Income, asset certificate must be before cut off date to claim EWS quota in jobs: Supreme Court

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that income and asset certificate of the specified financial year in the prescribed form must be in possession of the candidate on or before the cut-off date for claiming reservation under EWS category for a post.

A bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Prasanna B Varale also underscored that when the certificate is sought in respect of a particular financial year, the certificate of a different financial year goes to the root of the eligibility of a candidate.

The court dismissed appeals filed by Poonam Dwivedi and others against the Allahabad High Court's division bench judgment of January 9, 2023.

The division bench set aside the single judge's judgment directing the UP Subordinate Service Selection Commission, to consider candidatures of the petitioners to the post of Health Workers (female).

The HC noted the petitioners had qualified written examinations and their candidatures were rejected only because of the discrepancy in their EWS certificates.

In its judgment, the bench said, "In matters of public recruitment, where a large number of candidates participate, application forms are submitted online along with the scanned eligibility documents, certificates, etc. Such applications are processed through computer applications/ software and therefore, any error in the application is bound to result in rejection of the candidature. Challenge to such a rejection must not ordinarily be entertained as it could stall expeditious completion of the recruitment process thereby frustrating thousands and lacs of aspirants."

In the case, the court noted, admittedly, the appellants did not possess the necessary certificate in the prescribed form by the cut-off date, so no relief can be accorded to them.

"If the certificate(s) relied upon by the appellants were not in respect of the financial year prior to the year of the application and were issued prior to even closure of the relevant financial year, there was an error apparent on the face of those certificates and, therefore, in our view, the respondents were justified in rejecting the claim of the appellants based on those certificates,'' the bench said in its judgment on April 10, 2026.