ORDER : 1. Both the appeals are admitted condoning the delay in L.P.A. No. 610 of 2017. 2. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission is the appellant in both these appeals preferred against a common judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions brought by Anil Tanti (AT) and Chandra Shekhar Kumar (CSK) questioning rejection of their candidature for the posts of Kakshpals (Wardens). The writ petitioners in substance sought acceptance of their caste and residential certificates, which the authorities did not accept, on the ground of having been submitted beyond the stipulated time. The writ petitioners also sought declaration of their results in the selection process undertaken by the appellant for the said posts. The learned First Court had allowed their writ petitions and directed declaration of their results accordingly. It was further directed in the judgment under appeal that if the writ petitioners came within the zone of consideration, their candidature ought to be accepted. L.P.A No. 610 of 2017 arises out of the judgment delivered in A.T’s writ petition, registered as W.P.(S) No. 1630 of 2017 whereas L.P.A. No. 618 of 2017 is the Commission’s appeal in respect of the judgment delivered in the writ petition filed by CSK. That writ petition was registered as W.P.(S) No. 1412 of 2017. As common question of law is involved in both the appeals arising out of the same judgment, we propose to deal with both the appeals in this judgment. 3. The selection process with which these appeals are concerned was initiated by Advertisement No. 12 of 2015 inviting applications from eligible candidates for the posts of “Kakshapals”. Clause- 12 of the advertisement specified that the details of information was given in the prospectus and the applicants were to thoroughly follow the prospectus published in the website. The selection norms carried the regular terms for reservation in respect of local residents and specified castes. The candidate in L.P.A. No. 610 of 2017, i.e. AT has been impleaded as respondent no. 4, whereas CSK, being the candidate in L.P.A. No. 618 of 2017 has been impleaded as respondent no. 3 in the two appeals. Both of them had applied as candidates from the EBC-I category. The candidate in L.P.A. No. 610 of 2017, i.e. AT has been impleaded as respondent no. 4, whereas CSK, being the candidate in L.P.A. No. 618 of 2017 has been impleaded as respondent no. 3 in the two appeals. Both of them had applied as candidates from the EBC-I category. The two candidates were otherwise successful from the said category, but their results were not published as they could not submit the caste certificates as per specified norms at the time of verification of their testimonials. It has been argued by the appellant before us that so far as AT is concerned, he did not submit the residential certificate also. 4. In this case, there was no specific stipulation as regards cut-off date within which the caste certificates were to be submitted. It was also a condition that benefits of reservation were to be extended to local residents only. Clause 3 of the advertisement (Annexure-I to the memorandum of appeal in L.P.A. No. 610 of 2017) specified:- **3- ijh{kk ds fy, vkosnu nsus ds iwoZ vH;FkhZ ;g lqfuf'pr gks ysa fd os foKkfir in dh ik=rk ds fo"k; ij izdkf'kr lHkh 'krksZa dks iwjk djrs gSaA ijh{kk esa cSBus dh vuqefr iw.kZr% vkSicfU/kd gksxhA ijh{kk ds fy, izos'k i= fuxZr gksuk izekf.kr ugha djrk gS fd vH;FkhZ foKkfir in ij fu;qfDr ds fy, p;u gsrq fu/kkZfjr ik=rk iwjh djrs gSa D;ksafd vk;ksx ijh{kk ds ckn viuh lqfo/kk ds vuqlkj fdlh Hkh le; vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ik=rk ls lEcfU/kr izek.k i=ksa dh tk¡p djsxkA izek.k i= tk¡p ds i'pkr vH;FkhZ dh ik=rk ds fcUnq ij vafre fu.kZ; gks ldsxkA fdlh Hkh le; ik=rk iwjh ugha djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dk vkosnu@vH;fFkZrk jn~n fd;k tk ldrk gSA** “3. Before submitting application for the examination, candidates should ensure that they fulfill all the conditions published for eligibility of the advertised post. The permission for appearing in the examination shall be completely provisional. The issue of Admit Card for the examination does not mean that the candidate fulfill the prescribed criteria for selection for appointment against the advertised post as the Commission, after the examination, as per convenience, shall verify the certificates related to eligibility of the candidates at any time. The final decision on the point of eligibility of candidates shall be taken after verification of certificate. The final decision on the point of eligibility of candidates shall be taken after verification of certificate. The applications of the candidates/candidature who do not fulfill the eligibility criteria may be cancelled at any time.” (translated version) 5. Clause 7 of the advertisement, under the heading “Arakshan” (Reservation) stipulated the reservation stipulations. The said clause along with its translated version reads:- **7- vkj{k.k%& 1- vkosnu esa fu;r izfof"V ds v/khu bafxr vkj{k.k dk nkok ugha djus ij vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugha feysxkA 2- vkj{k.k dk ykHk ¼x`g j{kd ,oa HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dh mez lhek esa NwV dks NksM+ dj½ dsoy >kj[k.M jkT; ds LFkkuh; fuoklh dks gh ns; gksxkA >kj[k.M jkT; ds ckgj ds lHkh mEehnokj vukjf{kr@lkekU; oxZ ds ekus tk;saxsA 3- >kj[k.M ljdkj }kjk ykxw vkj{k.k lEcU/kh lHkh fu;e izHkkoh gksaxsA vkj{k.k dk nkok djus okys >kj[k.M ds LFkkuh; fuoklh mEehnokj dks okafNr izek.k&i= vk;ksx }kjk izek.k&i=ksa dh tk¡p ds volj ij lefiZr djuk vfuok;Z gksxkA** 7. Reservation. “(i)The benefit of reservation shall not be given in the event of not claiming of reservation at the prescribed entry of the application. (ii)The benefit of reservation (except relaxation of age limit to the Home Guards and Ex-Service Men) shall be admissible only to the local residents of Jharkhand State. Those candidates not belonging to the State of Jharkhand shall be treated as Unreserved/General Category. (iii)All rules implemented by the Government of Jharkhand related to reservation shall be applicable. It shall be mandatory to the local resident candidates claiming benefit of reservation to submit required certificates in the event of certificate verification by the Commission.” 6. The manner in which caste certificates were to be tendered was stipulated in Clause 7 of the Prospectus. (iii)All rules implemented by the Government of Jharkhand related to reservation shall be applicable. It shall be mandatory to the local resident candidates claiming benefit of reservation to submit required certificates in the event of certificate verification by the Commission.” 6. The manner in which caste certificates were to be tendered was stipulated in Clause 7 of the Prospectus. The said clause provided:- **7- vkj{k.k%& 1- vkosnu esa fu;r izfof"V ds v/khu bafxr vkj{k.k dk nkok ugha djus ij vkj{k.k dk ykHk ugha feysxkA 2- vkj{k.k dk ykHk ¼x`g j{kd ,oa HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dh mez lhek esa NwV dks NksM+ dj½ dsoy >kj[k.M jkT; ds LFkkuh; fuoklh dks gh ns; gksxkA >kj[k.M jkT; ds ckgj ds lHkh mEehnokj vukjf{kr@lkekU; oxZ ds ekus tk;saxsA 3- >kj[k.M ljdkj }kjk ykxw vkj{k.k lEcU/kh lHkh fu;e izHkkoh gksaxsA vkj{k.k dk nkok djus okys >kj[k.M ds LFkkuh; fuoklh mEehnokj dks fuEu izek.k&i= vk;ksx }kjk izek.k&i=ksa dh tk¡p ds volj ij lefiZr djuk vfuok;Z gksxk%& d- Tkfr izek.k i=& ftyk@vuqeaMy ds mik;qDr@vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh ls fofgr&izi= ¼vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds fy, ifjf'k"V&1 ij vafdr izi= rFkk vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ ¼vuqlwph&1½@fiNM+k oxZ ¼vuqlwph&2½ ds fy, ifjf'k"V& 2 ij vafdr izi=½ esa v|ru fuxZr tkfr izek.k&i=A [k- vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ ¼vuqlwph&1½ rFkk fiNM+k oxZ ¼vuqlwph&2½ ds fy, fnukad 31-03- 2015 ds i'pkr~ fofgr&izi= ¼ifjf'k"V&2 ij vafdr izi=½ esa fuxZr tkfr izek.k i= ekU; gksxkA 7. Reservation. “(I)The benefit of reservation shall not be given in the event of not claiming of reservation at the prescribed entry of the application. (II)The benefit of reservation (except relaxation of age limit to the Home Guards and Ex-Service Men) shall be admissible only to the local residents of Jharkhand State. Those candidates not belonging to the State of Jharkhand shall be treated as Unreserved/General Category. (III)All rules implemented by the Government of Jharkhand related to reservation shall be applicable. It shall be mandatory to the local resident candidates claiming benefit of reservation to submit following certificates in the event of certificate verification by the Commission.” (i) Caste certificate-Latest issued caste certificate by the Deputy Commissioner/Sub-Division Officer of the District/Sub-division if the prescribed format {in printed form at Annexure-I for Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe and printed form at Annexure-II for Extremely Backward Class (Schedule-1)/Backward Class (Schedule-2). (ii) For Extremely Backward Class (Shcedule-1)/ Backward Class (Schedule-2) caste certificate issued after 31.03.2015 in the prescribed format (printed form at Annexure-II) shall be valid.” (translated version) 7. (ii) For Extremely Backward Class (Shcedule-1)/ Backward Class (Schedule-2) caste certificate issued after 31.03.2015 in the prescribed format (printed form at Annexure-II) shall be valid.” (translated version) 7. Both the candidates were successful in the physical training examination and in the main examination from the EBC-I category. They cleared the medical test held on 10th January, 2017. On 30th January, 2017 a press communication required the candidates to get their residential and caste certificates. EBC-I and BC-II category candidates were directed to bring their caste certificates in the proforma mentioned in the advertisement. 8. In the case of AT, his caste certificate, issued by the S.D.O was dated 2nd December, 2014, but he had a caste certificate issued by the Block Development Officer, Sarath dated 31st October, 2015. In his case no residential certificate was produced. In the case of CSK, he had produced his caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Hussainabad dated 20th August, 2008 and his residential certificate was also dated 20th August, 2008. Their names did not figure in the list of successful candidates in the final result published on 15th February, 2017. It transpired that both of them were treated as general category candidates in absence of proper caste certificates. They could have had been eligible if they had the benefit of age relaxation meant for EBC-I candidates but as a general category candidate, they had crossed the age bar. The Commission’s stand before us is that a current caste certificate was necessary to ascertain if the candidate belonged to the Creamy Layer or not. 9. AT had obtained a caste certificate issued by S.D.O, Madhupur on 15th February, 2017 as well as residential certificate dated 10th February, 2017 issued on 17th February, 2017. On 8th March, 2017 he made a representation for introducing these additional materials. In the case of CSK, he also adopted the same course, that of making a representation dated 1st March, 2017. He sought to introduce a caste certificate dated 9th February, 2017 issued on 23rd February, 2017 by the S.D.O, Hussainabad along with the residential certificate dated 1st March, 2017. The Commission had refused to accept these on the ground of their issuing dates being beyond the stipulated terms. 10. Thereafter, both AT and CSK invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking reliefs the nature of which we have already referred to. The Commission had refused to accept these on the ground of their issuing dates being beyond the stipulated terms. 10. Thereafter, both AT and CSK invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking reliefs the nature of which we have already referred to. A decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board & Anr., reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 was relied upon before the learned First Court by the writ petitioners. The appellant (being respondent in the writ petition) contested both the writ petitions by filing counter-affidavits. As it appears from the counter-affidavits, the key reason for not considering their candidature from the reserve category was improper caste certificates. But there was reference to non-production of the residential certificate as well. In the judgment under appeal, the learned First Court held and directed: “7. It has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that object of providing reservation to the SCs/STs and educationally and socially backward classes of the society is to remove inequality in public employment, as candidates belonging to these categories are unable to compete with the candidates belonging to the general category and as a result of facing centuries of oppression and deprivation of opportunities. The object is to achieve the concept of giving equal opportunity to all sections of the society and thus, not considering the case of the petitioners is highly arbitarly and against the settled principle of law as also violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines, observations and the judicial pronouncements, I hereby direct the respondents particularly respondent no. 3 to accept the caste certificates of the petitioners and declare the results accordingly and if the petitioners are found well within the zone of consideration, consider their candidates by accepting their caste certificates and publish the results, as they have fully qualified in all the tests conducted by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission for the post of Kakshpal (Warden). Needless to say that after submission of the caste certificates issued by the competent authority, the results of the petitioners be published within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 11. Needless to say that after submission of the caste certificates issued by the competent authority, the results of the petitioners be published within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 11. In the case Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), the appellant was an applicant for the post of staff nurse, the selection process for which was initiated by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board. The applicant appeared in the selection test and was shortlisted but his name did not appear in the final list of selected candidates. The reason for such omission was that he had failed to submit the OBC certificate issued by the appropriate authority along with the application form before the last date of submission thereof. The candidate applied before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus requiring the selection body to accept the OBC certificate submitted beyond the cut-off date. He was successful before the learned Single Judge, but the Hon’ble Division Bench rejected his plea. In his Special Leave Petition, the question formulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for decision was this:- “2.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? 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court interalia held in this judgment:- “14. The Division Bench of the High Court erred in not considering the decision rendered in Pushpa. In that case, the learned Single Judge of the High Court had rightly held that the petitioners therein were entitled to submit the OBC certificate before the provisional selection list was published to claim the benefit of the reservation of OBC category. The learned Single Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University. The learned Single Judge correctly examined the entire situation not in a pedantic manner but in the backdrop of the object of reservations made to the reserved categories, and keeping in view the law laid down by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India as well as Valsamma Paul v. Cochin University. The learned Single Judge in Pushpa also considered another judgment of the Delhi High Court, in Tej Pal Singh, wherein the Delhi High Court had already taken the view that the candidature of those candidates who belonged to the SC and ST categories could not be rejected simply on account of the late submission of caste certificate.” 13. On behalf of the appellant, Mr. Piparwall, learned Advocate, sought to distinguish the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (Supra) with the facts involved in the cases of AT and CSK pointing out that so far as AT was concerned, the residential certificate was not furnished at all and in the case of CSK the residential certificate was dated 20th August, 2008 at the time of scrutiny or verification. He has drawn our attention to six Bench decisions of this Court in the cases of (i) Smt. Prabha Ranjan Gupta Vs. The State of Jharkhand, reported in 2014 (3) JCR, 291, (ii) Rishi Kumar Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors (Unreported judgment) delivered on 1st September, 2015 in L.P.A. No. 169 of 2015, (iii) Prem Chand Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand (unreported Judgment) delivered on 21st June, 2018 in L.P.A.No. 469 of 2015,(iv)Prabhat Kumar Singh Vs.The State of Jharkhand (Unreported judgment) delivered on 22nd February, 2016 in L.P.A. No. 308 of 2015, (v) Mosrat Zia Tara Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors (Unreported judgment) delivered on 25th July, 2016 in L.P.A. No. 466 of 2015 and (vi) Pritam Kumar Roy vs State of Jharkhand & Ors (L.P.A. No. 361 of 2015 decided on 4th April, 2016. A decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, [Writ Petition (L) No. 2234 of 2016] Pranjali Bhalchandra Shirat Vs. State of Maharasthra & Ors decided on 19th August, 2016 has also been cited by him. In this case, the candidature of an aspirant for MBBS course from OBC category was rejected for not furnishing non-creamy layer certificate. The writ petitioner in that proceeding wanted the benefit of reservation as an OBC candidate during second round of admission. State of Maharasthra & Ors decided on 19th August, 2016 has also been cited by him. In this case, the candidature of an aspirant for MBBS course from OBC category was rejected for not furnishing non-creamy layer certificate. The writ petitioner in that proceeding wanted the benefit of reservation as an OBC candidate during second round of admission. She had taken her chance as open category candidate in the first round of admission process. A Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No. 53297 of 2016 (Arvind Kumar Yadav vs U.P. Police recruitment Promotion Board) decided on 8th November, 2016 also rejected plea of similar nature, for not producing non-creamy layer certificate within the cut-off date. This view was subsequently affirmed by a Full Bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 156 of 2017) decided on 4th May, 2017. In addition, he has argued that the writ petitioners’ cases, if allowed would entail change of selection norms midway in the selection process which is impermissible. Two authorities relied upon on this point by him are Secretary, A.P.Public Service Commission Vs. B.Swapna & Ors [ (2005) 4 SCC 154 ] and Prakash Chand Meena and others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [ (2015) 8 SCC 484 ]. The case of Ashok Kumar & Anr Vs. State of Bihar [ (2017) 4 SCC 357 ] has been cited by him as corollary to this proposition of law. In that case, it was held that a candidate having participated in a selection process with disclosed norms could not thereafter question the method of selection. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India [ (2007) 4 SCC 54 ] is an authority for the proposition that if cut-off date is not specifically stipulated, then the last date for filing the application must be considered to be the cut-off date. 14. Referring to Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), Mr. Piparwal has submitted that a decision is an authority for which it is decided and not what can be logically be deduced therefrom and little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of the decision. 14. Referring to Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), Mr. Piparwal has submitted that a decision is an authority for which it is decided and not what can be logically be deduced therefrom and little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of the decision. The case Bhavnagar University vs Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. [ (2003) 2 SCC 111 ] has been cited by him on this point. 15. It is also the submission of the appellant that default on the part of the writ petitioners was on two counts. One related to furnishing of caste certificates and the other related to non-furnishing of domicile/residential certificates. The latter issue surfaced in the case of Smt. Prabha Ranjan Gupta (supra) as well as in the case of Prem Chand Kumar (supra). In both the cases, the issue was decided in favour of selecting body invalidating the candidature of the applicants therein. In Prem Chand Kumar (supra), the residential certificate initially furnished was by an officer junior to the stipulated ranked officer and the proper certificate was submitted beyond the cut-off date. The Coordinate Bench distinguished the Ram Kumar Gijroya case in this judgment, holding:- “(xxv) Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2016) 4 SCC 754 , in which it has permitted to supply the document after the cut-off date. Perhaps, it is only the exception to catena of the decisions. We have to look carefully at the facts of that case. In the facts of that reported case, explicitly the condition was imposed to supply a particular type of certificate, after the result was declared. The format was given after the result was declared (as per Paragraph 8 of the said judgment). It is a distinguishable feature. In the facts of the present case, looking to Clause 12 of the public advertisement which is at Annexure-1 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal, Residential Certificate as well as Caste Certificate issued by an officer not below the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer was to be attached with the application form. This appellant (original petitioner) has submitted the Caste Certificate correctly, whereas, Residential Certificate was not supplied as per the requirement. This fact makes the present case different from the facts of the aforesaid reported decision. This appellant (original petitioner) has submitted the Caste Certificate correctly, whereas, Residential Certificate was not supplied as per the requirement. This fact makes the present case different from the facts of the aforesaid reported decision. There cannot be two types of cut-off date- one for General category and another for Scheduled Tribe category candidates, so that the Scheduled Tribe candidates can produce certificate at any point of time. Reserved category candidates are given some priority which is in the form of leniency in passing standard etc. or in the age relaxation etc., but, that does not mean that procedural leniency should be given to such type of candidates. Procedural leniency can be given only by the respondents and not by the Court, otherwise, even age relaxation may be supplied by the Court. Cut-off marks may also be supplied by the Court, but, this is not permissible in the eyes of law. Whatever leniency is to be given, or, whatever relaxation is to be given, or whatever condition is to be waived for the reserved category candidates, all can be done as a policy decision by the respondents and not by the Court, much less, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court cannot be more charitable than the law, nor the Court can be more lenient or generous beyond the policy of the respondents. Too much leniency will lead to chaotic situation. Any time and every time the candidates cannot be allowed to give the certificates. There is bound to be a cut-off date and every one is bond by such cut-off date so that process of selection can be started and examination can be conducted and result can be decided. If this Court is changing the cut-off date, perhaps there cannot be any finality of the examination process. This is not permissible in the eyes of law. Every candidate is bound to give correct application with all necessary documents on or before the prescribed cut-off date, so that process of selection can be over, in time examination can be conducted and the result can be declared. The Court can alter neither the cut-off date prescribed by the Government nor the court can alter the condition of the advertisement. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. The Court can alter neither the cut-off date prescribed by the Government nor the court can alter the condition of the advertisement. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. Even otherwise also, result of 4th Combined Civil Service Examination has been published in the year 2013. Thus, the selected candidates have already joined the services and, thereafter, 5th Combined Civil Service Examination has also been conducted and selected candidates have also joined the services and, hence also, we see no reason to interfere with the result already published.” 16. In the case of Rishi Kumar (supra), the cut-off date had been crossed and the certificates furnished were not in form. Considering these factors, rejection of the appellants’ candidature was sustained. The Coordinate Bench in the case of Mosrat Zia Tara (supra) also dealt with a caste certificate which was not as per specified norm. The certificate produced was suitable for the posts of the Government of India but not Judicial Service examination in the State of Jharkhand. The ratio of the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) was factually distinguished in this case. 17. Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the writ petitioners has defended the judgment under appeal. His defence is founded primarily on the ratio of the decision in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra). His submission is that at the material point of time the writ petitioners obviously belonged to the caste, from which category they had appeared in the selection process. That fact is not in dispute in these proceedings. He has also submitted that the Commission has not made out any case that the writ petitioners fell within the “Creamy Layer”. On the other hand, his submission is that the certificates produced at later stage clearly established that the writ petitioners did not belong to “Creamy Layer” within their respective caste category. Moreover, he has pointed out two distinguishing features in the case of the writ petitioners in relation to the aforesaid Bench decisions of this Court. On the other hand, his submission is that the certificates produced at later stage clearly established that the writ petitioners did not belong to “Creamy Layer” within their respective caste category. Moreover, he has pointed out two distinguishing features in the case of the writ petitioners in relation to the aforesaid Bench decisions of this Court. His first point of distinction is that there was no specific cut-off date in the subject selection process for furnishing the certificates and it was also specified in Clause 3 (quoted earlier) that the Commission would after the examination as per convenience verify the certificates relating to eligibility of the candidates at any time. It is also his case that both the writ petitioners fulfilled the criteria of being domicile in the State of Jharkhand and there being no dispute on that count, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Apart from Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), he has relied on a Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in the Case of Latika vs. Staff Selection Commission, reported in [(2017) SCC Online Del 10770], a Bench decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Jawaharlal Institute of Post-Graduate Medical Education & Research (JIMPER) Vs. Tejaswini Thappeta (Minor) & Ors, [(2016) SCC Online Mad 25259), a Bench decision of Hon’ble High Court of Rajsthan in the case of Neetu Harsh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors [(2017)2 RLW 1545], a decision of an Hon’ble Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala in the case of Union of India & Ors Vs. Abdul Rasheed in W.A.No. 655 of 2016 decided on 21st July, 2016 and a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Aman Krishan Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors reported in [2018 (1)JBCJ 410]. In the case of Latika, there was late submission of OBC certificate and following the principle of law laid down in the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), the candidate’s claim was allowed. In Tejaswini Thappeta (supra), the online application form of the candidate submitted through the educational institute carried an error in referring the candidate to be from unreserved category, whereas she was actually from the OBC category. The OBC certificate had been produced before counseling which was directed to be accepted. In Tejaswini Thappeta (supra), the online application form of the candidate submitted through the educational institute carried an error in referring the candidate to be from unreserved category, whereas she was actually from the OBC category. The OBC certificate had been produced before counseling which was directed to be accepted. In the case of Neetu Harsh (supra), the applicant was physically challenged and again in filling up the form she wrongly described her to be a general category candidate and not from the category of persons with physical disabilities. The authorities were directed to consider her representation which was made prior to the appointment orders were issued by the respondents from the vacancies kept reserved from the physically challenged. In the case of Abdul Rasheed (supra) the candidature of an aspirant from the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces and Assistant Sub Inspector of CISF had been rejected by the authorities on the ground that the OBC certificate produced by them was issued 180 days after the closing date of the application. Again following Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra), the Court held that the candidature of the applicant could not be rejected on the ground of delayed submission of caste certificates. 18. In the case of Pushpa Vs. Govt. (NCT of Delhi), [(2009) SCC Online Del 281], the reasoning for permitting delayed submission of caste certificate was explained:- “6. As per the advertisement published in the month of January, 2008 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, vacancies were reserved for various categories including 'OBC' category. Thus in order to be considered for the post reserved for 'OBC' category, the requirement is that a person should belong to 'OBC' category. If a person is 'OBC', she is so by birth and not by acquisition of this category because of any other event happening at a later stage. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that she belongs to 'OBC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for her belonging to 'OBC' category. A certificate issued by competent authority to this effect is only an affirmation of fact which is already in existence. The purpose of such certificate is to enable the authorities to believe in the assertion of the candidate that she belongs to 'OBC' category and act thereon by giving the benefit to such candidate for her belonging to 'OBC' category. It is not that petitioner did not belong to 'OBC' category prior to 21st January, 2008 or that acquired the status of being 'OBC' only on the date of issuance of the certificate. In view of this position, insisting upon a certificate dated prior to 21st January, 2008 would be clearly arbitrary and has no rationale objective to be achieved. 7. Caste is the only accepted criteria to identify under- represented groups. The underlying theory is that the under- representation of the identifiable groups is a legacy of the Indian caste system. After India gained independence, the Constitution of India listed some erstwhile groups as Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST). The framers of the Constitution believed that, due to the caste system, SCs and the STs were historically oppressed and denied respect and equal opportunity in Indian society and were thus under-represented in nation-building activities. Later, reservations were introduced for other sections as well. 8. The principle of equality permeates the Constitution of India. All the citizens are entitled to be treated by the state equally, irrespective of their caste, race, religion, sex, descent, place of birth and residence. No citizen may be discriminated against by the state only on any of these grounds. The exceptions to this principle are made in favour of women and children, the backward classes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and the weaker sections. 9. Referring to the reasons for reservation, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, observed as under: "251. Referring to the concept of equality of opportunity in public employment, as embodied in Article 10 of the draft Constitution, which finally emerged as Article 16 of the Constitution, and the conflicting claims of various communities for representation in public administration, Dr Ambedkar emphatically declared that reservation should be confined to “a minority of seats”, lest the very concept of equality should be destroyed. In view of its great importance, the full text of his speech delivered in the Constituent Assembly on the point is appended to this judgment. But I shall now read a few passages from it. Dr Ambedkar stated: "... firstly, that there shall be equality of opportunity, secondly, that there shall be reservations in favour of certain communities which have not so far had a „proper look-in? so to say into the administration ....Supposing, for instance, we were to concede in full the demand of those communities who have not been so far employed in the public services to the fullest extent, what would really happen is, we shall be completely destroying the first proposition upon which we are all agreed, namely, that there shall be an equality of opportunity ....Therefore the seats to be reserved, if the reservation is to be consistent with sub-clause (1) of Article 10, must be confined to a minority of seats. It is then only that the first principle could find its place in the Constitution and effective in operation ... we have to safeguard two things, namely, the principle of equality of opportunity and at the same time satisfy the demand of communities which have not had so far representation in the State, ...". Constituent Assembly Debates, Vol. 7, pp.701-702 (1948-49). (emphasis supplied) These words embody the raison d’etre of reservation and its limitations. Reservation is one of the measures adopted by the Constitution to remedy the continuing evil effects of prior inequities stemming from discriminatory practices against various classes of people which have resulted in their social, educational and economic backwardness. Reservation is meant to be addressed to the present social, educational and economic backwardness caused by purposeful societal discrimination. To attack the continuing ill effects and perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such measure, in so far as one group is preferred to the exclusion of another, must necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the fundamental constitutional goal." 10. To attack the continuing ill effects and perpetuation of such injustice, the Constitution permits and empowers the State to adopt corrective devices even when they have discriminatory and exclusionary effects. Any such measure, in so far as one group is preferred to the exclusion of another, must necessarily be narrowly tailored to the achievement of the fundamental constitutional goal." 10. Keeping this in mind and considering that the petitioner applied for the OBC certificate to the concerned office of SDM much before January 2008, when the advertisement was made by DSSSB and since the certificate was made available to the petitioner on 13/5/2008, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the lapse on the part of the SDM office. But at the same time it is made clear that in all such cases caste certificate should reach the Board prior to their making provisional selection as while making provisional selection, the Board verifies & satisfies itself with authenticity of documents and eligibility as per the recruitment rules. Herein, the petitioner had sent the documents vide letter dated 3/7/2008, prior to publication of the provisional results on 25/7/2008.” 19. On the question of delayed submission of caste certificates, the case of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) lays down in clear terms that it is permissible to condone the delay. This view has been followed in a series of authorities originating from different High Courts. But in this appeal, additional default of failure to produce the residential or domicile certificate has also been pointed out before us in course of hearing of the appeal. Though there is only passing reference to default in this regard in the counter-affidavits to the writ petitions, this point has been emphasized in the memorandum of appeal. A Coordinate Bench in the case of Prem Chand Kumar (supra) distinguished between default or delay in furnishing caste certificates and residential certificates and decided the case against the applicant on default on the latter count. The Coordinate Bench opined that no leniency could be shown by the Court if the cut-off date is crossed and it was upto the employing body to relax any qualification norm. 20. The requirement for production of residence certificate is specified in the certificate verification notice (annexure-4 of the memorandum of appeal). There is no mention of any specific date on which the residence certificate should be furnished by the EBC-I category. 20. The requirement for production of residence certificate is specified in the certificate verification notice (annexure-4 of the memorandum of appeal). There is no mention of any specific date on which the residence certificate should be furnished by the EBC-I category. It was only in Clause 7 of the advertisement it was indicated that such certificates were to be produced at the time of verification. But the verification notice, while specifying the certificates to be produced, does not require production of residence or domicile certificate. So far as domicile certificate is concerned, the stipulation is that these would have to be produced by women of unreserved category. Copy of this notice has been made Annexure-4 to the memorandum of appeal in L.P.A. 610 of 2017. No other clause from any document or material in relation to the selection process has been shown to us by the appellants which lays down specific norms for production of domicile certificates. Copy of this notice has been made Annexure-4 to the memorandum of appeal in L.P.A. 610 of 2017. No other clause from any document or material in relation to the selection process has been shown to us by the appellants which lays down specific norms for production of domicile certificates. We reproduce below the content of the said notice alongwith its translated version:- **>kj[k.M d{kiky izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk&2015 ds 'kkjhfjd tk¡p ,oa fpfdRlh; tk¡p esa vafre :i ls lQy fuEukafdr vuqdzekad ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ds izek.k i=ksa dh tk¡p vk;ksx dk;kZy; dkyhuxj] pk;cxku] ukedkse] jk¡ph esa fnukad&30-01-2017 dks nks ikfy;ksa esa gksxhA izFke ikyh 10-00 cts iwokZg~u ls 1%00 cts vijkg~u rFkk f}rh; ikyh 2%00 cts vijkg~u ls 5%00 cts vijkg~u rd gksxhA izFke ikyh ds vH;FkhZ 9%30 cts iwokZg~u ,oa f}rh; ikyh ds vH;FkhZ 1%30 cts vijkg~u rd tk¡p LFky ij fuf'pr :i ls igq¡p tk,¡A 2- vH;FkhZ tk¡p gsrq ewy izos'k i= rFkk fuEufyf[kr izek.k i=ksa dh ewyizfr] ,d&,d Lo&gLrk{kfjr Nk;k izfr ds lkFk rFkk gky esa [khapk x;k nks ikliksVZ vkdkj dk jaxhu QksVks ysdj mifLFkr gksaxsA tks vH;FkhZ izek.k i=ksa dh tk¡p esa mifLFkr ugha gksxsa vFkok okafNr izek.k i= izLrqr ugha djsaxs mUgsa vyx ls le; ugha fn;k tk;sxk rFkk mudh mEehnokjh lekIr dh tk ldrh gSA tk¡p gsrq izek.k i=ksa dh lwph uhps vafdr gS& 1- eSfVªd mRrh.kZrk izek.k i= ¼ewy izfr½ 2- vkjf{kr oxZ ds vH;FkhZ ds fy, ¼d½ LFkkuh; fuoklh izek.k i= izklafxd ijh{kk ds foojf.kdk ds ifjf'k"V&1 ds izi= esa ¼ewy izfr½&flQZ vukjf{kr Js.kh ds efgykvksa ds fy,A ¼[k½ vuqlwfpr tkfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds fy, tkfr izek.k i= izklafxd ijh{kk ds foojf.kdk ds ifjf'k"V&2 ds izi= esa ¼ewy izfr½ ¼x½ vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ ¼vuqlwph&1½ rFkk fiNM+k oxZ ¼vuqlwph&2½ ds fy, fnukad&31-03-2015 ds i'pkr fuxZr foojf.kdk ds ifjf'k"V&3 ds izi= esa tkfr izek.k i= ekU; gksxkA ¼?k½ x`g j{kd ds :i esa >kj[k.M jkT; dk iaftdj.k rFkk N% ekg dh lfdz; lsok iw.kZ fd, tkus dk izek.k i=&flQZ x`g j{kd vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, ¼M+½ HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds fy, >kj[k.M jkT; ds lSfud dY;k.k funs'kky; ls iathdj.k izek.k i=A 3- tkfr izek.k i= ,oa LFkkuh; fuoklh izek.k i= ftyk ds mik;qDr vFkok vuqe.My inkf/kdkjh ds Lrj ls fuxZr gksuk pkfg,A 4- izek.k i=ksa ds tk¡pksijkUr es/kk ds vk/kkj ij p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ijh{kkQy dk izdk'ku fd;k tk;sxkA** “1. The verification of certificates of candidates of following Roll Number, who are finally successful in Physical examination and Medical examination of Jharkhand Warder Competitive Exam-2015 shall be in two sittings at the office of the Commission, Kalinagar, Chaibagan, Namkum, Ranchi on 30.01.2017. First sitting will be from 10.00 AM to 1.00 P.M. and second sitting from 2.00 P.M. to 5.00 P.M. The candidates of first sitting and second sitting should positively reach at the place of verification by 9.30 A.M. and 1.30 PM respectively. 2.The candidates shall appear with original Admit Card and original of the following certificates alongwith one self attested photocopy each as well as two recent colour photographs of passport size for verification. Such candidates, who do not appear for the verification of certificates or do not produce required certificates, they would not be given another chance and their candidature may be cancelled. The list of certificates for verification is given below:- I. Certificate of Matriculation (Original copy) II. For the candidates belonging to Reserved Category- (a) Domicile certificate in format of appendix-I of the prospectus of instant examination (Original Copy)- only for women of unreserved category. (b) Caste certificate for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in format of appendix-II of the prospectus of instant examination (Original copy). (c) The Caste certificate issued in format of appendix-III of prospectus issued after 31.03.15 for extremely backward class (Schedule-1) and backward class (Schedule-2) shall be valid. (d) Certificate regarding registration as Home Guard in the State of Jharkhand and completion of six months of active service-only for Home Guard candidates. (e) Certificates of registration from Arms Welfare Directorate for ex-armymen of the Jharkhand State. 3. The Caste certificate and Domicile certificates should have been issued at the level of Deputy Commissioner of the District or Sub-Division Officer. 4. The result of selected candidates shall be published on merit after verification of certificate.” (translated version) 21. We have gone through the said appendix-I and find the format given therein is of a composite certificate for caste and residence. But the notice requires production of such certificate only by women from unreserved category. Such certificate of domicile may be necessary for candidates coming from the reserve category, but we do not find any cut-off date specified for their production in the said notice. But the notice requires production of such certificate only by women from unreserved category. Such certificate of domicile may be necessary for candidates coming from the reserve category, but we do not find any cut-off date specified for their production in the said notice. Clause 3 clarifies the particulars of domicile certificate, but such certificate has been asked for from unreserved women category. There is no independent requirement for production of domicile certificate from a candidate of EBC-I category in this notice. The ratios of the Coordinate Bench decisions of this Court all lay down the law where cut-off dates had been prescribed. The Full Bench decision of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Gaurav Sharma (supra) examined the question as to whether candidature of an OBC candidate is liable to be rejected on the ground of the caste certificate having been submitted after the last date for submission of applications. In these two proceedings, that is not the question. 22. Mr. Tandon has also argued that the authorities themselves had extended the date for production of certificates from 30th January, 2017 to 13th February, 2017 in some cases. This submission has not been disputed by the appellant. Such kind of shifting of dates reflect a fluid state of affairs so far as production of certificates are concerned and dilute the potency of cut-off dates to eliminate the candidature of an aspirant on expiry of such cut-off dates. That factor, by itself, might not have had altogether diluted the requirement of furnishing of caste certificates issued on or after 31st March, 2015 but this shows midway change in the rules of the game made by the Commission itself. As would be evident from the judgment of the learned First Court, the writ petitioners’ cases were contested primarily on the basis of non-production of caste certificates. This would also be evident from the tenor of the counter-affidavits of the appellant filed before the learned First Court. In these peculiar circumstances of these two cases, the ratios of the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in Prem Chand Kumar (supra) and Prabha Ranjan Gupta (supra) would not apply. This would also be evident from the tenor of the counter-affidavits of the appellant filed before the learned First Court. In these peculiar circumstances of these two cases, the ratios of the decisions of the Coordinate Bench in Prem Chand Kumar (supra) and Prabha Ranjan Gupta (supra) would not apply. We also do not find any prescribed format for such domicile certificates in the Appendix to the prospectus, nor any cut-off dates by which such domicile certificates were to be issued for being acceptable to the selecting body barring reference thereto in Clause 7 of the advertisement. These are the factors which distinguish these two cases from the six authorities of this Court. In the event it is the appellant’s case that the certificate as per Appendix-II was a composite one for caste and residence, then also the ratio of Ram Kumar Gijroya (supra) would apply. But that is not the case which has been made out by the appellant before us. We follow the series of judicial pronouncements in which these kinds of minor discrepancies in the cases of candidates from socially disadvantaged groups have been held to be condonable. 23. For these reasons, we sustain the judgment of the learned First Court and dismiss these appeals. The connected applications are disposed of. We extend the time of compliance of the directions of the learned First court till 17th December, 2018. 24. There shall be no order as to costs.