JUDGMENT By the Court—This appeal under the Rules of the Court is preferred against the judgment dated 27.7.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32263 of 2000. 2. We have heard Shri Abhinav Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Shri Raj Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondent. 3. It appears that the petitioner-respondent applied for admission as Scheduled caste candidate in special B.T.C. training Course pursuant to the advertisement dated 8-3-1998. However, he was not shown in the list of selected candidates and on enquiry he was informed by the appellant that his quality point marks were less than the last selected candidate and therefore he could not be selected and on further enquiry he was Informed that since mark sheet and certificate in support of Caste was not annexed by the petitioner-respondent, therefore he could not be selected. He approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 24309 of 1999 which was finally disposed of by this Court vide judgment dated 9.12.1999 alongwith large number of other petitions involving similar disputes wherein this Court placed the case of the petitioner-respondent in category III and permitted such persons to file fresh representations before the Director, State Council of Educational Research & Training, U.P. Lucknow on 21.1.2000 furnishing following information : (i) The date of the original application submitted in response to the advertisement and the number allocated (if available with the petitioners) or other documents to show that original application .was submitted within time; (ii) The reservation category to which the petitioner belongs and the reservation benefits claimed in the original application; (iii) Quality points on the basis of qualifications claimed by the petitioner; (iv) Certified copies of the relevant documents/papers which the applicant had attached with the original application to show that quality point mark as claimed by the petitioner is correct; (v) Each candidate should also enclose a self addressed envelope duly stamped for registered post; (vi) Apart from the above mentioned information and documents any other Information or document which the petitioner may consider relevant for decision of his representation. 4. The Director was required to decide the aforesaid representations of the candidates by speaking order. It is not disputed that the aforesaid judgment of this Court has not been challenged in appeal by the appellant and has attained finality. 5. 4. The Director was required to decide the aforesaid representations of the candidates by speaking order. It is not disputed that the aforesaid judgment of this Court has not been challenged in appeal by the appellant and has attained finality. 5. The petitioner-respondent preferred representation dated 17.1.2000 wherein he stated that he had enclosed all the mark sheets and certificates earlier also and again annexing copies of such certificates. He claimed that as per the rules the quality points marks of the petitioner ought to have been 40.77%. The aforesaid representation of the petitioner however has been rejected by the Director vide order dated 3.3.2000 observing that the caste certificate was not made available till the last date prescribed in the advertisement and subsequent documents furnished after last date cannot be taken into account. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in writ petition No. 34856 of 2000 stating that pursuant to the interim order passed in his earlier writ petition he joined special B.T.C. training course with and completed the training but his result has not been declared so far. The Hon’bie Single Judge disposed of the aforesaid writ petition vide judgment under appeal directing the appellant No. 1 to consider the correctness and genuineness of caste certificate of the petitioner and if found correct and genuine, to declare his result of special B.T.C. training course. 6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the petitioner-appellant did not furnish caste certificate till the last date of submission of the application form and therefore subsequent furnishing of the aforesaid documents cannot be taken into account for the purpose of admission of the petitioner-respondent in special B.T.C. course. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 939 of 2001 Director, State Council of Educational Research & Training, U.P. Lucknow, and others v. Smt. Sangeeta Singh, 2006(9) ADJ 109 decided on 28.2.2006 wherein the special appeal of the appellant has been allowed. It is claimed that the facts of this case are similar to the aforesaid judgment. 7. Having given our serious thoughts to the contention advanced by the learned Standing Counsel, we do not find any force in the aforesaid submission. In Smt. Sangeeta Singh (supra), the candidate has not marked the column meant for Scheduled Caste reservation benefit in the application form for claiming benefit under the aforesaid column. 7. Having given our serious thoughts to the contention advanced by the learned Standing Counsel, we do not find any force in the aforesaid submission. In Smt. Sangeeta Singh (supra), the candidate has not marked the column meant for Scheduled Caste reservation benefit in the application form for claiming benefit under the aforesaid column. In these circumstances, his contention that he had enclosed caste certificate claiming benefit of reservation alongwith the application form was not accepted by this Court. Since the candidate in the aforesaid case has not claimed benefit of the reservation marking the column of the original application form, there was no occasion for him to annex caste certificate. Therefore, his contention was rejected on the facts of the aforesaid case. 8. Therefore, in our view, judgment in Smt. Sangeeta Singh (Supra) is not applicable to the case in hand and the reliance placed by the learned Standing Counsel is misplaced. In our view the case in hand is similar to the issue decided in Sunil Kumar v. Director, State Council of Educational Research & Training, U.P. Lucknow, and others, 2000 (4) ESC 2493, wherein this Court held that in such large scale recruitment the possibility of some documents annexed with the application form missing while handling in the Department cannot be ruled out. This Court therefore, directed the appellant No. 1 to consider the documents of the candidates which if he possessed much before the last date of submission of the application form and provided the said documents are genuine and in case they are selected, to give all consequential benefits. We are in the entire agreement with the reasoning given in the aforesaid judgment. In the present case also the petitioner-respondent admittedly possess caste certificate much earlier to the date of submission of the application form and it is neither understandable nor believable that a candidate who possess all the requisite qualification and documents would not furnish the same for consideration of his candidature by the concerned authority. As per own showing of the appellant about two lacs candidates applied and possibility of missing or misplacement of some documents in transit or handling in the Department cannot be ruled out. That being so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal at this stage. In the result, this appeal is dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed. ———