Braj Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar — 1998 DIGILAW 485 (PAT)

JUDGMENT B. P. Singh, J. These four writ Petitions have been heard together since they involve a common question. CWJC No. 7895 of 1988 was admitted for hearing by a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 1.12.1988. By the same order, the Bench directed that the matter be placed for hearing before a Larger Bench since their Lordships doubted the correctness of the decision of this Court in CWJC No. 2387 of 1988 disposed of on 11.8.1988. By order dated 15.12.1988, it was directed that CWJC No. 5585 of 1988 be placed for hearing along with CWJC No, 7895 of 1988. Similarly by order dated 16.12.1988 CWJC No. 5025 of 1988 was also directed to be heard with CWJC No. 7895 of 1988. Lastly by order dated 23.5.1989, it was directed that CWJC No. 4447 of 1989 be heard with CWJC No. 7895 of 1988. This is how all the four writ petitions have been placed for hearing before this bench. 2. Though the facts of the case are some what different, the common issue involved in all the writ petitions is as to whether it is permissible for a candidate to produce the certificates required to be produced under the advertisement at any time, or whether the Bihar public Service Commission may be Justified in refusing to accept the certificates produced after the date mentioned for production of such certificates in the advertisement inviting applications. The petitioners contended that in view of several orders/decisions of this court, the requisite certificates may be produced at any time, and the requirement in the advertisement of their production on or before the date specified in the advertisement can only be considered to be directory and not mandatory. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the State as well as by the Bihar public Service Commission that the cut off dates mentioned in the advertisement are meant to be followed, and if the contention of the petitioners were to be accepted by this court, the process of selection will become an unending process and the Commission will find it difficult to finalise the list of selected candidates who may be recommended for appointment. 3. The representative facts may be taken from CWJC No. 5585 of 1988. 3. The representative facts may be taken from CWJC No. 5585 of 1988. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement No. 93 of 1985 inviting applications from eligible candidates for appointment against 245 posts of Assistant Engineer in different work; departments, the petitioner being eligible, applied on 24.9.1985 Some of the posts were reserved for candidates belonging to backward categories. The advertisement clearly provided that certain number of posts were reserved for scheduled castes/scheduled Tribes, backward class and most backward class categories, female candidates belonging to economically weaker sections, and candidates belonging to non scheduled castes, non scheduled tribes and most backward class whole family income did not exceed the limit prescribed for the purpose of income tax. However, in order to claim benefit of reservation, the candidates claiming such reservation had to produce the necessary caste certificate and annual income certificate issued by the officers mentioned in paragraph B of the advertisement, Namely, the District Magistrate, sub-divisional officer/Project Executive Officer/Assistant Project Executive officer/Circle officer-Block Development Officer District Welfare Officer/Sub Divisional Welfare Officer and Fist class Magistrate authorised to issue such certificates. The certificates issued by the above authorities were required to be submitted with the application filed in response to the advertisement, but the certificates were to be taken as valid only if the same was counter signed and verified by the District Magistrate and produced at the time of interview. It is not disputed that the petitioner furnished a caste certificate issued by the District Welfare Officer, Saran dated 24.9.1985 and an income certificate issued by the S. D. O. Chapra dated 28.9.1985 along with his application and claimed reservation as a candidate belonging to backward class. He was called for interview on 7.5.1986. The interview letter dated 21.4.1986 was received by the petitioner on 2.5.1986 when the petitioner was indisposed. He could not obtain the caste/income certificate only counter signed by the District Magistrate. He however appeared at the interview on 7.5.1986 and produced medical certificate before the Selection Board explaining his inability to produce the caste certificate counter signed by the District Magistrate. 4. On 18.6.1986, a corrigendum was issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission advertising 736 more posts of Assistant Engineer. It was stated in the corrigendum that those who had applied pursuant to advertisement dated 19.8.1985 need not apply. 4. On 18.6.1986, a corrigendum was issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission advertising 736 more posts of Assistant Engineer. It was stated in the corrigendum that those who had applied pursuant to advertisement dated 19.8.1985 need not apply. Ultimately appointment orders were issued in favour of some of the successful candidates on 16.8.1987 and 20.8.1987, and thereafter in the month of November, 1987. 5. The petitioner was not favoured with a letter of appointment and therefore he made inquiries from the Bihar Public Service Commission and came to learn that his name appeared at serial No. 1935 in the merit list as a general category candidates, since he had not been treated as a candidate belonging to a backward class. Some of the candidates belonging to backward class had been recommended for appointment even though they were lower down in the merit list. That was because they were treated as candidates belonging to backward class. 6. The cage of the petitioner is that he produced caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Patna and income certificate granted by the District Magistrate, Chapra along with an application on the 29th of April, 1988. He has annexed those certificates as Annexure 6 and 7 to his writ petition. In the caste certificates, Annexure-6, there is some overwriting in the date mentioned and it appears that originally it bore the dated 23.3.1988 which was subsequently corrected to 28.3.1998. It also appears that the District Magistrate, Patna signed the certificate on 27.3.1998. The income certificate signed by the SDO Chapra and counter signed by the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra also appear to have been counter signed by the District Magistrate on 16.4.1998. 7. It appears from Annexure-8 dated 16.12.1987 that the Road Construction Department of the Govt. of Bihar requested the Respondent Commission to recommend names of 23 persons from the backward class category, but by its reply Annexure-9 dated 1.2.988, the Commission intimated the Government that against 40 vacancies reserved for backward class category 17 names had already been recommended, and there were only 20 eligible backward category candidates whose names were included in the merit list. As such three more names were recommended by the Commission, and the Government was informed that no other backward category candidate was available. As such three more names were recommended by the Commission, and the Government was informed that no other backward category candidate was available. Thereafter the petitioner also represented to the Commission on 24.6.1988 for recommending his name but the Commission did not recommend his name for appointment. 8. It is stated by the petitioner in his supplementary affidavit that the first recommendation was made by the Bihar Public Service Commission in April, 1987, second on Ist February, 1988 and lastly on 22nd February, 1988 when it recommended the names of 702 candidates who were ultimately appointed by the issuance of notification dated 5.5.1988. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon several decision of this Court, which according to them, support the cases of the petitioners. The first judgment to be noticed is the one rendered in CWJC No. 138 of 1988 dated 2nd February, 1988. (Smt. Kabitarani Jha @ Smt. Kabitarani Thakur Vs. The State of Bihar & ors). In that case as well there was a similar requirement in the advertisement that a candidate claiming reservation belonging to economically weaker female section shall produce income certificate from the concerned District Magistrate at the time of interview. The petitioner contended before this Court that she some how or other did not know hat she was required to produce a certificate issued by the District Magistrate concerned and therefore she had produced a certificate disclosing her income authenticated by an Executive Engineer, Coal Canal Division. Later a corrigendum was issued and additional posts were advertised. The last date for filing applications was 15.7.1986. The petitioner in the meantime obtained a certificate issued by the Collector of the district concerned and produced the same on 15.7.1986. The Court granted relief to the petitioner having regard to the special facts of the case but the Hon'ble Judges clearly observed that they did not propose to convey that the condition of production of income certificate from the concerned District Magistrate was not to be observed. It was made clear that the order shall not be treated as a precedent, and the order was made in the facts and circumstances of the case since the petitioner had been selected on the basis of her merit and the income disclosed by her was found to be true. It was made clear that the order shall not be treated as a precedent, and the order was made in the facts and circumstances of the case since the petitioner had been selected on the basis of her merit and the income disclosed by her was found to be true. It would, thus appear that the order of the Court in the aforesaid writ petition is not to be treated as a binding precedent. 10. The next judgment on which reliance has been placed is dated 11th July, 1988 in CWJC No. 2144 of 1988. (shive Shanker Ray vs. The State of Bihar & others). The petitioner in this case as well had failed to produce the caste certificate granted by the District Magistrate as required, and had only produced a caste certificate granted by the District Welfare officer at the time of interview. Later he obtained a caste certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner but after the interview. The order proceeds on the basis that the petitioner ultimately produced a genuine certificate before recommendation was made by the public Service Commission. The said certificate was therefore available with the Commission when it considered the cases of the candidates for recommendation. It was therefore, held that the Commission was obliged to consider the case of the petitioner as well, since the relevant certificates had been filed even before the Commission made its recommendation. It will thus be seen that in this case as well, since the requisite certificate was filed before the date on which the Commission made its recommendation, the Court directed the Commission to consider the Certificate produced by the petitioner. 11. The petitioners have also relied upon a Judgment of this Court dated 1.8.1988 in CWJC No, 2387 of 1988. (Ramashray Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar & ors). In this case also, the petitioner had produced at the time of interview a certificate granted by the Addl. District Magistrate and not the District Magistrate. However before the Commission could make its recommendation, he filed the requisite certificate issued by the District Magistrate. On the facts of the case, this Court observed that notwithstanding the fact that the Commission had made no recommendation in favour of the petitioner, the respondent. District Magistrate and not the District Magistrate. However before the Commission could make its recommendation, he filed the requisite certificate issued by the District Magistrate. On the facts of the case, this Court observed that notwithstanding the fact that the Commission had made no recommendation in favour of the petitioner, the respondent. State should independently bestow consideration whether on the qualification of the petitioner and the certificate produced by him, he qualified or appointment as a candidate in reserved category. Thus the Court directed the Government consider the case of the petitioner and examine whether he deliberately avoided to produce the certificate granted by the District Magistrate at the time of interview by the Commission or not and if he was prevented by sufficient cause whether he qualified for a post reserved for category-II or not. If the Government was of the opinion that the petitioner qualified for the same, it could write to the Commission for necessary recommendation. It will be seen that by the aforesaid order, the Court did not direct the Commission to consider the certificate produced by the petitioner, but directed the Government to consider the said certificate and to find out whether the petitioner had deliberately avoided to produce such certificate granted by the District Magistrate at the time of interview. Only if it was found that he was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the same, his case could be further considered. 12. There is then an order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 22.11.1988 in CWJC No. 8229 of 1988 (Shiv Narayan Sah Vs. State of Bihar & ors). In this case an income certificate granted by the District Magistrate was required to be filed at the time of interview. The petitioner was granted a certificate issued by the Sub divisional Officer but counter signed by the acting District Magistrate or. 30th July, 1988. That certificate was produced at the time of interview on 9. 8. 1988 but the same was not treated by the Commission as a certificate granted by the District Magistrate. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application before the Collector of Purnea on 22.8.1988 and the collector by his letter dated 29.8.1988 in formed the Secretary of the Bihar Public Service Commission to treat the certificate produced by the petitioner as certificate granted by the District Magistrate himself. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another application before the Collector of Purnea on 22.8.1988 and the collector by his letter dated 29.8.1988 in formed the Secretary of the Bihar Public Service Commission to treat the certificate produced by the petitioner as certificate granted by the District Magistrate himself. The learned Judges referred to the Older passed earlier in CWJC No. 2387 of 1988 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 or interview, then it will be deemed that there was substantial compliance, and if the petitioner has competed, then the Commission should not withhold the recommendation merely on that ground. In the said order of this Court, the certificate issued by the acting District Magistrate was considered as a certificate granted by the District Magistrate and on the basis of substantial compliance of the requirement the Court directed the Commission to consider the case of the petitioner. It is not clear from the judgment as to whether the letter of the Collector of the Purnea dated 29. 8. 1988 was written after the Commission had finalized its recommendation or weather it was received by the Commission even before it had finalized its recommendation. However, since the Court considered the production of certificate granted by acting District Magistrate as substantial Compliance of the requirement, and the name had been produced at the time of interview, the claim of the petitioner could not be ignored on the ground that the certificate had not been counter signed by the District Magistrate. 13. The petitioner have also relied upon an order of this Court dated 18. 5. 1989 in CWJC No. 5123 of 1988 (Madan Mohan Gupta Vs. Tile State of Bihar & ors). The order was passed at the admission stage, and while admitting the application an interim order was passed, subject to the result of the write petition. In my view the petitioner are not justified in relying upon the said order as a binding precedent. 14. The order of this Court in CWJC No. 4147 of 1989 dated 13. 11 1990 (Madhu Sudan Bari Vs. The State of Bihar and others) is also relied upon by the petitioners. In this Case as well, the candidate was required to produce the requisite certificate issued by the District Magistrate concerned at the time of interview. 14. The order of this Court in CWJC No. 4147 of 1989 dated 13. 11 1990 (Madhu Sudan Bari Vs. The State of Bihar and others) is also relied upon by the petitioners. In this Case as well, the candidate was required to produce the requisite certificate issued by the District Magistrate concerned at the time of interview. The petitioner had earlier submitted a certificate issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner and at the time of interview on 18.8.1988 also he submitted the certificate issued by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner. Later he obtained a certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner dated 21.9.1988 and filed the same on 30.9.1988. The result was declared by the Commission on 11.10.1988 i.e. after the filing of the requisite certificate by the petitioner. In those facts and circumstances the writ petition was allowed following the principle laid down in judgment dated 11.8.1988 in CWJC No. 2387 of 1988, which I have earlier noticed. 15. The petitioners have then placed strong reliance on the judgment and order of this Court dated 15th. April, 1992 in CWJC No 4587 of 1991 (Jang Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others). From the facts stated in the order, it appears that the petitioner had failed to fit, a caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate and produced a caste certificate at the time of interview issued by the Addl. District Magistrate. Their lordships did not record their reasons, but observed that was not necessary in view of several binding precedents of this Court holding that such certificates which have been granted by the Addl. District Magistrate or any such authorized person, will not be rejected on that ground, while considering the case on merit. Since tile petitioner had filed the certificate granted by the District Magistrate, but at a later stage after the interview, the Court held that the petitioner was to be considered for appointment against vacant post which had been kept reserved by an order of the Court. From the aforesaid order, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner had produced the caste certificate before the Commission finalized its recommendation or whether the same was filed after the Commission had made its recommendation. From the aforesaid order, it is not clear as to whether the petitioner had produced the caste certificate before the Commission finalized its recommendation or whether the same was filed after the Commission had made its recommendation. I am however inclined to think that since their lordship have referred to several binding precedents, which have been noticed by me earlier, the case proceeded on the assumption that the caste certificate was produced even before the Commission finalised its recommendation though after the date of interview. 16. The next order of this Court is the one dated 18.8.1992 in CWJC No. 5050 of 1990 (Dr. Ravindra Prasad Vs. the State of Bihar & ors.) In this case as well after the examination was over the petitioner had filed a certificate to the effect that be belonged to a backward class and was therefore, entitled to the benefit of reservation. There was dispute as to whether such certificate was filed before or after the examination. However the petitioner was not treated as a candidate belonging to the backward class but the factual position was clear that though he did not compete as a general candidate he would have competed against a reserved post if he has been treated as belonging to a backward class. Their lordships observed that in many cases matters had come to Court in which the Court had directed the Bihar Public Service Commission to act on the basis of such certificate, whether filed before or after the examination. The writ petition was, therefore. disposed of with a direction to the respondents to hold an inquiry and to take further action other basis of the result of the inquiry. It is not clear from this order as to the date on which the requisite certificate was filed, but it appears that the case of the petitioner was that it was filed even before the examination while the Commission contended that it was filed after the examination. It is not clear as to whether the aforesaid certificate was filed before the Commission finalised its recommendation. 17. All the decisions referred to above are by Division Benches of this Court, There are however two decisions rendered by single judge benches of this Court. In CWJC No. 777 of 1989 (Chandeshwar Roy Vs. The State of Bihar & others) disposed of by judgment and order dated 15th December. 17. All the decisions referred to above are by Division Benches of this Court, There are however two decisions rendered by single judge benches of this Court. In CWJC No. 777 of 1989 (Chandeshwar Roy Vs. The State of Bihar & others) disposed of by judgment and order dated 15th December. 1993, the facts were somewhat peculiar. In that case also the caste certificate and income certificate issued by the District Magistrate were required to be produced at the time of interview though for purpose of filing the application such certificates could be procured from any of the other authorities mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioner in that case filed his first application without enclosing any certificate. He filed a second application annexing therewith certificates issued by the Block Development Officer. However, at the time of interview he failed to produce a certificate issued by the District Magistrate. Ultimately he did produce a certificate by the District Magistrate on 21.6.1986. It appears that a supplementary advertisement was issued on 18.6.1986 whereby additional posts were advertised. The last date for filing applications was 15th July, 1986 and the advertisement further provided that a candidate who had applied earlier need not apply. Pursuant to this advertisement as well the petitioner filed his 3rd application on 20th June, 1986 enclosing necessary certificates issued by the competent authority. The Bihar Public Service Commission made its recommendation on 22nd February. 1988. 18. It appears from the facts stated in the judgment that while filing his second application the petitioner had not mentioned that he had filed an application earlier. Since the petitioner had not produced the relevant certificates at the time of interview, he was Dot considered for appointment against a reserved post. It appears that his 3rd application however, was co related with his first application and was tagged with the first application. However, since the petitioner had not turned up for interview pursuant to the interview letter issued to him on the basis of his first application, nothing further was done. On the basis of his second application, he could not compete as a general category candidate. It was submitted before this Court that with his second application, the petitioner had submitted caste and income certificate issued by the Block Development Officer. On the basis of his second application, he could not compete as a general category candidate. It was submitted before this Court that with his second application, the petitioner had submitted caste and income certificate issued by the Block Development Officer. At the time of interview on 8.5.1986 the petitioner was unable to produce the certificate issued or counter signed by the District Magistrate, but soon there after on 21.6.1986 the produced the certificate issued by the District Magistrate. Since the Commission made its recommendation on 22.2.1988 i.e. to say more than a year and half therefore, it should have taken into account the certificate submitted by the petitioner though belated Reliance was placed upon the judgment of this court in CWJC No. 1843 of 1986, 2387 and 2144 of 1998. After considering the matter his lordship held that the petitioner had applied for the caste certificate on 4.6.1986 and the income certificate on 16.6.1986 and the same were granted to him on 11.6.1986 and 18.6.1986 respectively, It was thus clear that though the interview was held on 8.5.1986 the petitioner had filed applications for the requisite certificate for the first time almost a month therefore, and therefore it was the petitioner himself who was responsible for non-production of the certificate at the time of interview. How lordship had therefore, held that the petitioner could not claim as a matter of right that his certificate though produced after the interview must nevertheless be taken into consideration by the Commission. So far as the 3rd application is concerned, his lordship held that multiplicity of a applications only lead to confusion and in the instant case, the petitioner did not even indicate that he had filed an application earlier in response to the said advertisement. It was held that the Commission's actions in this regard were quite unexceptionable and it could not be held that the Commission treated the petitioner's applications unreasonably or arbitrarily. If the petitioner had suffered, much of it was his own doing, and he himself was responsible for the same. Having so held, his lordship granted relief to the petitioner on equitable considerations. The petitioner actually belonged to a backward class and was entitled to the benefit of reservation. He had actually submitted the caste certificate and the income certificate obtained from the District Magistrate on two occasions. Having so held, his lordship granted relief to the petitioner on equitable considerations. The petitioner actually belonged to a backward class and was entitled to the benefit of reservation. He had actually submitted the caste certificate and the income certificate obtained from the District Magistrate on two occasions. The posts for the backward category were still available in view of the interim order passed in the case on 16.3.1989. The Government itself had made a request on 16.12.1987 for recommending 23 more candidates belonging to backward category. In these circumstances, the Court directed the Commission to consider the petitioner as a backward category candidate on the basis of the caste and income certificate submitted by him and to recommend his case for appointment as a backward category candidate. If the candidate were found in order. It will appear from the facts of this case as well that the Commission made its recommendation on 22.2.1988 and the caste and income certificates were filed along with 3rd application on 20th June 1986 so that it cannot be said in the facts of this case that the requisite certificates were furnished after the Commission had finalized its recommendation. 19. The last judgment of this Court which deserves notice is the judgment of a Single Judge of this Court, one of us (B.P. Singh, J), reported in 1995 (2) PLJR 72 (Rajmani Harijan and another Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission & ors). In that judgment Some of the decision which I have noticed earlier were considered along with several other decision of this Court. In that case, though the advertisement required that the candidates must produce their caste certificates at the time of interview, the Commission extended the time and gave one further opportunity to the candidates to produce caste certificates latest by 28th February, 1993. The merit list was published on 3rd March, 1993. It was held that if the caste certificate was not received by the Commission latest by the extended date i.e. 28th February, 1993, the Commission was justified in not entertaining caste certificate received thereafter. The decisions did not support the case of the petitioners that the caste certificates can be produced at any time, and certainly not after the Commission had completed the process of selection and published the merit list. The decisions did not support the case of the petitioners that the caste certificates can be produced at any time, and certainly not after the Commission had completed the process of selection and published the merit list. It was held 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 application if they did not produce the caste certificate at the time of interview, but where an extension was granted, the candidates could produce the caste certificate on or before the extended date. The Commission was not obliged to consider the document produced by the candidate after the last date prescribed by it. The position in law was summarized thus. "If the candidates are required to submit evidence in support of their claim for reservation and the authority prescribes the last date before which such evidence must be produced, the authority will be justified in not entertaining the 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. Such relief cannot be granted if the certificate is produced after the selection process has been concluded end the merit list announced. The exercise of such jurisdiction must be in rare case of extreme hardship." 20. Having noticed the decisions on this issue, I must observe that the process of selection seeks to achieve two main objectives, namely, a fair selection of the meritorious candidates, and finalisation of the process of selection within reasonable time. It is for this reason that the advertisements always prescribe the last date before which the application along with necessary documents should be received by the selecting authority. The advertisement not only lays down the eligibility conditions, but also requires the production of documents which are necessary to enable the selecting authority to assess the eligibility of the concerned candidate. It is for this reason that the advertisements always prescribe the last date before which the application along with necessary documents should be received by the selecting authority. The advertisement not only lays down the eligibility conditions, but also requires the production of documents which are necessary to enable the selecting authority to assess the eligibility of the concerned candidate. If no cut off date is prescribed for the filing of applications in response to the advertisement and for production of necessary documents, the selection process may become an unending process. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the selecting authority has at times to deal with thousands of applications and the selection process is a time consuming process. Even after examination and interview have been held, it would take some time before the selecting authority can finalize its select list. These considerations cannot be disregarded while considering fairness or the procedure adopted by the selecting authority. 21. When the selecting authority issues an advertisement and prescribes the last date on or before which applications must be received along with necessary supporting documents that condition must be given effect. Any application or document received after that date If ay be justifiably rejected by the Commission. However, if the selecting, authority is of the opinion that the date should be extended, having regard to the hardship that may be caused to the candidates or for any other good reasons it may extend the time for filing of such applications and documents. The relaxation so granted must be available to all candidates because it is by now well settled that the relaxation of any candidates of the advertisement cannot be made on a selective basis in favour of some candidates alone. It is therefore imperative that is the selecting authority is inclined to relax any of the conditions of the advertisement, the benefit thereof must be available to all candidates. Obviously, therefore if the time for furnishing documents is to be extended by the selecting authority it must issue a public notice intimating all concerned about the relaxation granted. Grant of relaxation of selective basis will offend Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. It goes without saying that no candidate can as a matter of right claim a relaxation of the conditions incorporated in the advertisement. Grant of relaxation of selective basis will offend Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 22. It goes without saying that no candidate can as a matter of right claim a relaxation of the conditions incorporated in the advertisement. It is for the selecting authority to decide whether it should grant extension of time for furnishing of necessary documents. In doing so the selecting authority must have regard to the need for finalising, the selection within reasonable time. 23. It is no doubt, true that it may not be possible to lay down exhaustively all the situations in which hardship may be caused to candidates. It may be that on account of reasons beyond their control a candidates may not be able to produce the requisite document. That jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief in appropriate cases under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is there. The discretion of this court however must be restricted to cases were hardship or injustice result on account of reasons beyond the control of the concerned candidate. The advertisement in the instant cases provided that the certificate issued by the authorities mentioned in the advertisement shall be submitted along with the application but at the time of interview the candidates were required to produced the certificates issued by or counter signed by the District Magistrate or the Deputy Commissioner of the district. A diligent candidate after submitting an application in response to the advertisement, must take steps to obtain necessary certificates from the District Magistrate so that he may be able to produce them at the time of interview, if necessary. Where a candidate does not take any step to produce a caste certificate sufficiently well in time to be able to produce it at the time of interview he certainly cannot invoke the write jurisdiction of the court of relief. A candidate must reliese that the grant of caste certificate or income certificate involves some inquiry on the part of the issuing authority, and therefore some reasonable time must be given to the authority to issue such certificate. If it is found that the concerned candidate was not diligent in taking necessary steps he cannot invoke the write Jurisdiction of this court for condonation of delay in filing the requisite document before the selecting authority. 24. If it is found that the concerned candidate was not diligent in taking necessary steps he cannot invoke the write Jurisdiction of this court for condonation of delay in filing the requisite document before the selecting authority. 24. All the decisions have consistently taken the view that after the process of selection is complete, the selecting authority will be justified in not entertaining any document filed thereafter. No authority has been brought to our notice to support the submission that even if the process of selection is complete and the Commission has made its recommendation, the Commission is obliged to entertain documents filed by the candidates beyond the time specified in the advertisement, or extended by the selecting authority. 25. There is however, one aspect of the matter which deserve consideration. A. earlier noticed the process of preparing the select list after conclusion of the written examination and interview is also a time taking process. Once the process commences it should not be disturbed by the entertainment of fresh material produced by the candidates. For example, it after the select list is finalized or is about to be finalized, a candidate is permitted to furnish requisite certificates before the actual recommendation is made, it may involve a re-casting of the select list. It is for this reason that it is imperative that the extension must be granted by the selecting authority itself, extending the time for furnishing of documents, keeping in mind the time that may reasonably be taken in preparing the select list on the basis of the performance of the candidates. If no such fixed date is prescribed the process of selection will never come to end and each time a document is produced by a candidate the selecting authority will have to take that into account and recast the select list. Before the select list is so recast another candidate may furnish the necessary certificates and this will again oblige the selecting authority to recast the select list. This will lead to an unending process of selection, and will prevent the selecting authority from making its recommendation for appointment within reasonable time. 26. Before the select list is so recast another candidate may furnish the necessary certificates and this will again oblige the selecting authority to recast the select list. This will lead to an unending process of selection, and will prevent the selecting authority from making its recommendation for appointment within reasonable time. 26. Having regard to all these considerations, I hold that :- (a) Where the advertisement specifies the last date for filing of supporting or other documents, that date must be given effect to and any document received after such date shall be rejected by the selecting authority. (b) In appropriate cases where the selecting authority is of the view that the time for furnishing of documents should be extended, it may grant such extension by issuing a public notice to this effect so that all candidates may get the benefit of such extension. In the absence of any such extension granted by the selecting authority, the date/dates mentioned in the advertisement should be treated to be the last date for filing of documents, and no document shall be accepted thereafter. (c) No application/document shall be entertained by the Commission if the same is filed after the last date specified in the advertisement, or the extended date notified by the Commission, even if the same is filed before the finalization of the select list. (d) In appropriate cases where this Court is satisfied that a case of extreme hardship or injustice has resulted on account of factors beyond the control of the concerned candidate, this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction may grant relief in deserving cases. But in doing so, the court must be satisfied that the candidate concerned had acted diligently, and is not guilty of delay or laches in taking necessary steps for procuring the requisite certificates etc. However, no relief shall be granted where the requisite certificate is produced for the first time after the process of selection is complete and the selecting authority has made its recommendation. 27. Having regard to these principles, I find that the petitioner in CWJC No. 5585 of 1988 had submitted the certificates after the Bihar Public Service Commission had made its recommendation on the 1st of February, 1988. According to the petitioner, he had produced a certificate on 29th of April, 1988. 27. Having regard to these principles, I find that the petitioner in CWJC No. 5585 of 1988 had submitted the certificates after the Bihar Public Service Commission had made its recommendation on the 1st of February, 1988. According to the petitioner, he had produced a certificate on 29th of April, 1988. Since he had filed the requisite certificates after the commission had made its recommendation, the commission was justified in not entertaining those certificates. I find the action of the commission fully justified in law. CWJC No. 5585 of 1988 must, therefore, be rejected. 28. In CWJC No. 5025 of 1988 the petitioner had produced the requisite certificate on 20th December, 1986. The Bihar public service Commission made its recommendation in March, 1987. It would thus appear that the petitioner had submitted the requisite certificate two to three months before the commission finalized its recommendation. Having regard to the earlier judgment of this court and the law as it was then understood, it would not be in the interest of justice to deny relief to this petitioner who had filed the requisite certificate a few months before the finalization of the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission. Accordingly CWJC No. 5025 of 1988 is allowed and as a special case the commission is directed to take into consideration the requisite certificates filed by the petitioner, and if the same are found in order make its recommendation to the State Government in his favour, if otherwise found eligible and suitable. 29. There are seven petitioners in CWJC No. 4447 of 1988. They claim to be residents of Uttar Pradesh. They were interviewee, by the Commission between the 11th and 13th October 1988. As would appear from Annexure-1 the Commission made its recommendation to the State Government on 12. 12. 1988 The certificates produced by the petitioners were signed by the Addl. District Magistrate and it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that in the State of Uttar Pradesh, a caste certificates can also be issued by the Addl. District Magistrate. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has by letter dated 13th February, 1979 empowered the authorities for issuance of caste certificate. It is not disputed that the District Magistrate is one of the officers empowered to issue caste certificate. District Magistrate. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the Government of Uttar Pradesh has by letter dated 13th February, 1979 empowered the authorities for issuance of caste certificate. It is not disputed that the District Magistrate is one of the officers empowered to issue caste certificate. The petitioners could therefore, have procured a caste certificates signed or counter signed by the District Magistrate. It is not as if the District Magistrate was not empowered to grant a caste certificate. This aspect of the matter has also been considered by this Court in Rajmani Harijar, and another Vs. Bihar Public Service Commission and others. (1995 (2) PLJR 72). There was, therefore, no difficulty for the petitioners to produce a caste certificate issued by the District Magistrate. One of the petitioners produced a caste certificate counter signed by the District Magistrate on 21.1.1989 and some of the others on later dates. Since the Bihar Public Service Commission had already made its recommendation on 12.12.1988, the caste certificates filed in January, 1989 and thereafter were rightly excluded from consideration. In these circumstances, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this writ petition. CWJC No. 4447 of 1989 is, accordingly, rejected. 30. The petitioner in CWJC No. 7895 of 1988 had also failed to produce a caste certificate issuing by the concerned authority at the time of interview. Learned counsel appearing on his behalf however submitted that he has no instruction to press the writ petition and stated that perhaps that petitioner has been appointed. I also find from the counter affidavit of the Bihar Public Service Commission that the petitioner was recommended for appointment by the Commission on 22.2.1998 as a candidate belonging to general category. In these circumstance this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. Radha Mohan Prasad, J. I agree D. S. Dhaliwal, J. I agree.