Valid EWS certificates issued after the application deadline remain acceptable when the notice permits production at interview.

The petitioners, applicants for recruitment to the post of Constable in the West Bengal Police pursuant to the 2024 recruitment notice, applied under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category.

The recruitment notice required shortlisted EWS candidates to produce, at the time of interview, an income and asset certificate valid for the year 2023–24 or onwards, issued for the financial year 2022–23 or onwards.

The application window was from 7 March 2024 to 5 April 2024.

Interviews were conducted in January–February 2026, and the recruiting authority did not accept certificates issued after the interview dates.

Whether the last date for submission of the recruitment application, namely 5 April 2024, was the crucial date for determining the validity and issuance of an EWS certificate.

Whether the recruitment authority could accept EWS certificates issued after 5 April 2024 but valid for the prescribed financial year and produced at the time of interview.

Whether the petitioners, having participated in the recruitment process without challenging the relevant condition in the recruitment notice, were barred by estoppel from questioning it subsequently.

The Court applied the principle that the last date for submission of an application is ordinarily the crucial date for production of an EWS income and asset certificate, but this rule does not apply where the recruiting authority fixes a different date or procedure.

The Office Memorandum dated 31 January 2019 and the Government of India’s EWS FAQs dated 19 September 2022 recognise that the crucial date may be the closing date for applications, except where a different crucial date is prescribed in the recruitment notice.

The Court relied on Union Public Service Commission v. Gaurav Singh , (2024) 2 SCC 605, and Divya v. Union of India , (2024) 1 SCC 448, while distinguishing them on the facts and terms of the present notice.

It further applied the doctrine of estoppel by conduct, as recognised in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar , (2007) 8 SCC 100, under which a candidate who participates in a selection process with knowledge of its terms cannot subsequently challenge those terms.

The Court also applied the principle that the recruitment authority cannot alter the rules of selection after the process has commenced.

The Court held that the recruitment notice did not require the EWS certificate to have been issued on or before 5 April 2024.

Instead, it specifically required shortlisted candidates to produce a certificate valid for 2023–24 or onwards at the time of testimonial verification during the interview.

The expression “onwards” covered certificates issued for the prescribed financial years up to the interview, and the authority had not accepted certificates issued after the interview.

Accordingly, the interview-stage production requirement constituted a different crucial date within the exception recognised by the Office Memorandum and EWS FAQs.

The Court further found that the petitioners were aware of this condition from the original recruitment notice but participated without objection.

Permitting their challenge at a later stage would therefore be contrary to the doctrine of estoppel by conduct and would effectively alter the selection criteria after commencement of the process.

The Court distinguished Kamalakanta Maiti , where the notice expressly required the certificate to be issued before the last date for receiving applications, and Shreyasi Dhang and Hasibur Rahman Mondal , which involved materially different factual and regulatory circumstances.

The petitioners were not entitled to restrict consideration to certificates issued on or before 5 April 2024.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and the respondents were permitted to complete the recruitment process strictly in accordance with the recruitment notice.