JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. This intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 8th November, 2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 53297 of 2016 (Arvind Kumar Yadav v. U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board and others). 3. Facts in short relevant for deciding the appeal are as under : 4. Petitioner on the strength of his being a member of other backward class (Non-Creamy Layer) submitted online application for being considered against the post, which was advertised for the purpose of recruitment on 23th February, 2016. 5. The appellant produced two certificates in respect of his claim for being considered within the reserved category of OBC that may be (Non-Creamy Layer). The certificates are enclosed at pages ‘36’ and ‘37’ of this special appeal. 6. The learned Single Judge has examined the certificate enclosed with the form. The certificate at page ‘35’ has been issued on 14th March, 2013 i.e. much prior to two years as on the cut-off date provided in the advertisement. The certificate enclosed at page ‘36’ issued on 15th March, 2016 records that petitioner belongs to other backward class category but it does not disclose the basic essential requirement of the appellant being not a member of (Non-Creamy Layer) nor was it is the prescribed performa as per the advertisement. 7. Thus, according to the learned Single Judge the certificates did not satisfy the requirement of the advertisement. Therefore, it has been held that the authorities were justified in treating the petitioner within the General category. Since the appellant could not compete in the General categorym he has not been selected. 8. Challenging the said order of learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another [Civil Appeal No. 1691 of 2016 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 27550 of 2012)] decided on February 24, 2016. 9. We may, at the very outset, record that under the terms and conditions of the advertisement for claiming the benefit of other backward class category and certificate issued by the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/City Magistrate/Pargana Magistrate/Tehsildar was required to be produced. Such certificate had to be in proforma No. 1 prescribed under the advertisement itself, referred in Clause 5.1 of the advertisement. Such certificate had to be in proforma No. 1 prescribed under the advertisement itself, referred in Clause 5.1 of the advertisement. Similarly, we find that under Clause 5 of the notes after Clause 5.4, it was specified that the benefit of reservation under the other backward class category was available to the persons of said category, who were not within the Creamy Layer and for this purpose it was provided that the caste certificate in proforma No. 1, should have been issued on 1st, April, 2015 or thereafter. The last date for issuance of such certificate had been specified to be the last date of submission of the application. 10. It is, therefore, at writ large on the conditions of the advertisement that for claiming benefit of backward class category, such candidates must not be within the Creamy Layer and that he must produce a certificate to that effect issued by the District Magistrate/Additional District Magistrate/City Magistrate/Pargana Magistrate/Tehsildar in proforma No. 1 appended with the advertisement. It was then provided that such certificate must have been issued on or after 1st, April, 2015, but not later than the last date of submission of the application mentioned in the advertisement. 11. Learned Single Judge has found as a matter of fact that the first certificate issued on 14th March, 2013 is much prior in point of time and the subsequent certificate produced by the petitioner dated 15th March, 2016 was not in prescribed proforma (Praroop-I), there was recital to the effect that the petitioner had an income of not more than Rs. 8 lacs in last 3 years continuously. 12. Since the petitioner had failed to satisfy the requirements of the advertisement, as were prescribed by submitting the certificate, we are more than satisfied that the learned Single Judge is right in coming to the conclusion that petitioner is liable to be treated as a General category candidate. No error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the claim set up by the petitioner. 13. At this stage, Learned counsel for the petitioner preferred to a third certificate which was issued on 10th September, 2016. 14. In our opinion, the said certificate has been issued much beyond the last date of submission of the application as was prescribed under the terms and condition of advertisement noticed above, therefore, is of no consequence. 15. 13. At this stage, Learned counsel for the petitioner preferred to a third certificate which was issued on 10th September, 2016. 14. In our opinion, the said certificate has been issued much beyond the last date of submission of the application as was prescribed under the terms and condition of advertisement noticed above, therefore, is of no consequence. 15. So far as the judgment of the Apex Court in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board and another, 2016(3) ESC 387 (SC), is concerned, we may only notice that the Apex Court judgment was not considering a case where the terms and conditions in the matter of certificate, being submitted in prescribed proforma for claiming the benefit of OBC category, had been provided for under the advertisement itself. The terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement are binding upon all the appellants and have to be applied uniformly, learned Single Judge is correct in recording that the said judgment was clearly distinguishable to the facts of the present case. 16. It has been repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a little difference in the facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a judgment (Reference Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. and others, 2003 (2) SCC 111 , which has recently been followed in the case of Rajveer Singh v. Chaudhary Devi Lal, AIR 2003 SCW 5817). 17. This Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.