EWS certificates issued on calendar-year basis are valid absent specific financial-year stipulations in recruitment advertisements.

The applicant was appointed to the post of TGT (Natural Science) (Female) in the Directorate of Education following Advertisement No. 2/2021

She joined her duties on 03.09.2022 and was placed on a two-year probation period, which was scheduled to end on 03.09.2024

However, the respondents extended her probation multiple times citing alleged deficiencies in her Economically Weaker Section (EWS) certificate

The certificate, issued by authorities in Punjab/Haryana, followed a calendar-year format, while the Government of NCT of Delhi required a financial-year format—a condition not stipulated in the original recruitment advertisement

The applicant challenged the repeated extensions of her probation and sought confirmation of her services

1. Whether an EWS certificate issued on a calendar-year basis is valid for appointment when the recruitment advertisement did not stipulate a financial-year format requirement

2. Whether the applicant is entitled to the confirmation of service and consequential benefits in light of established judicial precedents on identical EWS certificate disputes

The Tribunal relied on the principle of parity and judicial consistency, primarily citing its previous decision in Ms. Kiran Grover v. AIIMS (OA No. 2486/2022), which held that EWS certificates issued on a calendar-year basis are valid if the advertisement lacks a contrary stipulation; this was upheld by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WP(c) No. 10057/2024

The Tribunal further applied the ratio from Durgesh Kumar v. GNCTD (OA No. 2425/2024), where the court mandated the grant of notional pay, seniority, and promotion as consequential benefits in similar circumstances

The Tribunal noted that the respondents did not dispute the factual similarity between the present case and the precedents cited by the applicant

It observed that the issue regarding the validity of calendar-year EWS certificates had been extensively litigated and decided against the government in both the High Court and the Supreme Court, leading the respondents to implement these directions holistically

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s probation was extended solely due to the pendency of this legal issue and the interim status quo order

Since the legal barrier regarding the certificate format had been removed by prior judgments, the Tribunal found no justification for withholding the applicant's confirmation or consequential benefits

The respondents were ordered to issue appropriate orders confirming the applicant’s services, provided no other impediments existed

The Tribunal directed that the applicant be granted all consequential benefits, including seniority and notional pay and allowances, to be completed within one month of receipt of the order