JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard finally with the consent of Shri. S.A. Mohta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. S.A. Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondents, by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. 2. This petitioner belonging to Other Backward Class (OBC) category participated in selection process in terms of advertisement published in January 2015. Clause 4(C) expected him to give caste certificate in proforma prescribed by Union of India and in no other format. The said clause also clarifies that such certificate should have been obtained within three years before the closing date i.e. 23.02.2015. It also clarified that it had decided to accept OBC certificate, in the prescribed format, issued after the closing date for receipt of application but issued on or before the date of the document verification. It is not in dispute that the documents are to be verified at the time of Detailed Medical Examination (DME) which in this matter was conducted on 12.05.2016. 3. The petitioner before this Court has two caste certificates. First one is dated 26.07.2007 and later is dated 04.10.2014. Those certificates are identical but the nomenclature of format is different. The certificate dated 26.07.2007 being more than three years old, is not very relevant. The later certificate is dated 04.10.2014. It is issued by the Competent Authority and the format thereof is prevalent in the State of Maharashtra, as per rules framed under the Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of Issuance & Verification of) Caste Certificates Act, (Act No. 23 of 2001). On 12.05.2016, the petitioner learnt that this format was not, as required by the Union of India, he, therefore, assured to supply necessary certificate in prescribed format by 01.06.2016. However, he was declared unsuccessful in Medical examination and, therefore, he did not comply with his undertaking. He was declared unsuccessful in medical examination because of tatoo marks and in Review Medical Examination, he has been cleared. The review Medical examination has been conducted on 24.08.2016. Before that i.e. on 20.08.2016, he got the necessary caste certificate in the format prescribed by the Union of India. 4. In this situation, on 02.08.2017, we called upon the respondents to produce original documents relating to selection process of the petitioner. Today, the original documents were made available for perusal of this Court. 5. Before that i.e. on 20.08.2016, he got the necessary caste certificate in the format prescribed by the Union of India. 4. In this situation, on 02.08.2017, we called upon the respondents to produce original documents relating to selection process of the petitioner. Today, the original documents were made available for perusal of this Court. 5. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the instructions in the advertisement are very clear and still the petitioner did not submit the caste certificate in proforma/format prescribed by the Union of India. He points out that said format also contains a declaration that the holder of caste certificate does not belong to creamy layer. This certification or clause is missing in the format used by the petitioner or then prescribed by the State Government. He points out that though the petitioner was aware of mandatory nature, he deliberately did not supply it. On 12.05.2016, one more chance was given to him but again he did not produce that certificate in prescribed format. He, therefore, requests this Court to dismiss the present petition. 6. According to Shri Mohta, learned counsel, the format in which certificate is issued, is prescribed by the State Government under a valid law and, therefore, that format could not have been rejected. He submits that the respondents nowhere objected to absence of non creamy layer certificate and the case of the petitioner has been processed as if he belongs to OBC. He contends that in unfortunate situation, the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in DME and hence the petitioner lost all his hopes. However, when he got intimation of Review Medical Test, he obtained necessary certificate and then attempted to produce it at the time of Review Medical Test. 7. Shri Chaudhari, learned counsel submits that the certificates or any other papers submitted by the petitioner along with his application for employment, do not contain any document throwing light on his financial status and, therefore, his non creamy layer position. 8. We need not delve in to this controversy. The material variance between the format prescribed by the Union of India and format of the State Government is only in relation to status or position of a person as belonging to creamy layer. 8. We need not delve in to this controversy. The material variance between the format prescribed by the Union of India and format of the State Government is only in relation to status or position of a person as belonging to creamy layer. The format prescribed by the Union of India specifically warrants a certificate from the caste certificate issuing authority that the holder thereof does not belong to creamy layer. 9. The position that a person, in order to qualify for benefits as OBC, must not belong to creamy layer, is not in dispute. However, here, the candidature of the petitioner was not turned down on the ground that he does not belong to non creamy layer. On 12.05.2016, he was given time to produce certificate in requisite format. However, there because of objection to tatoo mark, he was found not eligible. It appears that in two or three such matters, this Bench at Nagpur and at Bombay Bench, have found this disqualification due to tatoo marks not proper. Admittedly, a Review Medical Examination test was scheduled and the petitioner procurred caste certificate in format. That format declares that the petitioner belongs to OBC community and is also a non creamy layer candidate. 10. In this situation, taking overall view of the matter, we are inclined to give petitioner one opportunity. We direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner and other candidates similarly situated, if they are available and are interested, only if position has not become irreversible. However, the necessary decision in this respect shall be taken within 10 weeks from today. The necessary intimation thereof shall be given to the petitioner by R.P.A.D. on his address registered with the respondents. 11. At this stage, it is informed to the Court that the certificate in prescribed format was returned back to the petitioner on 24.08.2016 only. We, therefore, direct the petitioner to supply that certificate to respondent No. 3 by personally visiting its office at Pune on any working day during office hours along with a copy of this order within next three weeks. The period of ten weeks shall begin to run thereafter. 12. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.