthought:-
2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 22 OA No. 1544/2024 i. Abhishek Khandelwal Vs. DoP&T (O.A. No. 1102/2022 , CAT PB Delhi decided on 19.4.2023);
The above case being referred to by the Respondent pertains to a factually distinct scenario and, therefore, its ratio cannot be mechanically applied to the present matter. In the above-cited case, the total family income of the applicant therein exceeded the prescribed EWS income limit of ₹8,00,000/-, and only thereafter, a revised ITR was submitted wherein the income of the applicant's mother was drastically reduced from ₹3,16,040/- to ₹5,074/-. Additionally, it is material to note that the applicant in that case failed to disclose his own income in the Detailed Application Form (DAF), and the same was unearthed independently by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) through scrutiny of the ITR. Moreover, the claimed income of the applicant's mother in that case was allegedly derived from agriculture or business activities, for which no supporting documentation or verifiable records were produced. Consequently, the revised ITR was deemed unsubstantiated and was rightly rejected as an afterthought intended to avail benefits under the EWS category.
However, in the present case, the applicant has, from the outset, honestly disclosed his father's income 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 23 OA No. 1544/2024 in the DAF, even in the absence of any filed ITR by the father. The subsequent revision of the applicant's own ITR was made within the permissible legal time frame and is duly supported by corroborative evidence. Importantly, there has been no concealment of material facts, nor has there been any attempt to mislead the authorities. Therefore, the facts, context, and legal implications in the cited case are fundamentally different from the present one. Accordingly, the ratio decidendi of that case is inapplicable to the facts of the current matter, and reliance upon it by the Respondent is wholly misplaced.
ii. Ashutosh Sani Vs. DoP & T (O.A. No. 3524/2023, CAT PB Delhi decided on 01.08.2024) In the above case relied upon by the Respondent, the facts are materially different and do not bear any direct relevance to the present case. In that matter, the applicant had filed a revised Income Tax Return (ITR) claiming a rent deduction of ₹1,00,000/-, yet failed to produce any third-party verification or documentary evidence to substantiate his claim of falling under the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category. Furthermore, the applicant therein had, in his prior communication to the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T), admitted to an income figure that 2025.05.30 was inconsistent with the income reflected in the RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 24 OA No. 1544/2024 subsequently revised ITR. Such inconsistency, coupled with the absence of corroborative proof, led to the justifiable conclusion that the revision of the ITR was not bona fide but a calculated afterthought, aimed solely at securing an undue benefit under the EWS reservation policy.
However, the applicant in the present case has neither suppressed nor misrepresented any income details. On the contrary, the applicant has made a full and honest disclosure of his father's income in the DAF-II, even in the absence of an ITR, and has revised his own ITR within the statutory time frame, supported by appropriate and verifiable documents. There has been no contradiction or inconsistency in the applicant's representations at any stage of the process. Therefore, the ratio of the cited case, which is primarily based on concealment, inconsistency, and lack of supporting evidence, cannot be applied to the present case, which stands on a demonstrably different factual and legal footing.
CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES
6. In support of the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the following orders/judgments of various Courts/Tribunal namely:-
2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 25 OA No. 1544/2024
(i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. reported in 1974 (4) sec 3, that where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative of Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. They require that State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situate and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant considerations because that would be denial of equality.
(ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in A. L. Kalra Vs. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd.;
1984 (3) SCC 316, and D. S. Nakara Vs. Union of India; 1983 (1) SCC 315, accorded new dimension to Article 14 by holding that arbitrariness does not always require a comparative/relative evaluation between two persons for recording a finding of discriminatory treatment. The Court held in absolute terms that an action per se arbitrary, (even in the absence of any correlation with any other similarly circumstanced person) shall be violative of second part of Article 14.
2025.05.30
RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30'
Item No. 22/C-2 26 OA No. 1544/2024
(iii) Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Dolly Chhanda
Vs. Chairman, JEE; 2005 (9) SCC 779, that the general rule is that while applying for any course of study or a post, a person must possess the eligibility qualification on the last date fixed for such purpose either in the admission brochure or in application form, as the case may be, unless there is an express provision to the contrary. There can be no relaxation in this regard i.e. in the matter of holding the requisite eligibility qualification by the date fixed. This has to be established by producing the necessary certificates, degrees or mark sheets. Similarly, in order to avail of the benefit of reservation or weightage etc. necessary certificates have to be produced. These are documents in the nature of proof of holding of particular qualification or percentage of marks secured or entitlement for benefit of reservation. Depending upon the facts of a case, there can be some relaxation in the matter of submission of proof and it will not be proper to apply any rigid principle as it pertains in the domain of procedure. Every infraction of the rule relating to submission of proof need not necessarily result in rejection of candidature.
6.1 In support of the stand of the respondent, learned counsel for the respondent further placed 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 27 OA No. 1544/2024 reliance on the following orders/judgments of various Courts namely:-
(i) Order/judgment dated 09.10.2023 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P. (C) 724/2023 in the matter of Divya Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2023 INSC 900; (ii) Order/judgment dated 25.01.2022 of Hon'ble High Court in W.P. (C) 6932/2021 in the matter of Aashima Goyal Vs. Union of India & Anr., 2022 DHC: 292:DB ; (iii) Order/judgment dated 01.08.2024 of the Tribunal in OA No. 3524/2023 in the matter of Ashutosh Sani Vs. Union of India; (iv) Order/judgment dated 19.04.2023 of the Tribunal in OA No. 1102/2022 in the matter of Abhishek Khandelwal Vs. Union of India & Ors.; and (v) Order/judgment dated 03.02.2024 of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3204/2022 in the matter of Parul Yadav Vs. Union of India & Anr.
7. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the submissions made by them and have also carefully perused the pleadings on record as well as judgments relied upon by the counsels for the parties.
ANALYSIS
8. The undisputed facts of the case are that applications were called for Civil Services (Preliminary) 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 28 OA No. 1544/2024 Examination, 2022vide advertisement dated 2.2.2022 in which the cut of date for submission of applicant was mentioned as 22.2.2022. At the time of filling up the form for the examination in question, the applicant was in possession of a valid EWS certificate issued to him by the competent authority dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure A-4). The applicant had submitted his application for the said examination on 5.6.2022 under the EWS category for the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2022, scheduled to be conducted on 05.06.2022 in which the applicant had appeared. The result of the preliminary examination was declared on 22.06.2022 and when the applicant was declared successfully in the said exam, he was called and appeared in the Civil Services (Main) Examination and was declared successful. The final results of the Civil Services Examination, 2022 were declared on 23.05.2023, and the applicant successfully cleared CSE-2022, secured 240th rank (Roll No. 0850491). Although, the First Service Allocation List for successful candidates in CSE-2022 was issued by respondent, however, his name was not included in the aforesaid Service Allocation List. Thereafter, the applicant submitted his representation dated 4.8.2023, which was rejected by the respondents vide communication dated 23.10.2023 on the ground that 2025.05.30 claim of the applicant being EWS candidate for the said RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 29 OA No. 1544/2024 Examination was found to be not feasible for consideration.
9. It is trite that amount received by an employee(s) as a loan(s) is/are not considered income and is/are not taxable at the time of receipt. It is well established canon that a loan is a liability and not income. However, if it is waived, either fully or partially, it may become income, especially if it relates to trading or revenue nature liabilities. From the pay slips annexed with the OA, it is evident that the applicant is repaying the loans amount given to him in monthly installment. Further filing of ITR and revision of earlier filed ITR is a legal right of an employee, if the same is filed within the permissible limit period. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. TCS Pvt Ltd (2020), held that the right to revise a return is statutory and cannot be denied, if exercised within the prescribed time. Tax authorities cannot ignore a revised return lawfully filed. Further the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in BASF India Ltd. v. ACIT (2006) recognized that filing a revised return within time is a legal entitlement and not discretion of the Assessing Officer. Further it is observe that there is no dispute to the point that the revised ITR filed by the applicant beyond the 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 30 OA No. 1544/2024 permissible limit as the same had been accepted by the concerned authorities in the income tax department.
10. Having regard to the pleadings, submissions and the judgments relied upon by the parties, we are of the considered view that the issue involved in this case is limited to the extent that whether EWS certification and DAF-II of CSE-2022 submitted by the applicant can be overlooked merely on the basis of original ITR filed by the applicant as provided by the CBDT and his family income for the financial year 2020-21 can be said to be more than Rs.8 lakhs and therefore, the applicant can be held to be not entitled for grant of reservation under EWS category and consequently no allocation to any service, despite the fact that M/s Ajayvision Education Pvt. Ltd., where the applicant is working certified that an amount of Rs, 2,05,000/- had been given to the applicant as a loan during the financial year 1.4.2020 to 31.3.2021, as is evident from page 109 of the paper book, i.e., Balance Sheet. Relevant portion of the said document is reproduced as under:-
Particulars Closing Balance
Debit Credit
* * *
* * *
Shashi Shekhar (Loan) Rs.,2,05,000.00
11. The aforementioned fact has been duly verified by M/s Ajayvision Education Private Limited, pursuant 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 31 OA No. 1544/2024 to a request made by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T). This verification is evident from pages 10 and 11 of the additional affidavit filed by the respondent on 27.02.2025, as well as from the letter dated 21.09.2023 (Annexure A-18 Colly.) issued by M/s Ajayvision Education Private Limited in response to the respondent's request regarding verification of the applicant's EWS claim. It is also undisputed that an amount of Rs.2,05,000/-, which was inadvertently mentioned in the Income Tax Return (ITR) for the Financial Year 2020-21 filed by the applicant, was subsequently rectified through a revised ITR filed within the permissible time limit. The revised ITR is on record. This fact is clearly supported by Annexure A-22 dated 1.4.2024, which is a certificate issued by the Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Income Tax Office, Laxmi Nagar, Old G.T. Road, Sasaram-821115. The contents of the said correspondence are as follows:--
"TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN :
This is to certify that the Assessee, Shri Shashi Shekhar PAN- CKWPS0263B) (Aadhar No: 3163 0426 2077] |Date of Birth- 26. 12.1991 whose Jurisdiction lies under the Income-tax Officer, Ward-3[4], Sasaram, and as per the Records of this Income-tax Department, it is found that this Assessee has Salary Income for Rs. 5,43,425/ and Income from Other Sources for Rs. 7,000/- for the Financial Year 2020-21 relevant to the Assessment Year 2021-22, and has been processed & assessed."
2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 32 OA No. 1544/2024
12. It is also apt to note that the said EWS certificate, i.e., Income & Asset Certificate to be produced by Economically weaker sections, issued by the competent authority dated 25.10.2021 (Annexure A-4) cannot be disputed for want of any material contrary to the said certificate produced by the respondent. Moreover, the DoP&T O.M.s dated 19.1.2019 and dated 31.01.2019 (Annexures A-2 and A-3 respectively) makes it clear that the determining factor for EWS eligibility is income for the financial year proceeding the year of application. The applicant's claim was based on FY 2020-21, and no contrary income documents have been placed on record by the respondent to demonstrate suppression or misrepresentation on the part of the applicant. As such by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the income of the applicant and his family is above Rs.8 lakhs for the financial year 2020-21.
13. We observe that all requisite documents and certificates mandated under the applicable provisions of the UPSC Notification were duly furnished by the Applicant within the stipulated cut-off date of 22.02.2022 in strict compliance with the procedural and substantive eligibility conditions governing the selection process. Legally valid Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC) was submitted by the Applicant 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 33 OA No. 1544/2024 which was issued by the competent authority and conforms to the statutory criteria prescribed under governing DoPT guidelines. Importantly, the said certificate was submitted within the stipulated cut off date of 22.02.2022, thereby satisfying all procedural and substantive requirements under the applicable legal and administrative framework and the relevant UPSC recruitment notification. Neither the UPSC Notification nor the UPSC Civil Services Examination Rules (CSE Rules), nor any Office Memorandums (OMs) issued by the DoPT explicitly prescribe any requirement regarding the submission of Income Tax Returns (ITR) or stipulate that the revision of an ITR constitutes a violation of any such Rules or OMs. ITR is required to be submitted during the filing of the DAF-II for the Interview Process, which takes place after qualifying the Mains Examination, specifically between 08.12.22 and 14.12.22. The prescribed cut-off date for this examination was 22.02.22. Prior to December 2022, there was no explicit mention, requirement, or directive either from DoPT or the UPSC regarding the submission of ITR or its relevance to the examination process. Therefore, the updated ITR cannot be retrospectively linked to the cut-off date. The recruitment rules, notifications, and Office Memorandums (OMs) must provide unequivocal clarity 2025.05.30 regarding which specific documents are required to be RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 34 OA No. 1544/2024 submitted and the corresponding timelines for their submission. Therefore, updated ITR should not be construed as a document submitted beyond the prescribed cut-off date, nor should it be treated as a new certificate or fresh submission. The updated ITR is inherently a continuous and evolving document, subject to rectification within the permissible timeframe and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Income Tax Act. The statutory framework governing the filing and revision of ITRs explicitly allows for such modifications, thereby reinforcing that an updated ITR remains a legally recognized and valid document rather than a new or distinct submission. Respondent initiated two separate inquiries in this matter. The first inquiry was conducted by issuing a letter to the Applicant's employer company on 19.09.2023 (Annexure A-17, Page 115 in OA) in response to the representation submitted by the Applicant on 11.09.2023. The second inquiry was initiated by sending a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, on 12.02.2025 (Annexure RAA-1, Page 8 in the Additional Affidavit filed by the Respondent). The very act of initiating these inquiries contradicts and undermines the Respondent's own contention that the updated Income Tax Return (ITR) should not be permitted; the 2025.05.30 respondent (DoPT) itself deemed further verification RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 35 OA No. 1544/2024 necessary rather than outright rejecting the Applicant's claim based on the alleged inadmissibility of the updated ITR. Therefore, we hold that the Applicant meet the criterion prescribed by the Central Government in the O.M. dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019 and is in possession of the required Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC), based on the income for the FY 2020-21.
14. As per the provisions of the Income Tax Act and various judicial pronouncements on income tax matters; an updated ITR is deemed valid for the specific financial year to which the original return pertains. An updated ITR is merely a continuation of the original return, provided it is filed within the prescribed statutory framework and time limits. Accordingly, an updated ITR should not be summarily categorized as an afterthought or as a submission beyond the cut-off date without a thorough examination and due consideration of the specific facts and circumstances necessitating such an update. The contention of respondent (DoPT) in holding updated ITR of Applicant as an afterthought on the part of applicant is not tenable. Updated ITR has legal validity and provide opportunity to income tax payer to rectified bonafide mistake. A holistic examination of the timeline reveals no mala fide intent on the part of the 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 36 OA No. 1544/2024 Applicant. Accordingly, the error in the original ITR must be viewed as a bona fide mistake. Furthermore, the income figure declared in the self-declaration is consistent with the Applicant's actual family income, thereby reinforcing the credibility and genuineness of his claims.
15. Applicant has not, at any stage, assailed or impugned the validity of the UPSC CSE Rules, nor has any challenge been raised against the binding Office Memoranda issued by the DoPT. Furthermore, the Applicant unequivocally acknowledges and does not dispute the lawful authority of the DoPT to conduct verification of documents and credentials.
16. As per the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) Rules, DoPT is vested with the authority to conduct such inquiries as it deems necessary to verify the authenticity of documents and submissions. In the present case, Respondent (DoPT) initiated two separate inquiries in this matter. As a part of first inquiry, a letter was issued to the Applicant's employer seeking verification of the authenticity/veracity of the documents submitted. The erstwhile employer of the applicant provided confirmation affirming on the veracity of the said documents. However, despite receiving response, the respondent failed to take appropriate action in accordance with the findings of 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 37 OA No. 1544/2024 the inquiry, thereby acting in derogation of the principles of fairness and due process. Also, no justification or reasoning has been provided by the respondent for disregarding or disbelieving the response received from the Applicant's employer. The second inquiry was initiated by sending a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 12.02.2025. The Additional Affidavit filed by the Respondent reveals that the relevant pages of the balance sheet documents of M/s Ajayvision Education Pvt. Ltd., the employer of the Applicant, as on 31.03.2021, have been verified and confirmed with the records of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. In both instances, the respondent sought to verify the veracity of the documents submitted by the Applicant in support of his lawful claim under the EWS category. No adverse findings could come to fore against the claim of applicant The outcome of both inquiries.
17. Justice must be upheld as the paramount value afforded to citizens by the Government run under the canon of Rule of Law enshrined in the Constitution of India. The principle of justice cannot be compromised under the pretext of impracticability or some petitions/representations. This approach was never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution when enshrining constitutional rights. It is the duty and 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 38 OA No. 1544/2024 responsibility of the Government to identify, address, and resolve administrative and technical challenges, thereby ensuring the effective implementation of beneficiary and welfare legislation, such as reservations for the EWS. The proper and equitable application of these reservations is essential in achieving their intended objectives, preventing their dilution, and safeguarding the rights of eligible beneficiaries from being unjustly denied on technical or procedural grounds. Statutory rules and administrative guidelines must evolve progressively to address emerging issues and complexities arising during the implementation of new constitutional amendments. It is imperative that a candidate who genuinely falls within the EWS category and possesses the requisite competence is not unjustly disqualified or denied consideration on mere technical grounds. The pious principle of substantive justice needs to be flow as unhindered stream upholding Rule of Law deep rooting democratic ethos. Therefore, the objective of the constitutional amendment cannot be allowed to be defeated by technical / procedural formalities.
18. The respondents have stated that the process of selection and subsequent appointment is a time-bound process, is untenable. It was pointed out that some candidates despite initially being denied allocation in 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 39 OA No. 1544/2024 first and second service allocation lists were allotted service upon review. We hold the view that the applicant is entitled to equal treatment and fair consideration, as in our view, the present case involves a bona fide mistake without any element of misrepresentation or concealment. The principles of equity, fairness, and natural justice require that the applicant's case be assessed in the same manner as similarly placed candidates, ensuring that no undue hardship is caused due to an inadvertent and rectifiable error. Therefore, the stand of respondent that the case of applicant is time barred or examination cycle stands closed and made precedent for other candidates is not tenable.
19. Learned Counsel for the applicant while arguing the case clarified that the applicant did not challenge the legal status of CSE Rules, sanctity of cut- off date as the applicant meet the criterion prescribed by the Central Government in the O.M. dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019 and are in possession of the required Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC), based on the income for the year 2020-21. Further, verification of EWS claim through ITR (CBDT) is not challenged by applicant. The sole contention of applicant is that, upon the candidate's acknowledgment of a bona fide error in the original ITR 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 40 OA No. 1544/2024 filing, and in light of the fact that the respondent acted upon the applicant's representations by initiating inquiries, it stands to reason that the respondent (DoPT), is equally empowered and obligated to verify the authenticity of the updated ITR as well. This is particularly so when the applicant is in possession of multiple third-party documentary evidences substantiating the contents and veracity of the updated ITR. The statutory framework under the Income Tax Act as amended allow such updation, coupled with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, warrant that such verification be accorded due consideration rather than summarily disregarded. To disregard the updated ITR merely on the ground of its subsequent filing, despite it being within the statutorily permissible framework under the Income Tax Act, would amount to an arbitrary and impermissible departure from established principles of administrative fairness and procedural due process. Moreover, such a position would undermine the legislative intent behind the introduction of the updated return mechanism, subject to prescribed conditions. Judicial precedents have consistently upheld that once a statutory right is conferred upon a citizen by a legislative enactment, any executive or departmental action that seeks to dilute or nullify the exercise of such right must pass the test of 2025.05.30 reasonableness, RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' non-arbitrariness, and legality as Item No. 22/C-2 41 OA No. 1544/2024 enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this context, the updated ITR filed in good faith and supported by verifiable third-party evidence, commands due consideration and cannot be disregarded without affording the applicant an effective opportunity to substantiate its authenticity, failing which the action of the Respondent would be vitiated by legal malice and susceptible to judicial review and does not find favour with us.
20. We have also gone through the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents (supra), We find that the facts and legal issues involved in the matter of Divya vs. Union of India & Ors', in W.P.(C) No. 724/2023 decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are entirely distinct from those concerning applicant. In Divya's case (supra), the applicant there challenged the validity of UPSC CSE Rules 13, 27 & 28, whereas, in the present case, applicant did not challenge any provision or Rules of the UPSC CSE Rules. Further, the applicant (Divya) did not possess the correct Income and Asset Certificate (I&A Certificate or EWS Certificate) for the relevant Financial Year 2020-21 before the stipulated deadline of 22.02.2022, whereas, in the present case, applicant (Shashi) has valid, I & A Certificate dated 25.10.2021 and submitted the same before the cut-off date.
2025.05.30
RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30'
Item No. 22/C-2 42 OA No. 1544/2024
21. Further in the matter of Parul Yadav vs UOI in OA No. 3204 of 2022 (supra) before this Tribunal, relied by the respondent, the issue involved was relating to discrepancy in Father's name in OBC Certificate, whereas, in the case of applicant in the present OA, no such discrepancies is there. Further, she did not produce the correct OBC Certificate, so her candidature was kept provisional and recommended provisionally in the final list, however, the applicant in the present OA submitted correct EWS Certificate and his candidature is never kept or recommended provisionally. Also the income of father of Parul Yadav (supra) for last 3 years was verified as Rs. 33 (Thirty three) Lac, Rs. 36 (Thirty six) lac and Rs. 50 (Fifty) lac during FY 2017-20. It was stated that she suppressed these important material facts and had written income as Zero, whereas, the income of father of the applicant in the present OA verified and came to be zero through CBDT verification. However, the applicant had declared the income of his father as Rs. 2.3 lac in the UPSC DAF, this shows that the applicant did not hide any material fact. Therefore, the decision in Parul Yadav (supra) is not applicable in this case.
22. The issue in brief in the matter of Aashima Goyal vs UOI, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 6932/2021), on which reliance has also been placed by 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 43 OA No. 1544/2024 the respondent, were that (i) she had failed to submit correct I&A Certificate (EWS Certificate) of concerned year before the stipulated cut off date (31.08.2020 in that case) despite being given many extensions to produce the correct certificate and she failed to produce Original ITR (Dated 24.07.2018) of her father showing income of Rs. 3,81,972/- for FY 2017-18 and later Revised on 21.09.2020 to Rs. 1,04,863/- i.e. 73% lower. Last 2 consecutive years income of his father was Rs. 2,76,480/- for FY 2015-16 and Rs. 2,83,990/- for FY 2016-17. It was observed that there was a steady increase in income and bringing down father's income to nearly 73% in updated ITR of FY 2017-18 without any factual or analytical evidence. DoPT cancelled the candidature and informed her too. Further, she objected DoPT right to verify the income through CBDT route. Both, she and her father filed the ITR, while in the case of present applicant, he only filed ITR and income of his father was declared by him (applicant) in DAF at given time while filling up the said form. The present applicant has submitted correct EWS Certificate before the cut off date which was 22.02.2022. He states that his own income is Rs. 2.53 Lac for FY 2017-18; Rs. 2.79 Lac for FY 2018-19 and Rs. 5.48 Lac for FY 2019-20. Also, unlike her, updated ITR of the present applicant is backed by 2025.05.30 numerous evidences/facts and he did not have any RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 44 OA No. 1544/2024 objection to CBDT verification. His only contention is that updating an ITR is permitted by law and it cannot be objected to for being filed later as it would effectively undermines the legislative intent of the Income Tax Act, which expressly allows such updates within a prescribed timeframe. Further, the applicant in the present OA only filed ITR and father did not file ITR. The applicant on his own volition filled up the income of his father in DAF-II. Given above position, the decision in Aashima Goyal (supra) is not applicable in this matter.
23. In the matter of Abhishek Khandelwal vs DoPT (OA 1102/2022) and Ashutosh Sani vs DoPT (OA 3524/2023), relied by the respondents, before this Tribunal, the facts mentioned therein are completely different from that of the applicant in the present case and, therefore, the decision/ratio of above cases cannot be applied in the present case. The case of applicant is distinguishable from these two cases as the applicant not only update the ITR (Page 90 in OA) but was able to corroborate the same with many documents submitted by the applicant in his pleadings before us in the present matter. We are of the view that the Respondent has erroneously applied the case laws in a generalized and indiscriminate manner, incorrectly presuming that all revised ITRs should be categorized as afterthought 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 45 OA No. 1544/2024 without conducting an independent and case-specific assessment.
CONCLUSIONS
24. Based on the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that applicant meet the criterion prescribed by the Central Government in the OMs dated 19.01.2019 and 31.01.2019 and is in possession of the required Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC), based on the income for the FY 2020-21. The Income and Asset Certificate (I&AC) submitted by the Applicant is legally valid, duly issued by the competent authority, and conforms to the prescribed criteria. The certificate was submitted within the stipulated cut-off date of 22.02.2022, thereby satisfying all procedural and substantive requirements under the applicable legal and administrative framework and the relevant UPSC recruitment notification. The mere fact that an updated return has been filed cannot, in itself, be construed as an act borne out of afterthought or with mala fide intent. The filing of an updated return, as permitted under the statutory framework, carries full legal validity and sanctity unless and until it is specifically rebutted by cogent material or circumstantial evidence indicative of manipulative intent or lack of bona fides. The outcome of the enquiries initiated by the Respondent has also failed to produce any material 2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 46 OA No. 1544/2024 evidence to suggest that the Applicant acted with mala fide intent or that the documents/certificates submitted in support of the EWS claim are unauthentic. The discrepancy of income in the ITRs, which pertained to a loan amount of ₹ 2.05 lakh, was merely an inadvertent error and not a deliberate misrepresentation. This error was rectified lawfully in accordance with the Income Tax Act, and such rectification was duly accepted by the Income Tax Department based on multiple third-party evidences, thereby further reinforcing the bona fide nature of the applicant's actions. Consequently, the assertion of afterthought remains unfounded and without merit. We hold that the applicant is a candidate, who belongs to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Category and hence is entitled to the stipulated benefits.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussion and taking totality of facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the OA deserves to be allowed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and this may not be treated as a precedent. Accordingly, the same is allowed with the following directions:-
(i) Impugned order dated 23.10.2023 (Annexure A-
1) passed by the Respondent is quashed and set aside.
2025.05.30 RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30' Item No. 22/C-2 47 OA No. 1544/2024
(ii) Respondent is directed to allocate service to the applicant in accordance with his rank and EWS category, with seniority in consonance to the list of officers selected and allocated services as per results of Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2022, within a period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(iii) Respondent shall take action within above mentioned period and depute applicant for training.
26. There shall be no order as to costs.
27. Pending MA (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R. N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/neetu/
2025.05.30
RAVI KANOJIA15:54:01+05'30'