JUDGMENT : 1. This is a bunch of four special appeals which arise out of a common judgment and order dated 19.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions no. 5392 (Writ-A) of 2022 (Poonam Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. and others); Writ Petition No. 6974 (Writ-A) of 2022 (Divya Awasthi Vs. State of U.P. and others); Writ Petition No. 6911 (Writ-A) of 2022 (Archana Saxena Vs. State of U.P. and others); Writ Petition No. 5264 (Writ-A) of 2022 (Komal Vs. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petition No. 6357 of 2022 (Shanu Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and others as well as in Writ Petition No. 2109 of 2022 (Thakura Devi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and others). Since the issue of fact and law is common in all the four appeals, hence, they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant appeals, certain facts leading up to the appeals are being noticed hereinafter. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being noted from leading Special Appeal No. 467 of 2022, however, wherever required the respective data and dates relating to the contesting respondents/writ petitioners will be noted at the appropriate place. 3. The U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission had issued an advertisement on 15.12.2021 for filling up 9212 posts of health workers (female). The last date for submission of the application form was 05.01.2022. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the main written examination was conducted on 08.05.2022 wherein the petitioners before the writ court had all appeared. The results were declared on 26.05.2022 and all the petitioners before the writ court were declared successful in the main examinations and then they were required to appear in the next level examination which was held between 09.06.2022 to 18.06.2022 and after the eligibility documents were verified, the final results were declared on 06.08.2022 where the names of the petitioners before the writ court did not find mention and it is in the aforesaid backdrop that the writ petitions came to be filed. 4. The issue raised before the writ court was that all the writ petitioners before the writ court were claiming the benefit of reservation under the Economic Weaker Section segment. 5. 4. The issue raised before the writ court was that all the writ petitioners before the writ court were claiming the benefit of reservation under the Economic Weaker Section segment. 5. It has been the specific case of the writ-petitioners before the writ court that they all possess the requisite income certificate which clearly indicated that they were covered by the eligibility criteria for the grant of such reservation for economically weaker section and that the Commission had arbitrarily ignored the said certificates. 6. It is in light thereof it was prayed by the writ petitioners that the final select list made on 06.08.2022 be set aside and further direction was sought that the said select list may not be given effect to prior to considering the case of the petitioners who were eligible to be given the benefit of reservation under the EWS segment. 7. The U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission contested the claim of the writ petitioners before the writ court by filing a counter affidavit and raised the plea that the certificate submitted by the writ petitioners was not in accordance with the advertisement and was defective. 8. It was also pleaded that the EWS certificate was neither in consonance with the format issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh which was in furtherance of the Government Orders dated 18.02.2019 and 14.03.2019 and that the said EWS certificate did not relate to the financial year in question, hence, the same was not found appropriate for being considered. It was also pleaded that since the certificate was not found valid of the writ petitioners, consequently, they were considered in the open category and as they did not meet the cut-off in the open category, hence, their names did not find place in the select list. It was also urged that the writ petitions were bad for non-impleadment of the necessary parties as the persons who have been selected had not been impleaded and the petitions were also defective on the aforesaid count. 9. It was also urged that the writ petitions were bad for non-impleadment of the necessary parties as the persons who have been selected had not been impleaded and the petitions were also defective on the aforesaid count. 9. The writ court taking note of the respective submissions and the material on record held that since the details and income of the candidate and his/her family member was filled up by the Competent Authority and that the advertisement was vague and the Government Order dated 14.03.2019 as well as the advertisement did not mention the word 'financial year' and used the words ‘previous year’ hence, the previous year would normally be taken to be the calender year and found that there appeared to be some confusion and considering the aforesaid, the writ petitions were partly allowed and the writ court directed the concerned Tehsildar to issue fresh certificates to the writ petitioners correctly indicating the income of the candidates and that the said certificates be issued for the period 2021-22 and documents pertaining to the financial year 2021 shall be issued by the Competent Authority. The said exercise was required to be completed within a period of two weeks with a further direction that after having received the fresh certificates, the same were to be submitted before the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission within a week thereafter and the Commission was required to proceed considering the candidature of the writ-petitioners on their merits before finalizing final results/issuing appointment letters. A further direction was issued to the State Government to look into the matter and issue necessary clarification with regard to the contents of the EWS certificates and instruct the Competent Authorities to fill up the same as it is incorrect issuance which affects the innocent candidates. 10. The relevant paras of the impugned judgment reads as under:- “18. In view of above, it is directed that the concerned Tehsildar who is the competent authority and who has issued EWS certificates to the petitioners shall issue fresh certificate correctly indicating the income of the candidate and his/her family members, the said income certificate shall be issued for period 2021-22 and documents pertaining to financial year 2020-2021 shall be issued by the competent authority. 19. 19. Let aforesaid exercise be completed within a period of two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the competent authority and fresh certificate shall be issued in the light of observations made herein above and same shall be submitted to the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, within one week thereafter on issuance of the same. On receipt of such certificate(s) the Commission shall proceed to consider candidature of the petitioners on their merits before finalising the final results/issuing appointment letters. 20. Before parting with the matter this Court is of the considered view that the State Government should also look into the matter and issue necessary clarification with regard to the contents of EWS certificate and instruct the competent authorities to fill up the same legally and properly, as its incorrect issuance will adversely impact innocent candidates, who rely on the wisdom of the competent authority and presume that the certificate issued is valid and correct and in accordance with law.” 11. It is being aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and order dated 19.10.2022 that the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission have assailed the said judgment in the aforesaid four appeals which as noticed above is being decided by this common judgment. 12. We have heard Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, the appellants of the appeals, Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the Poonam Dwivedi who is the respondent no. 1 in Special Appeal No. 467 of 2022, Sri Sandeep Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 in Special Appeal No. 465 of 2022, Sri Shobh Nath Pandey, learned counsel appearing for Ms. Komal, the respondent no. 1 of Special Appeal No. 464 of 2022 and Sri Durga Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for Sri Shanu Tiwari, the respondent no. 1 in Special Appeal No. 466 of 2022 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 13. Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Smt. Poonam Dwivedi in Special Appeal No. 467 of 2022 has filed a preliminary objection which is taken on record. 14. 1 in Special Appeal No. 466 of 2022 and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 13. Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Smt. Poonam Dwivedi in Special Appeal No. 467 of 2022 has filed a preliminary objection which is taken on record. 14. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the appellants in all the appeals has strenuously urged that the impugned order dated 19.10.2022 is bad for the reasons that admittedly the date of the advertisement inviting applications was 15.12.2021 and the last date of submission of the application was 05.01.2022. The advertisement clearly indicated that in case of any modification, the same could be made latest by 12.01.2022. In so far as the issue in hand is concerned, it related to the grant of benefit of EWS Reservation to the writ petitioners. In terms of the advertisement which was issued, a copy of which was annexed as Annexure No. 8 to the writ petition in Clause-8 clearly required the candidates to furnish the necessary documents claiming the benefit of reservation which included the EWS certificate and its profarma was also annexed with the advertisement. 15. It has been further submitted that since the selection for the post of Health Worker (female) was being done in the year 2022, hence, the EWS certificate which was required of the previous year ought to be that of the year 2021 which commenced on 01.04.2020 and ended on 31.03.2021. 16. It has further been pointed out that in so far as the case of Ms. Poonam Dwivedi is concerned, her certificate is dated 12.01.2021 and it is urged that the same has been furnished and it does not relate to the financial year 2021 as on the date of issuance of the said certificate i.e. 12.01.2021, the financial year 2020-21 had yet not ended and therefore there could not have been a proper estimation regarding the income of the candidate and his/her family which could only be issued after the end of the said financial year. 17. 17. In order to further buttress his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of the Court to the Government Order dated 18.02.2019 which was filed as Annexure No. 9 with the short counter affidavit by the appellant before the writ court also to the Government Order dated 14.03.2019 which was filed as Annexure No. 10 with the counter affidavit before the writ court and to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Economically Weaker Sections) Act, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2020) which was filed as Annexure No. 8 to the counter affidavit before the writ court. 18. The thrust of the submission is that the certificate which is issued by the Tehsildar was being done in terms of the Government Order dated 18.02.2019. The said Government Order clearly referred to the notification issued by the Central Government in this regard dated 19.01.2019 which also specified the criteria which determined the eligibility of a person seeking the benefit of reservation for economically weaker sections. 19. It has been submitted that in Clause-IV of the said Government Order dated 18.02.2019, it is clearly mentioned that an application for seeking such certificate claiming reservation on the ground of economically weaker sections will refer to a year prior from the year when the application is made. Even in the subsequent Government Order dated 14.03.2019, the certificate would be issued in the format which was appended to the said Government Order of 14.03.2019 which also clearly had a column indicating the financial year for which it was valid. 20. It is further pointed out that the Act of 2020 clearly defined the word "Economically Weaker Sections of Citizens" in Section 2(b). Attention has been drawn to Section 7 of the Act of 2020 to indicate that the certificate was to be issued by the officer not below the rank of Tehsildar and there is a clear reference that the Government Orders dated 18.02.2019 shall be deemed to have been issued under the aforesaid Sections. 21. Attention has been drawn to Section 7 of the Act of 2020 to indicate that the certificate was to be issued by the officer not below the rank of Tehsildar and there is a clear reference that the Government Orders dated 18.02.2019 shall be deemed to have been issued under the aforesaid Sections. 21. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that where the EWS Certificate which was being issued was in pursuance of the powers conferred earlier in terms of the Government Order dated 18.02.2019 and 14.03.2019 and later after the promulgation of the Act of 2020 in terms of the Act both had a prescribed format and it was required to be mentioned that the said certificate would be valid for which financial year. 22. In the instant case, in the case of Poonam Dwivedi, the certificate as furnished by the writ petitioner was dated 12.01.2021 and was on record as Annexure No. 12 with the writ petition. It clearly stated that the said certificate was for of the financial year 2020-21. The certificate further indicated that Poonam Dwivedi belonged to an economically weaker section as for the financial year 2020-21 and the annual income of his/her family was less than Rs. 8,00,000/-. 23. As far as the certificate of Shanu Tiwari is concerned, a copy of which was brought on record as Annexure No. 9 with the writ petition filed by her it was dated 21st of January, 2021 and it was valid for the year 2019-20. 24. In so far as the EWS certificate of Archana Saxena is concerned, the same was filed as Annexure No. 11 with her writ petition and is dated 05.02.2021 and it was valid for the financial year 2019-20. 25. The certificate of Ms. Komal was filed with her writ petition as Annexure No. 1 dated 06.01.2021, however, in so far as this certificate is concerned, the same mentions only the year 2019. 26. It has also been urged by Sri Mehrotra that apart from this glaring discrepancy which was specifically pleaded by the appellants before the writ court, the petitioners did not chose to file any rejoinder affidavit. The appellants before the writ court had also raised a plea that the writ petitioners had not impleaded the validly selected candidates and thus the petition was bad for non-impleadment for such parties and consequently no relief could have been granted. 27. The appellants before the writ court had also raised a plea that the writ petitioners had not impleaded the validly selected candidates and thus the petition was bad for non-impleadment for such parties and consequently no relief could have been granted. 27. It is lastly urged that the contentions of the writ petitioners in the writ petition was specific to the extent that the certificate issued was valid and therefore they have been illegally denied the benefit of the reservation for the economically weaker sections. It is not their case that the Tehsildar issued incorrect certificates or that the writ petitioners were prevented from filing better and correct certificates. Neither the Tehsildar was impleaded as a party rather there was a clear contention in the petition that the certificates were absolutely valid and the action of the respondent (the appellants herein) was arbitrary. 28. In the aforesaid backdrop, it is urged that where large number of selections was conducted and appointment letters were due to be issued on account of the order impugned, the entire process has been held up even in respect of such persons who have attained the selection on their merits and for the said reasons, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 29. Sri Alok Mishra, learned counsel who has argued the matter on behalf of Smt. Poonam Dwivedi and primarily his submissions have also been adopted by the learned counsel appearing for the other respondents (the writ petitioners) has submitted that the appellant-Commission does not have the right to assail the order. It is urged that the direction was issued to the Tehsildar to issue fresh certificates and it is only once the certificate was handed over to the Commission, was the Commission required to look into the aspect and hence at this stage where the Tehsildar has not issued the certificates, the stage for the appellants to assail the order has not arrived. 30. It is further urged that the learned Single Judge has clearly noticed that the parties had agreed that there was a confusion and for the said reason and to put the confusion at naught, the order has been passed which does substantial justice to the parties and as such the order impugned does not require any interference. 31. The Court has considered the rival submissions and meticulously perused the material on record. 32. 31. The Court has considered the rival submissions and meticulously perused the material on record. 32. In so far as the facts in between the parties is concerned, there is hardly any dispute. It is not disputed by the parties that the certificates, the reference of which has been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs nos. 22 to 25, the details given therein is not correct. Now in the aforesaid backdrop, if the contentions of the respective parties is seen in context with the material available on record including the certificates, the advertisement, it would be clear that the date of issuance of the said advertisement is dated 15.12.2021. The certificates of all the writ petitioners who are before this Court were issued prior to the date of issuance of the advertisement. 33. It is not the case of any of the writ petitioners that the certificates that they have furnished was issued after the date of issuance of the advertisement dated 05.12.2021. It is also to be noticed that the EWS certificates which is issued by the Tehsildar for the purpose of claiming reservation under the Economically Weaker Segment is issued under the Government Orders dated 18.02.2019 and 14.03.2019 which further crystallized in the Act of 2020. 34. It is also not disputed that the certificates which were filed by the respective writ petitioners who were before this Court, all were issued after the promulgation of the Act of 2020 which came into effect on 31st August, 2020, thus, where the Act prescribes a mode to do a thing in a particular manner and it also saves the Government Order dated 18.02.2019 by making a reference in Section 7 of the Act, hence, it cannot be said that there was confusion amongst the candidates or the Authorities. It is also to be noticed that the advertisement clearly provided that the candidates who sought reservations must have their certificates ready which were to be submitted at the time of verification. 35. In the instant case, if the certificates are perused, it would indicate that they have been issued in the month of January, 2021 and February, 2021 as shall be evident from the details mentioned hereinafter:- (i) In case of Poonam Dwivedi, the certificate is dated 12.01.2021 and is valid for financial year 2020-21. Hence, the certificates cannot be valid for 2020-21 as the year had not been ended by then. Hence, the certificates cannot be valid for 2020-21 as the year had not been ended by then. (ii) In the case of Archana Saxena, the certificate dated 05.02.2021 and valid for financial year 2019-20, though, it was required to be filed for the financial year 2020-21, thus, this certificate is not valid. (iii) In the case of Komal, the certificate is dated 06.01.2021 and is valid for financial year 2019. This certificate also did not relate to the year 202021, accordingly not valid. (iv) In the case of Shanu Tiwari, the certificate is dated 21.01.2021 and valid for financial year 2019-20. This certificate too did not relate to the financial year 2020-21. Hence all the aforesaid certificates are not valid. 36. Thus, for the said reason, we find that this aspect of the matter has not been appropriately considered by the learned Single Judge. From the perusal of the material on record, we further find that the appellants had raised categorical pleas in their counter affidavit regarding non-impleadment of parties which has also not been addressed. Moreover, the writ petitioners also did not make any effort to cure the defect and the plea which had been raised. 37. In so far as the objections raised by the respondents-writ petitioners is concerned that the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission does not have the locus to file the appeal that also does not impress the Court for the reason that it is the Commission who is required to hold the examination, prepare a final list. In the instant case, the eligibility is to be considered as up to the last date of submission of the applications. The certificates which ought to have been furnished was for the financial year 2020-21 which commenced on 01st of April, 2020 and ended on 31st of March, 2021 and thus, the certificates itself were not valid for being considered and the view adopted by the U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission in rejecting the candidature cannot be faulted. This aspect has also not been appropriately considered by the writ court. It would have been a different matter that the certificates were validly issued for the appropriate year but due to some shortcoming of the Authority the petitioners were loosing out the benefit, but it is not the case here. This aspect has also not been appropriately considered by the writ court. It would have been a different matter that the certificates were validly issued for the appropriate year but due to some shortcoming of the Authority the petitioners were loosing out the benefit, but it is not the case here. Here in all the cases, since the certificates were issued on the various dates as noticed in para 35 above are not valid. 38. In light of the above, it cannot be disputed that the certificates were invalid and that the action of the appellants ignoring the certificates and considering the case of the writ petitioners in open category which they did not make the cut-off for the open category cannot be faulted. 39. The learned counsel for the private respondents have relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Km. Laxmi Saroj and Others Vs. State of U.P. and others in Special Leave Petition No. 9040 of 2020 decided on 15.12.2022, however, from the perusal thereof, it would indicate that the facts were different which are not applicable in the instant case. In the said case, it was found that the candidates were not at fault as the certificate of registration which was applied for in time had not been granted by the Authority concerned and in the aforesaid circumstances, the Apex Court had intervened, however, in the instant case, it is clear from the pleadings of the parties that they had submitted the certificates which were not valid and appropriate for the aforesaid reasons as noticed hereinabove, hence, the said decision of Km. Laxmi Saroj (Supra) does not come to the rescue of the writ petitioners-private respondents. 40. Another fact that needs attention is that 921 posts were reserved for EWS category against which 644 candidates were selected. The remaining 277 posts were filled up by the open category in terms of Section 3 (c) of the Act of 2020 and the writ petitioners did not implead the last selected candidates of the open category rather some randomly selected candidates have been impleaded, this shall not cure the defect of not impleading the last appointed candidates from the open category. This Court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar and others Vs. This Court is fortified in its view in light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ranjan Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2014 (16) SCC 187 ; Vijay Kumar Kaul and others Vs. Union of India and others 2012 (7) SCC 610 . 41. In light of the aforesaid detailed discussions, we have no hesitation to hold that the impugned order passed by the writ court dated 19.10.2022 deserves to be set aside, consequently, the special appeals are allowed. The writ petitions before the Court shall stand dismissed. Costs are made easy.