Calcutta HC Dismisses Writ Seeking Acceptance of EWS Certificate for Wrong Financial Year in AAI Recruitment
The Calcutta High Court refused to direct the Airports Authority of India to accept an EWS certificate for a financial year different from the one prescribed in its recruitment notice, holding that a job aspirant cannot command a recruiting authority to depart from its own conditions.
Justice Amrita Sinha, sitting singly in the Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction at Calcutta, dismissed a writ petition filed by Deepak Kumar, a candidate whose candidature in an Airports Authority of India recruitment was cancelled after he failed to produce an EWS certificate for the financial year specified in the advertisement. The court held that accepting a certificate for a different financial year would amount to discrimination against other candidates who also lacked the prescribed document, and that no writ of Mandamus could lie to compel the AAI to accept documents contrary to its own recruitment notice. The court drew directly on a 10 April 2026 Supreme Court ruling in Poonam Dwivedi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. to reinforce its reasoning.
The Recruitment Condition and the Petitioner’s Failure
The AAI published Advertisement No. ER/02/2024 inviting applications for posts reserved, among other categories, for Economically Weaker Sections. The notice required EWS candidates to submit an income and asset certificate for the financial year 2023–24, in the prescribed format issued by a competent authority, at the time of document verification.
Deepak Kumar applied under the EWS category. When he appeared for document verification, he could not produce the certificate for FY 2023–24. Instead, he submitted an undertaking that he would furnish the required document by 6 February 2026. The undertaking itself acknowledged that the last date for submission of deficient documents was 13 February 2026.
He was unable to produce the certificate within that extended period as well. The AAI cancelled his candidature. He then approached the High Court seeking a direction that the respondents accept an EWS certificate for the financial year 2024–25 in place of the one prescribed.
His argument before the court was that because the examination itself took place in 2025, he was unable to obtain a certificate for FY 2023–24.
The Legal Issue: Whether a Mandamus Can Override a Recruitment Condition
The AAI opposed the petition. Its counsel argued that the recruitment notice expressly specified the financial year for which the EWS certificate was required, and that there was no scope for any relaxation. The respondents relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment dated 10 April 2026 in Poonam Dwivedi & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported as 2026 SCC OnLine SC 577.
In that decision, the Supreme Court reiterated 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 Supreme Court had held that the authority was justified in rejecting claims based on certificates not in conformity with the recruitment notice.
The core legal question before Justice Sinha was whether a writ of Mandamus could issue directing the AAI to accept a document that the recruitment notice did not permit.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Sinha found it undisputed that the petitioner had not produced the EWS certificate for FY 2023–24 as required. She held that relying on a certificate for any other financial year would not validate the reservation claimed, because the recruitment notice had made the prescribed year a binding condition for all applicants.
The court observed that a job aspirant in a public recruitment examination is bound to follow the conditions set out in the recruitment notice. It is not open to such an aspirant to direct the recruiting authority on how to prescribe conditions for its own process.
On the discrimination point, the court reasoned that if the petitioner’s prayer were accepted, it would amount to discrimination against other candidates who were similarly placed, that is, candidates who also lacked the prescribed document but did not approach the court. Granting a departure for one candidate would deprive others of the same opportunity, and those candidates could equally approach the court seeking similar relaxation. The court found this an unacceptable outcome.
Justice Sinha also noted that no case had been made out that the AAI acted contrary to the conditions it had itself laid down in the recruitment notice. The authority had done no more than enforce its own advertisement.
Outcome
The court held that the prayer seeking a direction to accept an EWS certificate for a different financial year could not be accepted. No relief was granted. The writ petition was dismissed.