JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has sought directions against the respondent no. 1 to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Forester in the S.T. Category. 2. Brief facts of this case are that the petitioner belongs to “Rabari” community. The Forefathers of the petitioner are residents of Gir, Barda and Alech Forest Areas. The people belonging to Rabari Community of said area were declared Scheduled Tribes vide Notification of the Government of India in October, 1956. 3. An advertisement came to be issued by the respondents for the post of forester in the Forest Department. The petitioner applied for this post in S.T. category. The petitioner was required to produce the caste certificate as proof of his belonging to S.T. category. He approached the respondents authorities for issuance of such certificate on 6.11.2007. The certificate was not being issued by the concerned Mamlatdar. The petitioner duly informed the respondents authorities regarding the difficulties being faced by him in getting the S.T. Certificate. The petitioner cleared all the required test for the selection and stood at sr. no. 2 in the merit prepared by the respondents from Junagadh Zone. He was asked to appear before the selection committee on 24.4.2008 along with caste Certificate. As the caste certificate was not being issued by the respondents, and therefore, the petitioner produced S.T. Certificate of his brother as a proof of his caste status. The respondents ignored this certificate and gave appointment to an other candidates by not accepting the case of the petitioner. 4. At the time of admission of this petition, on 30.4.2008, this Court has passed the following order: “Rule returnable on 5.5.2008. It is not appropriate for the authority to have not decided the application of the petitioner wherein he claims the status of Scheduled Tribe. This may be borne in mind that the father and brother of the petitioner had already been categorized as Scheduled Tribes, his appointment is hanging fire but for the inaction of the authorities. The authorities are hereby directed to decide the application of the petitioner forthwith. The authorities are also to see that the petitioner's appointment is pending for consideration before the authorities. The authorities are hereby directed to decide the application of the petitioner forthwith. The authorities are also to see that the petitioner's appointment is pending for consideration before the authorities. An appropriate information may also be sent by learned AGP to the Forest Officers that if any appointment is made prior to the adjudication of the petitioner's caste status the same would be subject to the decision of this petition. Direct service is permitted.” 5. After notice, respondents have contested this petition by filing reply, wherein, it has been stated that it was one of the requirements for the petitioner to have produced the certificate that he belongs to particular caste, and in absence of such certificate, his candidature has been rightly rejected by the respondents. It is further their case that though the petitioner has produced the certificate of his father and brother and other relatives that they belong to particular S.T. Category, but Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri, reported in (1995)4 SCC 32 has held that the proof of social status is always on the person who profess it to seek constitutional socio-economic advantages and it is no part of the duty of the State to disprove or otherwise. While relying upon this judgment, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that non-production of caste certificate on 24.4.2008 was beyond the control of the petitioner. The petitioner has duly made an application to the respondents for issuance of such certificate on 6.11.2007. Despite his best efforts, the certificate has not been provided by the Mamlatdar. It has been argued that the case of the petitioner is not an isolated one, as in general principle, the Mamlatdars do not issue S.T. Certificate to the persons belonging to “Rabari” community of Gir area. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the instructions issued by the Government, wherein, it has been stated that in case of genuine difficulty in obtaining caste certificate, the appointing authority should itself verify the claim of applicant through the District Magistrate concerned. Finally, it has been argued that the petitioner, on the relevant date, has duly produced the caste certificate of his brother and other relatives, however, these are not taken into consideration by the respondents. Finally, it has been argued that the petitioner, on the relevant date, has duly produced the caste certificate of his brother and other relatives, however, these are not taken into consideration by the respondents. It has been further argued that on the same caste certificate, the petitioner has been selected as a “Forester” in the selection held in subsequent year, however, the persons who were well below in merit than that of the petitioner, have marched ahead of the petitioner because of fault of the respondents. 7. On the other hand, learned AGP has once again reiterated the averments made in the written statement and has submitted that it was one of the requirements of the advertisement that the petitioner was required to produce the caste certificate at the relevant time. As he has failed to produce the same, the fault cannot be shifted on the respondents. It is further argued that the notification referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not an original copy and in absence of original copy, the copy placed on record by the petitioner should be ignored. 8. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. The fact that the petitioner has duly applied for the post of “Forester” in the Forest Department from ST Category, is not in dispute. The petitioner was required to produce S.T. Certificate at the time of interview which was fixed on 24.4.2008. The petitioner has duly applied for issuance of S.T. Certificate on 6.11.2007. His application remained pending with the concerned authorities for 4-5 months, however, he was not able to get the certificate despite remainders and pleadings to these authorities. Simultaneously, the petitioner has been writing to the respondents- Forest Department expressing his inability to get the certificate in time. As a proof of his caste, he has produced S.T. Certificate issued to his brother, father and other relatives. The certificate produced by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the Government Instructions O.M. No. 36011/5/88-Est.(SCT) dated -4-1988. These instructions are re-produced as under: G.I. Dept. of Per and Trg., O.M. No. 36011/5/88-Est/(SCT), dated -4-1988 “Subject : Verification of claims of S.C./S.T. 1. The certificate produced by the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the Government Instructions O.M. No. 36011/5/88-Est.(SCT) dated -4-1988. These instructions are re-produced as under: G.I. Dept. of Per and Trg., O.M. No. 36011/5/88-Est/(SCT), dated -4-1988 “Subject : Verification of claims of S.C./S.T. 1. The undersigned is directed to draw attention of the Ministry of Finance, etc., to the instructions contained in Chapter 13 of the Brochure on Reservation for S.C./S.T. in services (7th edition) wherein it has been clearly mentioned that where a candidate belonging to an S.C. or S.T. is unable to produce a certificate from any of the prescribed authorities, he may be appointed provisionally on the basis of whatever prima facie proof he is able to produce in support of his claim subject to his furnishing the prescribed certificate within a reasonable time or if there is genuine difficulty in his obtaining a certificate the appointing authority should itself verify his claim through the District Magistrate concerned. It has also been provided therein that the appointing authority should verify the caste status of an S.C./S.T. officer at the time of initial appointment and promotion against by a vacancy reserved for Schedule Caste/Tribe. 2. Despite the clear instructions as mentioned above instances have come to the notice of this Department where appointment of S.C./S.T. candidates are withheld/delayed pending verification of their caste status. The instructions regarding verification of caste status at the time of initial appointment do not supersede the prior instructions regarding provisional appointment even when the candidate is unable to provide the certificate in the prescribed form. It is once again bought to the notice of the Ministry of Finance, etc., that appointment of a candidate belonging to S.C./S.T. should not be withheld/delayed pending the verification of caste status.” 10. Perusal of the aforementioned instructions leaves no doubt that the persons seeking reservation for SC/ST category were finding it difficult to get required certificates from the concerned authorities. After these difficulties were brought to the notice of the Government, it issued these instructions. It was specifically mentioned in the instructions that in case of difficulty, the alternative evidence produced by the candidates should be taken into consideration. Still further, the authorities could verify from the concerned District Magistrates regarding caste of the candidates. After these difficulties were brought to the notice of the Government, it issued these instructions. It was specifically mentioned in the instructions that in case of difficulty, the alternative evidence produced by the candidates should be taken into consideration. Still further, the authorities could verify from the concerned District Magistrates regarding caste of the candidates. It could be seen that the petitioner informed the interview committee regarding his inability to get the caste certificate in time. Despite his requests to the concerned committee, his candidature seems to have been rejected on the ground that he has not been able to produce the required certificate belonging to S.T. Category well within time. Inability to produce the certificate was beyond the control of the petitioner as it was all because of the inaction on the part of respondents no. 2 and 3, who were Mamlatdars at the relevant time. 11. After rejection of candidature of the petitioner, he has approached this Court, and this Court, in its interim order dated 30.4.2008 has issued the following directions: “ xxx xxx xxx xxx The authorities are also to see that the petitioner's appointment is pending for consideration before the authorities. An appropriate information may also be sent by learned AGP to the Forest Officers that if any appointment is made prior to the adjudication of the petitioner's caste status the same would be subject to the decision of this petition. Direct service is permitted.” 12. Immediately, thereafter, the caste certificate has been issued on 9.5.2008. It is unfortunate that for such minor jobs of issuance of caste certificate, people have to approach the Court. The Government has not taken any action against the Mamlatdar or the persons responsible for non-issuance of the required certificate despite the fact that the application has remained pending with them for about five months. Not only the Mamlatdars, the selection committee is also equally responsible as they have ignored the instructions issued by the Government, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that in case of difficulty, an inquiry can be got conducted through the District Magistrate concerned. It will be relevant to note that on the basis of same certificate, the petitioner got appointment in subsequent selection which has taken place in 2009. It will be relevant to note that on the basis of same certificate, the petitioner got appointment in subsequent selection which has taken place in 2009. Though four or five persons, who are juniors to the petitioner, have marched ahead of the petitioner because of rejection of his candidature in the selection held in the year 2008, yet, their appointments were subject to the decision of this writ petition. 13. Learned AGP has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Tribal Welfare, Govt. of A.P. vs. Laveti Giri, reported in (1995)4 SCC 32 (supra), however, the facts of this case are entirely different from case in hand where even State Government has to issue instructions after coming to know that Mamlatdaras are not issuing such caste certificates to genuine people. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is deemed to have been selected for the post of “Forester” of Junagadh Zone from 30.4.2008 in S.T. category, i.e. the date on which juniors to him have been selected. He will get notional benefits of seniority from this date. Necessary corrections shall be made in the seniority list. Rule is made absolute.