JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing I.O.C.(Indian Oil Corporation). 2. Petitioner has come up before this Court being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 11.9.2006/Annexure-9 to the writ petition passed by the respondents No. 2 and 3, whereby, Indian Oil Corporation intimated the petitioner that her application has been rejected on the ground that medical certificate was not enclosed therein. 3. According to the petitioner she had submitted her application dated 28.7.2006 in order (including medical certificate). Referring to the photocopy of the application, it is pointed out that in relevant column No. 8 requiring medical certificate, it was stated that the certificate was enclosed and the petitioner had replied in affirmative that she was physically and mentally fit. Petitioner submits that she had obtained medical certificate dated 22nd July, 2006 after her examination being conducted by Dr. Sri A.K. Gadpayle, Consultant in Medicine in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital, New Delhi (photocopy of which is annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition). There appears to be no reason to disbelieve the Doctor’s certificate nor any circumstance is pointed out as to why the petitioner shall withhold the medical certificate. 4. The photocopy of the receipt (page 40 of the writ petition) further shows that the said application was received by an official of the Corporation on 28th July, 2006 which was the last date for receipt of the application (refer to para 8 of the writ petition). 5. The normal person/authority conducting its affairs with normal prudence/diligence is expected to check the application while it is being submitted and point out the defect at the earliest. This has not been done in the instant case and the so called non receipt of the medical certificate was pointed out on 11.9.2006. Hence we find no reason to disbelieve the petitioner when possibility of medical certificate being misplaced or lost for so many reasons cannot be ruled out. 6. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondent that under the rules and instructions of the Corporation contained in the advertisement of which the applicant should be aware, no correction, amendment or new documents can be permitted to be incorporated later on and so it was not permissible for the petitioner to file the medical certificate at this stage. He also referred to the ruling of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54400 of 2006, Smt. Omitri Rai v. General Manager and another and submitted that the Court is taking a different view in the present case, which is not permissible under law. 7. We do not agree with the above contention that we are taking a view different from the ruling in the case of Smt. Omitri Rai (supra). It is to be seen that when there is any discrepancy in the form or when any document had not been filed alongwith the form, the same cannot be filed at a later stage nor the discrepancy can be rectified and we have taken this view in the case of Smt. Omitri Rai (supra), but here the facts are different. In the present case applicant had asserted in column No. 8 of her application dated 28-7-2006 that she had enclosed the medical certificate. The medical certificate is dated 22.7.2006. There was no question of not filing this certificate dated 22.7.2006 when it was with the applicant on 28.7.2006 and she had mentioned in the column No. 8 that she was enclosing it. There is no assertion from the side of the respondents that the photocopy of the form filed by the petitioner (Annexure-2) is not a true copy of the application submitted to the respondents. Under this circumstance, there is no reason to disbelieve the assertion made in column No. 8 of the application that the medical certificate was enclosed with the form, and as such when the Corporation did not raise any objection at the earliest on receipt of the form on 28.7.2006 that it did not contain the medical certificate, the subsequent assertion made on 11.9.2006 that it was not received along with the form cannot be believed and it appears that medical certificate had been misplaced or lost in the office of the respondents. 8. Under these circumstances when it is sufficiently proved that the medical certificate had been filed with the form, the permission to file its copy does not amount to admission of a new document and so the bar which was prescribed in the advertisement regarding filing of new documents does not apply to the present case and to acceptance of the prayer of the petitioner. 9. 9. We may further add that in writ petition No. 58636 of 2006, Ravi Pratap Singh v. Union of India and others in which also the form was rejected on the ground of non-submission of the medical certificate. We refused to allow the prayer of the petitioner to file the medical certificate because in this case column no.8 of the application had been left blank by the petitioner and it had not been asserted that medical certificate was being filed along with the form. But in the present case it is sufficiently proved that medical certificate had been filed along with the application. 10. We are therefore permitting the petitioner to file a copy of the medical certificate because when a document has been lost in the office of the respondent, there is no legal bar to file its copy at the subsequent stage. 11. The writ petition, is therefore, allowed and the petitioner is permitted to file the photocopy of the medical certificate dated 22.7.2006. The respondents shall consider that medical certificate and shall not reject the application form of the petitioner on the ground of non filing of the medical certificate. 12. Writ Petition stands allowed subject to the above observations. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed. ———