JUDGMENT Heard Mr Praful Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 4784 (SS) 2008. The learned Standing Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Schedules Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 (in short Act, 1994). Section 9 of the Act, 1994 provides that for the purposes of reservation provided under this Act, caste certificate shall be issued by such authority or officer and in such manner and form as the State Government may, by order, provide. The respondent belongs to the "Koeri" Caste which has been notified under O.B.C. category by the State of U.P. as well as by the State of Bihar both. The respondent possessed the O.B.C. certificate issued from the authority of the State of Bihar, on the basis of the said certificate he had claimed the benefit of O.B.C. category in the State of U.P., but his claim was denied on the ground that the certificate issued by the State of Bihar could not be recognized by the authority at State of U.P. as it requires to be issued by the authority of the particular State wherein he has lodged his claim of appointment. The learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter under the provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution of India which guarantees equality of opportunity to all citizens in the matter of appointment to any officer or of any other employment under the State. Since the respondent indisputably belong to the "Koeri" Caste which is covered under the O.B.C. category for both the States, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition with direction to the parties to consider the respondent's candidature under the O.B.C. category for employment in the State of U.P.. Before adverting to the controversy raised before this Court, we have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in M.C.D. Vs. Veena and others [ 2001 (6) SCC 571 ]. The brief facts of the case were that the applications were invited from Indian citizens for appointment to the posts of primary and nursery teachers in Municipal Corporation of Delhi. Veena and others [ 2001 (6) SCC 571 ]. The brief facts of the case were that the applications were invited from Indian citizens for appointment to the posts of primary and nursery teachers in Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The respondent candidates claimed to belong to O.B.C.'s on the basis of certificates issued in a State other than the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The applications filed by the respondent candidates were rejected. He filed a writ petition before the High Court, the High Court held that the advertisement issued by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, did not indicate the Form in which the O.B.C. certificates have been filed in respect of posts arising in the National Capital Territory and therefore, there was no obligation on the respondents to produce such certificate from the Delhi, that the obligation to produce the certificate from authorities in Delhi could not be fulfilled by candidates coming from outside Delhi and, therefore, what is impossible could not be expected to be fulfilled by the respondents and on that basis, the High Court directed to treat the applications filed by the respondents to be in order and proceed to make selection against the order of the High Court. Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court has observed as under: "7....... A careful reading of this notification would indicate that the OBCs would be recognised as such in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi as notified in the Notification dated 20.01.1995 and further for the purpose of verification of claims for belonging to castes/communities in Delhi as per the list notified by the National Capital Territory of Delhi the certificates will have to be issued only by the specified authorities and certificates issues by any other authority could not be accepted. The Government of India has also issued instructions from time to time in this regard which indicated that a person belonging to OBC on migration from the State of his origin in (sic to) another State where his caste was not in the OBC list was entitled to the benefits or concessions admissible to the OBCs in his State of origin and Union Government, but not in the Sate to which he has migrated. Thus the High Court lost sight of these aspects of the matter in making the impugned order in either ignoring the necessary notifications issued in regard to classification of OBC categories or in the matter of verification thereof. Thus the order made by the High Court in this regard deserves to be reversed. 8. However, one aspect has to be borne in mind and that is the respondent-candidates had made applications as if they belong to OBCs on the basis of the certificates issued by the State from which they migrated to the National Capital Territory of Delhi, but if the certificates issued in their original States of which they are permanent or ordinary residents were not good, the applications should have been treated as if they had been made in the general category and cases of the respondent- candidates ought to have been considered in general category. Therefore, to the extent, the applicants have attained necessary merit in the general list, they deserve to be appointed. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, pleaded that the respondent-candidates having applied for the posts as if they belong to OBC groups their applications could not be treated as falling under general category. We fail to appreciate this contention. The particulars furnished by the respondent-candidates clearly give in detail their general qualifications and eligibility. The only additional aspect stated by them in their respective applications or in the Certificates supported thereto is that they belong to OBC categories. Hence, their cases ought to have been considered in the general category as if they do not belong to OBC categories in the circumstances arising in this case" The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has observed that the caste of the candidate was not enlisted in the O.B.C. list, therefore he was not entitled to the benefits or concessions admissible to the OBCs in his State of origin and Union Government. Since in the migrated State this caste could not be notified under O.B.Cs category certificate issued by the other State it could not be acknowledged by the migrated State. Since in the migrated State this caste could not be notified under O.B.Cs category certificate issued by the other State it could not be acknowledged by the migrated State. Whereas the case on hand is a distinguishing feature, here the "Keori" caste has been recognized as O.B.C. category by both the States of Bihar as well as State of U.P. Therefore, we are of the view that once on verification the caste certificate filed by the respondent was found genuine to be issued by the competent authority of the State of Bihar, there was no occasion for the appellants to dislodge it from giving recognition as O.B.C. in the State of U.P. In view of the aforesaid observations, we do not find error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. Special Appeal Defective No. - 358 of 2016 Shri Narayan Shukla,J. Anant Kumar,J. Director Training & Employment, Lucknow & 2 Others Vs Satya Narayan Prasad (Inre 4836 S/S 2013) For the Petitioner : Standing Counsel C.M. Application No. 82052 of 2016. Considering the statement of facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, we are of the view that the appellant has explained the delay satisfactorily. Therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and the application stands allowed. 26.8.2016