Ashutosh Sani v. Union of India

1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM APPL. 52195/2025

2. This application seeks permission to file lengthy synopsis and list of dates. CM APPL. 52196/2025

3. Having considered the contents of the application, the same is allowed. The lengthy synopsis and list of dates are taken on record.

4. This petition has been filed, challenging the Order dated 01.08.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 3524/2023, titled Ashutosh Sani v. Union of India through its Secretary, dismissing the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein.

5. To give a brief background of the facts in which the present petition arises, the petitioner had participated in the Civil Services Examination, 2022 pursuant to the Examination Notice no. 05/2022- CSP dated 02.02.2022. He cleared the Preliminary Examination and the Mains Examination.

6. He had filed his Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2021-22, on 26.06.2021, disclosing his annual income to be Rs.2,06,771/-. He then filed an amended return for the said period on 12.12.2022, that is beyond the cut-off date for the examination, now reducing his income to Rs.56,771/-, and claiming that for the purposes of EWS candidates, the annual family income would be Rs.7,82,076/-, that is, below the upper limit of Rs. 8 lakhs.

7. He was not shown in the final select list in spite of him securing the All India Rank of 489. Being aggrieved thereof, he filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, RTI Act) seeking reasons for the same, and came to know that he was not treated as an EWS candidate, rather as an unreserved candidate. Challenging the same, he approached the learned Tribunal by way of the above O.A.

8. The learned Tribunal, in its Impugned Order, has observed that the income shown in the initial ITR for the Financial Year 2020-21 (Assessment Year 2021-22) was relevant for considering the case of the petitioner under the EWS category. It found that the reduction of the income made by the petitioner by filing the amended return was an afterthought. Based on the above observation, the learned Tribunal was pleased to dismiss the O.A. filed by the petitioner herein.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of Section 139 (8A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to the ‘Income Tax Act’), an assessee has a period of 24 months to file the amended return. Exercising this right, the petitioner had filed his amended return within the prescribed period. He submits that the term ‘income’ for the purposes of the Civil Services Examination cannot be de hors the statutory provision and therefore, in case the candidate files his updated return, the same has to be taken into account by the respondent. He submits that in such a case, the cut-off date for purposes of the application, shall lose its significance because the candidate can update his Income Tax Return within the statutory period allowed under Section 139 (8A) of the Income Tax Act. He submits that having adopted the definition of the term ‘income’ from the Income Tax Act, the respondent could not ignore the other provision of the Income Tax Act.

10. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

11. In the present case, it is not denied that as on the cut-off date for the application for the Civil Services Examination, 2022, the income of the petitioner as shown in his Income Tax Return for the Financial Year 2020-21 would not make him eligible to be considered as an EWS candidate. Though the petitioner may be entitled to file an updated return in terms of provision of Section 139 (8A) of the Income Tax Act, his eligibility as an EWS candidate has to be judged as on the cut-off date of the application. The cut-off date cannot be changed only because in terms of the Income Tax Act, an amended return can be filed at a later stage. The two provisions, that is the cutoff date for purposes of assessing the eligibility of a candidate and Section 139(8A) of the Income Tax Act, act in their independent fields and have no effect over the other. Merely because the definition of term ‘income’ is taken from the Income Tax Act, even for the purposes of examination, will also not make any difference to the same.

12. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petition. The same is dismissed.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J RENU BHATNAGAR, J AUGUST 22, 2025/ys/GB/ik