Judgment B.P.Singh, J. 1. The petitioners herein have prayed for cancellation of the list pf candidates selected by the respondent-Bihar Public Service Commission, and recommended for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor on the basis of the special competitive examination held in the year 1991. It may be noticed that the aforesaid special competitive examination was held only for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The petitioners have further prayed that their names may be included in the merit list since the candidates who secured lesser marks have been recommended for appointment. The respondent-Commission have justified its action stating that the petitioners had not submitted the necessary caste certificate which they were required to do within the prescribed period. 2. The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioners claim that they are Hrijan, and as such they are members of Scheduled caste. Pursuant to the advertisement they had submitted their applications with necessary certificates and were called upon to appear at the written test. Since they qualified at the written test, they were called for interview which was held on 19.1.1993. It appears from the letters dated 17th February, 1993 issued to the petitioners after the interview, that they were reminded that while issuing the advertisement it had been clearly stated that those who sought benefit of reservation as candidates belonging to Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe category must submit a caste certificate either signed or counter-signed by the District Magistrate or signed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. The caste certificates counter-signed by the Sub-divisional Magistrates were not acceptable. The petitioners were informed that the caste certificates submitted by them were not in accordance with the advertisement. They were, therefore, informed that they should submit caste certificate issued by the Competent Authority in any event latest by 28th February, 1993. The letter issued to petitioner No. 1 (Rajmani Harijan) mentioned that the caste certificate produced by him had been issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Administration), Gyanpur, Varanasi. Similarly, the letter issued to petitioner No. 2 (Suresh Chandra) stated that the caste certificate issued to him had been counter-signed by an officer for the District Magistrate. The certificates produced by petitioner No. 2 have been annexed as Annexure-3, and it appears that the same had been signed by the Tehsildar, but counter-signer by someone on behalf of the District Magistrate. The certificates produced by petitioner No. 2 have been annexed as Annexure-3, and it appears that the same had been signed by the Tehsildar, but counter-signer by someone on behalf of the District Magistrate. In response to the communication of the respondent-Commission petitioner No. 1 submitted a caste certificate signed by the Pargana Magistrate, Bhadohi, Varanasi, which was counter-signed by some other officer for the District Magistrate. This certificate is Annexure 3-A to the writ petition and appears to have been signed on 27.2. 1993. It is not disputed that the aforesaid case certificate was produced before the respondent-Commission on Ist March, 1993. Petitioner No. 2, however, submitted the caste certificate on March 10, 1993, issued by the District Magistrate, Allahabad (Annexure-3). 3. It is not disputed that the merit list was published on 3rd March, 1993, two days after the receipt of the caste certificate from petitioner No. 1 and seven days before the receipt of caste certificate from petitioner No. 2. 4. The case of the respondent-Commission is that even if the petitioners had secured higher marks than the selected candidates since both the petitioners had not submitted the caste certificates within the period prescribed, they could not be given the benefit of reservation. Obviously, they could not be recommended. As noticed earlier, the special competitive examination was held for selecting only Scheduled caste and Scheduled tribe candidates. So far as the certificate submitted by petitioner No. 1 is concerned, there was another objection, namely, that the said certificate was neither signed nor counter-signed by the District Magistrate. 5. Counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the certificate was not signed by the District Magistrate, since someone had signed it for the District Magistrate, the same should have been accepted by the Commission. The petitioners have also relied upon four unreported decisions of this Court to which I shall advert later. On principle, the submission urged on behalf of the petitioners does not deserve acceptance. It is open to the Bihar Public Service Commission to feel satisfied by production of evidence before it that the concerned applicant belongs to a particular reserved category, so that he is entitled to the benefit of reservation in the matter of appointment. For the said purpose it can insist that the certificate must be genuine and must be issued by a responsible authority. For the said purpose it can insist that the certificate must be genuine and must be issued by a responsible authority. The advertisement, therefore, in clear terms prescribed that only such caste certificate will be acceptable, which are either signed or counter-signed by the District Magistrate or signed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. It cannot be said that it was unreasonable on the part of the Commission to ask for such caste certificate. Obviously, one cannot act on the basis of a certificate granted by any officer or person. To attach credibility to a caste certificate it was insisted upon that it should be signed either by the Sub-divisional Magistrate or by the District Magistrate or at least counter-signed by the District Magistrate. Such conditions are usually found in all the advertisement inviting applications for filling up vacancies in public service. If this is not insisted upon, fake and bogus certificate may be produced and undeserving persons may illegally claim benefit of reservation. Counsel for the petitioners realising the weakness of his broad submission, in the alternative argued that a certificate issued by an. officer for and on behalf of the District Magistrate should be acceptable to the Commission. At one stage he submitted that an Additional District Magistrate is also a District Magistrate. The submission obviously cannot be accepted, because even if an Additional District Magistrate is authorised to perform all the functions of a District Magistrate, he is still not the District Magistrate. Under the old Code of Criminal Procedure an Additional District Magistrate could be authorised to perform all the functions of a District Magistrate, under the Code. Even so it was held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ajaib Singh V/s. State of Punjab A.I.R. 1965 S.C, 1619 that in the matter of detention, he could not exercise the power under the Defence of India Rules, because he was not the District Magistrate and was in rank inferior to the District Magistrate. The same principle was followed in the case of Hari Chand Aggrawal V/s. Batala Engineering Company Ltd. -- . Obviously, therefore, if the advertisement required that the caste certificate must be issued by the District Magistrate, or counter-signed by him, the petitioners could not get away with filing a caste certificate not so signed or countersigned. The same principle was followed in the case of Hari Chand Aggrawal V/s. Batala Engineering Company Ltd. -- . Obviously, therefore, if the advertisement required that the caste certificate must be issued by the District Magistrate, or counter-signed by him, the petitioners could not get away with filing a caste certificate not so signed or countersigned. So far as the counter-signing by an authority for the District Magistrate is concerned, it is not clear whether it was done pursuant to any law or rule or Government circular issued in this regard. In the State of Bihar such a practice is not followed, but it is not known Whether in the State of Uttar Pradesh authority is vested in any other officer to sign caste certificates on behalf of the District Magistrate. In any event, if the District Magistrate can issue a caste certificate in the State of Uttar Pradesh, there is no reason why the candidates should not submit caste certificates either signed or counter-signed by the District Magistrate. 6. The second submission urged on behalf of the petitioners was that since the certificates had been received by the Commission, they should have accepted the same and altered the select list by including their names, if they had secured higher marks and the caste certificates submitted by them were found to be in order. If the submission urged on behalf of the petitioners is accepted, the selection process can never come to an end. In the instant case, the petitioners had been given an opportunity of producing caste certificates at the time of interview. The Commission was very considerate in permitting both, even after the interview, to submit a proper caste certificate since the one filed by them were not signed or counter-signed by the Competent Authority. The last date mentioned in the aforesaid communication was 28th February, 1993. I have no hesitation in holding that if the candidates were required to produce the necessary certificates in support of their claim at the time of interview, the Commission could have as well rejected their applications, if they did not produce the caste certificate at the time of interview, or produced the caste certificate not in terms of the advertisement and, therefore, not acceptable to the Commission. In the instant case the Commission gave them one further opportunity to produce the caste certificates latest by 28th February, 1993. In the instant case the Commission gave them one further opportunity to produce the caste certificates latest by 28th February, 1993. The merit list was published on 3rd March, 1993. It is not in dispute that both the certificates reached the Commission after the last date fixed for submission of the certificates. No objection, therefore, could be taken if the Commission refused to accept those certificates after the last date fixed for the purpose. In the case of petitioner No. 1 the aforesaid certificate was received two days before the publication of the list. However, in the case of petitioner No. 2 it was received seven days after the publication of the select list. I shall deal with the case of petitioner No. 1 after I consider the unreported judgment of this Court. So far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned it certainly cannot be contended that the Bihar Public Service Commission was required to consider the certificate furnished by the afore aid petitioner even after it had finalised the selection and made its recommendation to the State of Bihar. I, therefore hold that if the candidates are required to produce documentary evidence in support of their claim by a particular date the Commission is not obliged to consider the documents produced by the concerned candidates after the last date prescribed by it. In case, for any reason the Commission extends the time for submission of such documents, the extension must be granted to all candidates and not to any particular candidate alone. 7. I shall now consider the unreported judgment of this Court on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the petitioners. The first decision was rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 8229 of 1988 on 22nd November, 1988. Their Lordships referred to another writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 2387 of 1988, disposed of on 11.8.1988) from which a passage was quoted which is as follows: Besides the above, we find as a fact that before the Commission had made recommendations, the petitioner had produced the certificate granted by the District Magistrate, though produced after the interview, it confirmed, the certificate granted to him by the Additional Collector-cum-Additional District Magistrate. The Commission could take notice of the certificate granted by the District Magistrate and, thus, given consideration to the case of the petitioner. 8. The Commission could take notice of the certificate granted by the District Magistrate and, thus, given consideration to the case of the petitioner. 8. Following the principle laid down in the aforesaid decision their Lordships allowed the writ petition and directed that if the petitioner had produced the income certificate granted by the Sub-divisional Officer counter-signed by the Acting District Magistrate at the time of interview, it should be deemed that there was substantial compliance, and if the petitioner had competed the Commission should not withhold the recommendation merely on that ground. From the facts stated in the order it appears that the petitioner in. that case had submitted a certificate granted by the Sub-divisional Officer and countersigned by the Acting District Magistrate. The said certificate was produced at the time of interview, but since the Commission did not accept that certificate, the petitioner filed an application before the Collector, and the Collector informed the Secretary of the Commission to consider the certificate produced by the petitioner earlier as certificate granted by the District Magistrate himself. It will thus appear that in both the writ petitions the candidate had produced in addition a certificate granted by the District Magistrate himself before the Commission made its recommendation. The aforesaid decision, therefore, does not support the argument of the petitioner that even in the absence of certificate granted by the District Magistrate, the Commission was obliged to accept the certificate granted by any other officer as a valid certificate. 9. The next decision upon which reliance is placed was rendered in C.W.J.C. No. 6277 of 1989, disposed of on 12.2.1990. In that case also the petitioner had earlier produced a caste certificate signed by the Additional District Magistrate, but later produced a caste certificate granted by the District Magistrate. Following the principle laid down in C.W.J.C. No. 8229 of 1988, disposed of on 22.11.1988 it was directed that if the petitioner was found to be otherwise fit, his claim should not be rejected merely on the ground that initially he had produced a caste certificate signed by the Additional District Magistrate, specially when later he had produced a certificate from the District Magistrate concerned. It is not clear from the facts stated in the order as to whether the caste certificate was produced before the Commission published the Merit List. It is not clear from the facts stated in the order as to whether the caste certificate was produced before the Commission published the Merit List. The third decision rendered on 8.4.1991 in C.W.J.C. No. 4463 of 1990 does not lay down any new principle. Their Lordships observed that the matter had been considered by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6277 of 1989 and C.W.J.C. No. 3229 of 1988 and, accordingly, directed that the names of the petitioners be considered and their claim should not be rejected merely on the ground that the caste certificates produced by them were not signed by the District Magistrate. It was also observed that the fact that the petitioners belonged to the Scheduled caste had not been denied. I have already referred to two earlier decisions of this Court and noticed that in both the cases the petitioners had in fact produced certificates granted by the District Magistrate before the Commission. In C.W.J.C. No. 4463 of 1990 only one of the petitioners had produced a certificate duly granted by the District Magistrate, but it appears that relief was granted to all the petitioners. The judgment does not lay down any principle of law, but merely follows the earlier decisions which proceeded on the factual basis that a caste certificate granted by the District Magistrate was actually produced before the Commission, and that too before it had made its recommendation. The last unreported decision of this Court, rendered on 10.3.1992 in C.W.J.C. No. 3071 of 1990 was with regard to a petitioner who had produced a caste certificate granted by the Pargana Magistrate, and counter-signed by the Additional District Magistrate Krite District Magistrate, Azamgarh. The court observed that the word Krite isused for signing for another and, therefore, the certificate issued by the Pargana Magistrate was counter-signed by the Additional District Magistrate for the District Magistrate. Their Lordships observed that in substance that meant a certificate by the District Magistrate. The Court proceeded on the basis that nothing had been shown to it which prohibited the Additional District Magistrate to sign for the District Magistrate in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, accordingly, allowed the writ petition. In the instant case as well, the certificate produced by petitioner No. 1 is counter-signed by an officer for the District Magistrate. It is not known on what basis the counter-signature had been made. In the instant case as well, the certificate produced by petitioner No. 1 is counter-signed by an officer for the District Magistrate. It is not known on what basis the counter-signature had been made. Neither the petitioners nor the respondents are in a position to enlighten us on this aspect of the matter. On the other hand, from the certificate produced by petitioner No. 2 it is established that in the State of Uttar Pradesh as well caste certificate are issued under the signature of the District Magistrate. It is not as if an applicant is called upon to perform an impossible task, namely, of securing a certificate from the District Magistrate when the District Magistrate is not required to sign such certificates and which are under the law or under Government circulars require to be signed or counter signed by any other officer. 10. Having considered these decisions, I have no doubt that none of the decisions support the case of the petitioners that a caste certificate can be produced at any time, and certainly not after the Commission has completed the process of selection and published the Merit List. On the other question as to whether a certificate signed for the District Magistrate should be accepted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, at least in one case, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 3071 of 1990 a Division Bench of this Court in the absence of any material to show that the Additional District Magistrate was not authorised to sign for the District Magistrate in Uttar Pradesh, accepted the certificate counter-signed by the Additional District Magistrate for the District Magistrate. 11. The position in law therefore, appears to be as follows: If the candidates are required to submit evidence in support of their claim for reservation and the authority prescribed the last date before which such evidence must be produced, the authority will be justified in not entertaining he evidence produced after the last date prescribed for the purpose. If extension of time is granted for any reason, the benefit must be extended to all candidates. As a matter of rule, the document must be submitted within the period prescribed, but in exercise of writ jurisdiction a Writ Court may in exceptional circumstances, having regard to the hardship caused to the petitioner, and in the interest of justice, direct that the certificate produced may be taken into consideration by the Commission. As a matter of rule, the document must be submitted within the period prescribed, but in exercise of writ jurisdiction a Writ Court may in exceptional circumstances, having regard to the hardship caused to the petitioner, and in the interest of justice, direct that the certificate produced may be taken into consideration by the Commission. Such relief cannot be granted if the certificate is produced after the selection process has been concluded and the Merit List announced. The exercise of such jurisdiction must be in rare case of extreme hardship. 12. As a matter of law, the selecting authority is entitled to call upon applicants to submit evidence of their belonging to a particular caste in a particular form to be certified by a particular designated authority. Difficulties may arise if the applicants from the other States are unable to produce such certificates from the designated authority by reason of any law, rule or Government circular. In such a case if it is not possible for the designated authority to issue the certificate, the Commission must accept certificates issued by the authority, who is authorised by law, rule or by Government circular to issue such certificate on behalf of the designated authority. This must, however, be subject to the condition that the designated authority is unable to sign or counter-sign the certificate himself. If he is authorised to sign or counter-sign such a certificate, the mere fact that some other authority can also grant such a certificate will not be enough justification for deviation from the requirement of the advertisement requiring certificates signed or counter-signed by a particular designated authority. 13. In these circumstances, this writ petition must be dismissed. There is material on record to show that in the State of Uttar Pradesh as well, the District Magistrate does issue caste certificates as is obvious from the certificate produced by petitioner No. 2 which was signed by the District Magistrate, Allahabad. Unfortunately, that certificate was received by the Commission much after the publication of the merit list. Petitioner No. 1 cannot, therefore, contend that it was not possible to obtain the caste certificate from the District Magistrate in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the certificate produced by him was rightly rejected by the Commission. Unfortunately, that certificate was received by the Commission much after the publication of the merit list. Petitioner No. 1 cannot, therefore, contend that it was not possible to obtain the caste certificate from the District Magistrate in the State of Uttar Pradesh and, therefore, the certificate produced by him was rightly rejected by the Commission. I may only observe that if petitioner No. 1 had produced valid certificate, perhaps this Court might have granted him relief ignoring the delay of one day in the submission of the certificate. However, since the certificate was not signed or counter-signed by the prescribed authority, the same cannot be taken into consideration. 14. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.