S/L 36 12.08.2026 Court No.04 B.K.N F.M.A. 684 of 2026 With CAN 1 of 2026 Amiya Mondal Vs. Union of India & Ors. Mr. Arup Kumar Lahiri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Anubrata Santra … for the Appellant. Mr. Dipanjan Sinha Roy, Mr. Ashok Halder … for the Union of India. 1. Heard the learned advocate for the writ petitioner/appellant and the learned advocate representing the Union of India. 2. The petitioner participated in the process of recruitment of Constable (General Duty) in Central Armed Police Forces (for short ‘CAPF’), Secretariat Security Force (SSF) and Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles (AR) in the examination for the year 2024 conducted under a notice of appointment dated 24.11.2023. 3. It is submitted that the petitioner was a candidate under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category claiming benefit of reservation under the said category. He produced an EWS certificate dated 03.01.2024 issued by the competent authority on the prescribed proforma before the authorities at the time of document verification conducted in October 2024. The authorities have refused to consider his candidature as EWS. He is aggrieved by such non consideration as an EWS 2 candidate. He relies upon Clause 6.1 of the notice of appointment dated 24.11.2023. 4. He submits that in unambiguous terms Clause 6.1 specifies that only when the certificates are sought by the concerned CAPF for document verification at the time of detailed medical examination, the same were required to be produced. As on the date of document verification the petitioner had the certificate for EWS which was not otherwise invalidated. Thus there was no occasion for the authorities not to consider his candidature as EWS. 5. It is further submitted that the Hon’ble Single Judge has given the petitioner an opportunity of representation before an authority of the Border Security Force (BSF), which is contrary to the letter dated 04.04.2025 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India to the DIG (Recruitment) at the Directorate General of CRPF, which in clear terms specifies that the authorities in CRPF are the nodal authorities for considering and resolving such issues. The learned counsel thus submits that the direction of the Hon’ble Single Judge be modified accordingly. 6. The learned advocate for the union of India has opposed the prayer. He has referred to the report filed by them before the Writ Court. He submits that the petitioner’s candidature could not be considered as EWS for want of a valid certificate. As per the appointment notice documents verification was to be conducted along with the detailed medical examination. Paragraph 6.1 of the 3 notice requires the candidate seeking a benefit of reservation/ relaxation to submit certificate in support of such claim certifying his eligibility. The certificate was required to be issued by a competent authority, on the prescribed format as and when sought by the authorities for document verification. The crucial date for claiming a particular status for benefit of reservation/ relaxation was specified in paragraph 6.3 of the notice to be the closing date for receipt of online application i.e. 31.12.2023. A certificate issued thereafter, therefore, could not be considered. 7. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also perused the record. 8. In order to sustain submission of the EWS certificate dated 03.01.2024, the learned advocate for the writ petitioner relied upon Clause 6.1 of the appointment notice as if this was the only Clause governing the submission of certificates. Clause 6.3 of the appointment notice reads: “6.3 Crucial date for claiming SC/ST/OBC/EWS status will be the closing date for receipt of online applications.” 9. In unambiguous terms the closing date for receipt of online applications is specified as the date crucial for claiming EWS status as claimed by the writ petitioner. Even if the submissions of the petitioner’s counsel that he had a valid certificate issued on the proper proforma is accepted, the undeniable situation that emerges is that on the crucial date (i.e. 31.12.2023), he had no certificate 4 certifying him as an EWS. According to Clause 6.3, the petitioner was, therefore, ineligible to claim an EWS status. The authorities, therefore, in our opinion, did not commit any error in not considering him as an EWS. 10. The learned advocate has vehemently submitted that since the certificate was of few days later (03.01.2024), the status as EWS cannot be denied. 11. We are not impressed by such submission. It is by now a settled law that EWS status is subject to and dependent upon issuance of a certificate. The status also is for a limited period as it is subject to variation in the immediately next financial year. The crucial date is pegged by the appointment notice in Clause 6.3, extracted above, for a specific purpose, so as to determine a candidate’s eligibility with effect from the last date for submission of applications, which in the instant case was 31.12.2023. 12. We, therefore, find no force in submission of the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner in this regard. The writ petitioner did not produce an EWS certificate on the proforma prescribed, issued by a competent authority prior to the last date for submission of applications (31.12.2023). The certificate he wants to rely upon was issued thereafter, i.e. on 03.01.2024. Since the crucial date for claiming a reservation status was specified in the notice as the last date for receipt of online application (31.12.2023), there was no discretion left in any authority to accept a certificate in support of a reservation status 5 which was issued after 31.12.2023. The crucial date for claiming the reservation status specified in the employment notice was applicable uniformly to all candidates. All persons intending to participate in the recruitment process were required to be treated equally. The crucial date/ last date for submission of certificate, was required to be implemented equally in the case of all persons desirous of participating in the recruitment process. The submission advanced by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner that his certificate issued after the crucial date (03.01.2024), should have been considered, if accepted, would thus occasion a violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 13. Therefore, the authorities rightly refused to consider the EWS certificate issued after the last date for submission of online applications, submitted by the writ petitioner. The petitioner’s EWS status was, therefore, not sustainable in the recruitment process and we find no infirmity committed by the authorities in not accepting the EWS certificate dated 03.01.2024 as a valid certificate. 14. Insofar as the communication dated 04.04.2025 from the Under Secretary to the Government of India relied upon by the writ petitioner, we find from a plain reading of the letter that the same is addressed to the DIG (Recruitment), Directorate General of CRPF bringing to his notice filing of the writ petition and the legal notice sent on behalf of the present petitioner, so that he may 6 pursue the matter. The same does not in any manner create an opportunity for the petitioner to make a representation before the CRPF authorities. 15. At this juncture, the learned advocate submits that he will approach the authorities complaining that other candidates having a certificate issued after the crucial date were allowed. We make no comment on such submission and leave it to him to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 16. The appeal and the writ petition is dismissed. 17. Pending application is also dismissed. 18. Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities. (Madhuresh Prasad, J.) (Partha Pratim Roy, J.)