JUDGMENT : B.S. Walia, J. Grievance of the petitioner is that his candidature for the post of Constable, J&K Police (Executive) of District Samba was not being considered against the RBA Category despite his belonging to RBA Category and having submitted certificate in respect thereto on 3rd March, 2016. 2. Notice of motion. 3. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned AAG, who is on caveat accepts notice and vehemently disputes the factual position. It is stated that cut off date for applying for the post of Constable was 15th October, 2015 and that in response thereto the petitioner applied in the general category and did not make any claim whatsoever on the basis of his belonging to the RBA Category. It is only many months later than the last date fixed for applying for the post, that the petitioner moved an application for placing on record RBA Category Certificate with a prayer for being considered under the RBA Category. 4. Mr. Ajay Sharma, learned AAG states that had the petitioner applied under RBA Category the claim of the petitioner could have been considered under the RBA category even if he had submitted the RBA Certificate after the cutoff date. However, the position in the instant writ petition was altogether different in as much as the petitioner had not applied under the RBA Category, but under the General Category, therefore, in the circumstances, it was not open to the petitioner to change his category after the last date for applying. 5. Learned AAG relies upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in LPAOW No. 51/2015, dated 2nd March, 2016 in which while considering the claim of a candidate, who had applied under the General Category to be considered under ALC Category beyond the cutoff date, a Division Bench of this Court while noticing that the candidate had instead of applying under the ALC Category applied under the Open Category in the application form and competed in the process of selection and even on the date of publication of the merit list i.e. 02nd April, 2015, the candidate was not in possession of the ALC Certificate, held that in the circumstances, it was clear that the petitioner therein had not applied for admission to P.G. Degree course for the year 2015-2016 under ALC Category. 6. 6. The Hon'ble Division Bench also took into account the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as AIR 2012 SC 1803 (Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudullah Khan and Ors.) wherein similar claim was made by a candidate in respect of a combined competitive examination for various posts in the background who although had applied under the general category but claimed consideration of her candidature as SC Candidate by submitting SC Certificate after completion of the examination process. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the entertaining of the candidature of the candidate as SC Candidate on her submitting the Caste Certificate after selection process was over and select list had been published. 7. The Hon'ble Division Bench while referring to the aforementioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that if the seat was claimed under ALC Category and the certificate was produced later, on the possibility of considering the case could have arisen. The Division Bench while observing that the candidate had not claimed seat under ALC Category for admission in PG Course, held that the order of the learned Single Judge for treating the candidate as ALC Category candidate and considering her for admission against the vacant seat could not be accepted when the candidate was not vigilant while submitting her application as well as in getting renewal of her ALC status, which the candidate could get only after merit list for admission was published. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to Clause-5 of the advertisement to contend that incomplete application forms in any manner were liable to rejection without notice and since the petitioner did not have the RBA Certificate, therefore, he had not applied under RBA Category for fear of rejection of his candidature. This argument is noticed to be rejected. It was always open to the petitioner to have submitted a representation that he belonged to the RBA category and that he had applied for the certificate and would be submitting the same on receipt. Not having done so and having applied under the open category, a novel argument as noticed above has been raised which does not merit acceptance. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to paragraph number three of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as AIR 2016 SC 1098 . Not having done so and having applied under the open category, a novel argument as noticed above has been raised which does not merit acceptance. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further refers to paragraph number three of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as AIR 2016 SC 1098 . Paragraph number three of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder:- "The important question of law to be decided in these appeals is whether a candidate who appears in an examination under the OBC Category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the Advertisement is eligible for selection to the post under the OBC Category or not." 10. A perusal thereof reveals that the question of law decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was in the context of candidate, who had appeared in the examination under the OBC Category but submitted the certificate of his belonging to the OBC category after the last date mentioned in the advertisement, whereas in the instant case, the position is totally different in as much as the petitioner did not apply under the RBA Category, but under the General Category and made a request for being considered under the RBA Category months after the cutoff date by submitting the RBA Certificate. 11. It was always open to the petitioner to have made a claim by way of representation to the authorities of his belonging to the RBA Category and intimating of not having been supplied the RBA Certificate despite applying and intimating that he would submit the certificate immediately on receipt thereof. In view of well settled law, the claim of the petitioner in such circumstances would be required to be considered under the RBA Category even if he had submitted RBA certificate after the last date for applying in case of delay in issuance of RBA Certificate for a candidate cannot be faulted in case of delay in issuance of the requisite certificate by the competent authority. In such eventuality the candidature of a candidate who had been diligent would have to be considered under the category claimed by him even if the certificate was submitted by him later than the last date provided the candidate had applied under the category claimed and submitted the application form before the cut off date. 12. However, as noticed above, the position in the instant case is otherwise. 12. However, as noticed above, the position in the instant case is otherwise. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Division Bench as referred to by the learned AAG, the claim of the petitioner is without any merit. Consequentially the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed in limine. No costs.